Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Being unable to bear doesn’t mean unable to keep.
John’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, including Paul himself kept the law and considered blameless. Sometimes it looks like we are accusing God of unfairness. Which He created a law system which no one could follow. Then when they fail at it, they are severely punished? Adam and Eve weren’t given a law which was impossible to keep. Don’t eat from this one tree. Yet, a series of events caused the transgression. Same with the nation of Israel. No, Peter isn’t talking about impossibility of law keeping, but heaviness of law keeping.

But it was so heavy they could not bear it.

The issue of God creating a law system that no one could follow is actually something I would like you to consider. I think that’s a part of what Paul meant when he said that Law was in effect in order to show that man needs God. Paul explained in Romans 1 how wicked gentiles were in stooping to even homosexuality as the result of lowering the image of God below that of the status of a man. Chapter 2 showed Paul explaining that even the Jews who had the Law were really no better than the gentiles because they sinned as much as the gentiles did.

Then Paul made a statement to sum it all up. He says the law came only to find Israel unable to keep it and sin like the gentiles in order to show something. This lets us know that God sent the law for this purpose. He knew Israel would break it, but not only due to his foresight.

Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


The law came to speak to those under it in order to shut the mouths of everyone, implying it was not only Gentiles who were shown to be wicked, but Israel as well. Both gentiles and Jews were just as sinful. The statement, “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” shows a purpose of Law. How could it say that if God knew they would not obey it successfully? And then Paul takes that further and makes a conclusion. Because of this, Paul said, no flesh can be justified in his sight by the deeds of the law. He gives the reason for this by saying the law merely provided the knowledge of sin. That tells me God knew man could not keep it successfully.

And to shows this even more, Romans 3 also said…

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


The only explanation for this sequence of points that he made is that God sent law to inform man of sin, and Israel was found to be just as sinful as Gentiles who had no such information. (It’s as though he said that it’s not enough to have the knowledge of what is sin.) And when he said that righteousness of God apart from the law was manifested, he was saying that you could not become righteous by keeping law. Obedience to the Law would not make a person righteous. If one is able to successfully keep the law fully, one would have been righteous and just. If not, why not?

Leviticus 18:5 said that one would live if one did all the works of the law. Paul said that one is cursed if one is under the law in Gal 3:10. He said that the reason they are cursed is because if you cannot continue to do all that the law says, you are cursed.

We have to ask ourselves, why would Paul say we are cursed because the Law claimed that everyone who is unable to continue in all of the law would be cursed? Couldn’t someone stand up and say, “I can keep it all. Why do you say everyone that is cursed on the basis of inability to continue means you are cursed?” The only answer is that no one can possible continue in the law without failing.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


Can people please respond to this single verse above?

Read it in the ISV:

Galatians 3:10 Certainly all who depend on the actions of the Law are under a curse. For it is written, "A curse on everyone who does not obey everything that is written in the Book of the Law!"


If it is true that it is NOT impossible to keep all of the law successfully, why did Paul quote Deut 27:26 to say that a curse is on everyone who cannot keep it all? It looks quite plainly to be saying that everyone is cursed who is under law because no one is able to keep all the law.

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.


And then we read this:

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


The scripture is the Old Covenant. And it concluded that all are under sin. Romans 3 explains that by comparing Israelites with Gentiles in chapter 3, every mouth is stopped, and none can point the finger to anyone else in accusations of sin.

I love this topic. Let's keep dsicussing!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But it was so heavy they could not bear it.

The issue of God creating a law system that no one could follow is actually something I would like you to consider. I think that’s a part of what Paul meant when he said that Law was in effect in order to show that man needs God. Paul explained in Romans 1 how wicked gentiles were in stooping to even homosexuality as the result of lowering the image of God below that of the status of a man. Chapter 2 showed Paul explaining that even the Jews who had the Law were really no better than the gentiles because they sinned as much as the gentiles did.

Then Paul made a statement to sum it all up. He says the law came only to find Israel unable to keep it and sin like the gentiles in order to show something. This lets us know that God sent the law for this purpose. He knew Israel would break it, but not only due to his foresight.

Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


The law came to speak to those under it in order to shut the mouths of everyone, implying it was not only Gentiles who were shown to be wicked, but Israel as well. Both gentiles and Jews were just as sinful. The statement, “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” shows a purpose of Law. How could it say that if God knew they would not obey it successfully? And then Paul takes that further and makes a conclusion. Because of this, Paul said, no flesh can be justified in his sight by the deeds of the law. He gives the reason for this by saying the law merely provided the knowledge of sin. That tells me God knew man could not keep it successfully.

