Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

This is in response to an opinion that the bible does not teach Law was impossible for people to keep, alleging that it is a common but mistaken protestant teaching.

I strongly disagree. The bible does indeed teach no one can successfully keep the law. Here's where:

It was suggested that Paul only preached against using law for justification when he stated people are cursed under the law, and not that simply keep law caused a curse. That is far from the truth.

Look at what Paul actually said:

Galatians 2:10 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.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Yes, he did claim we are not justified by law. But keeping the law is seeking justification from it, whether we realize it or not. Law was made to justify people as Paul's quote from Moses proposes.

Verse 12 quotes Moses' words stating the man who does the law shall live. That means, eternal life is gained from doing the works of the Law. And that means law-keeping justifies a person. And truly, if a person could successfully keep that law, one would be justified.

Here is the mistake legalism makes with these kinds of words from Paul. They think Paul preached against using law to be justified. If that were the case, Paul would have said improper use of the Law is what is error, but he actually said keeping the law is in error. And the reason it's in error is because nobody can successfully keep it. Being under the law means one is keeping it. One feels one has to keep it. I will show all passages that present this as we go along.

Since law-keeping gives one life, then it stands to reason that merely keeping law would justify a person. That's what giving life to a person means. Paul referred to the same promise law provided for those who keep it, as it referenced living, in ROmans 7:

Romans 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

The law was ordained to life. Paul meant the same thing in Ro 7:10 that Moses did in his words quoted by Paul in Galatians 3:12. Keeping law means LIFE. What does it mean to have life? It means you won't die. Now, since everyone DIES physically, this is not talking about generally existing in the physical. Therefore, it can only mean spiritually. One will LIVE. That's why Paul ANOTHER old covenant verse saying THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. He did that in Romans 1:17 as well as Galatians 3:11.

Why would Moses says law-keeping causes one to LIVE, after having said the just shall LIVE by faith, if Moses did not mean a person would be justified if he or she perfectly kept the law? WHat happens is the way Paul wrote these things throws so many people off and they miss the intention due to the archaic language the bible uses. It is telling us that law-keeping was intended to justify people through works. It was not talking about ABUSE of the law, or MISUSE of it. It simply stated law-keeping puts one under a curse! Period.

Gal 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.

If you are UNDER THE WORKS OF THE LAW you are cursed. Period. It did not say if you seek justification by law you would be cursed. And the reason he mentions justification in verse 11 in the way he did, is because simply keeping law is synonymous with seeking justification by it. Otherwise, he would have written, "For as many as seek justification by the law are under the curse." But he didn't. In saying, "For as man as are of the works of the law are under the curse," and to follow that by saying, "No man is justified by law," is to imply that merely keeping law is seeking justification by it. And If one does