And to shows this even more, Romans 3 also said…

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


The only explanation for this sequence of points that he made is that God sent law to inform man of sin, and Israel was found to be just as sinful as Gentiles who had no such information. (It’s as though he said that it’s not enough to have the knowledge of what is sin.) And when he said that righteousness of God apart from the law was manifested, he was saying that you could not become righteous by keeping law. Obedience to the Law would not make a person righteous. If one is able to successfully keep the law fully, one would have been righteous and just. If not, why not?

Leviticus 18:5 said that one would live if one did all the works of the law. Paul said that one is cursed if one is under the law in Gal 3:10. He said that the reason they are cursed is because if you cannot continue to do all that the law says, you are cursed.

We have to ask ourselves, why would Paul say we are cursed because the Law claimed that everyone who is unable to continue in all of the law would be cursed? Couldn’t someone stand up and say, “I can keep it all. Why do you say everyone that is cursed on the basis of inability to continue means you are cursed?” The only answer is that no one can possible continue in the law without failing.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


Can people please respond to this single verse above?

Read it in the ISV:

Galatians 3:10 Certainly all who depend on the actions of the Law are under a curse. For it is written, "A curse on everyone who does not obey everything that is written in the Book of the Law!"


If it is true that it is NOT impossible to keep all of the law successfully, why did Paul quote Deut 27:26 to say that a curse is on everyone who cannot keep it all? It looks quite plainly to be saying that everyone is cursed who is under law because no one is able to keep all the law.

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.


And then we read this:

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


The scripture is the Old Covenant. And it concluded that all are under sin. Romans 3 explains that by comparing Israelites with Gentiles in chapter 3, every mouth is stopped, and none can point the finger to anyone else in accusations of sin.

I love this topic. Let's keep discussing!

Good

[Tithesmeister]

I think the key to understanding the old versus new covenant in this conversation has to be the understanding of what covenant is ready to vanish away. Earlier, I asked the question, “what vanished away?”.

Brother Avery posted a copy of a book where the author posited that Exodus chapter 19 referred to a separate covenant than chapter 20. I believe that Exodus chapters 19-24 are all detailing the same covenant, which is referred to in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-10 as the old covenant.

So it is crucial that we understand how many covenants are being discussed. Brother Avery seems to think that there are three, Esaias seems to agree, and Pastor Nicholas, seems to recognize three at the least, possibly four, and maybe even more?!!!

As the infamous Italian philosopher famously says . . .

GOOD GRIEF!!!!!

Maybe we should focus on coming to an agreement on how many covenants were described in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-10. If we can narrow it down to two, then that would mean that there are not three.

I will present my thoughts, based on my studies of God’s word.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, sabbath was said to be a shadow not the other ten commandments.

Again, is not the entire law said to be a shadow? Therefore everything from Genesis to Malachi can be kept spiritually while disobeying the actual words of whatever God said.

And again, there is no verse that says "the Sabbath is a shadow so no need to keep it".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think the key to understanding the old versus new covenant in this conversation has to be the understanding of what covenant is ready to vanish away. Earlier, I asked the question, “what vanished away?”.

Brother Avery posted a copy of a book where the author posited that Exodus chapter 19 referred to a separate covenant than chapter 20. I believe that Exodus chapters 19-24 are all detailing the same covenant, which is referred to in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-10 as the old covenant.

So it is crucial that we understand how many covenants are being discussed. Brother Avery seems to think that there are three, Esaias seems to agree, and Pastor Nicholas, seems to recognize three at the least, possibly four, and maybe even more?!!!

As the infamous Italian philosopher famously says . . .

GOOD GRIEF!!!!!

Maybe we should focus on coming to an agreement on how many covenants were described in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-10. If we can narrow it down to two, then that would mean that there are not three.

I will present my thoughts, based on my studies of God’s word.

Regarding the bolded, it seems you aren't actually reading my posts.

[Esaias]

"Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Already addressed previously, "works of the law" is now and was then a Jewish idiom for rabbinic halacha, not the written commandments of the Pentateuch. Not understanding the actual meaning of terms used in the Bible leads to faulty conclusions. Paul was not saying those who obey God's commandments are under a curse. The subject in Galatians is JUSTIFICATION, not "shall we obey God?"

And by the way, Paul's point is those who are "of the works of the law" DO NOT OBEY GOD. That's why they are under the curse, they seek justification by legal means apart from Christ, which is an impossibility. But again, the subject is NOT "why Christians are free to disobey God's instructions".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

How many times must I say sabbath is FULFILLED, not violated, when we experience the antitype? I cannot get away from the fact that Paul said sabbath was a shadow of things to come. The body which cast those shadows is Jesus and everything about Him, just as he is the burnt sacrifice, trespass offering, etc., etc..

He also said eating was a shadow of things to come. Have you stopped eating food? Or are you "weak in faith"?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I maintain my position. Paul explained that when anyone makes a statement at any given time such as the news of a NEW thing, at that moment the old begins to vanish away. This maintains the comprehensive reading and the grammar involved.

Where did Paul EXPLAIN this interpretation?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But it was so heavy they could not bear it.

The issue of God creating a law system that no one could follow is actually something I would like you to consider. I think that’s a part of what Paul meant when he said that Law was in effect in order to show that man needs God. Paul explained in Romans 1 how wicked gentiles were in stooping to even homosexuality as the result of lowering the image of God below that of the status of a man. Chapter 2 showed Paul explaining that even the Jews who had the Law were really no better than the gentiles because they sinned as much as the gentiles did.

Then Paul made a statement to sum it all up. He says the law came only to find Israel unable to keep it and sin like the gentiles in order to show something. This lets us know that God sent the law for this purpose. He knew Israel would break it, but not only due to his foresight.

Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


The law came to speak to those under it in order to shut the mouths of everyone, implying it was not only Gentiles who were shown to be wicked, but Israel as well. Both gentiles and Jews were just as sinful. The statement, “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” shows a purpose of Law. How could it say that if God knew they would not obey it successfully? And then Paul takes that further and makes a conclusion. Because of this, Paul said, no flesh can be justified in his sight by the deeds of the law. He gives the reason for this by saying the law merely provided the knowledge of sin. That tells me God knew man could not keep it successfully.

And to shows this even more, Romans 3 also said…

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


The only explanation for this sequence of points that he made is that God sent law to inform man of sin, and Israel was found to be just as sinful as Gentiles who had no such information. (It’s as though he said that it’s not enough to have the knowledge of what is sin.) And when he said that righteousness of God apart from the law was manifested, he was saying that you could not become righteous by keeping law. Obedience to the Law would not make a person righteous. If one is able to successfully keep the law fully, one would have been righteous and just. If not, why not?

Leviticus 18:5 said that one would live if one did all the works of the law. Paul said that one is cursed if one is under the law in Gal 3:10. He said that the reason they are cursed is because if you cannot continue to do all that the law says, you are cursed.

We have to ask ourselves, why would Paul say we are cursed because the Law claimed that everyone who is unable to continue in all of the law would be cursed? Couldn’t someone stand up and say, “I can keep it all. Why do you say everyone that is cursed on the basis of inability to continue means you are cursed?” The only answer is that no one can possible continue in the law without failing.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


Can people please respond to this single verse above?

Read it in the ISV:

Galatians 3:10 Certainly all who depend on the actions of the Law are under a curse. For it is written, "A curse on everyone who does not obey everything that is written in the Book of the Law!"


If it is true that it is NOT impossible to keep all of the law successfully, why did Paul quote Deut 27:26 to say that a curse is on everyone who cannot keep it all? It looks quite plainly to be saying that everyone is cursed who is under law because no one is able to keep all the law.

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.


And then we read this:

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


The scripture is the Old Covenant. And it concluded that all are under sin. Romans 3 explains that by comparing Israelites with Gentiles in chapter 3, every mouth is stopped, and none can point the finger to anyone else in accusations of sin.

I love this topic. Let's keep dsicussing!

By the way, this presents an excellent question. I will respond later tonight, Lord willing. This is an excellent opportunity to delve into some important stuff.

[Esaias]

The question before us is "Did God give the law knowing man was unable to keep it?"

Several things need to be determined before the question can be answered.

1. What is meant by "law" in the question? Is it the first 5 books of the Bible? Is it all the commands of God to men in general? Is it the Sinaitic Covenant? Is it the Levitical system of clergy, temple, and offerings, and washings, etc? What is meant by "law" in the question?

2. What kind of inability are we talking about? Physical inability? By which I mean a natural inability, an inability arising from something lacking in the very essence or nature of mankind. Or is the inability a moral inability? By which is meant an inability arising from a choice, an inability that is rooted in the free will of the individual. To illustrate: you cannot flap your arms and fly around, that is a natural inability. You cannot sell your child for 1000 dollars, that is a moral inability. You technically could if you wanted to, but you choose not to, therefore you "can't" do it. Which kind of inability are we talking about?

3. What does it mean to be righteous? What does it mean to say that God is righteous?

I think these need to be clarified in order to tackle the subject without too much risk of error.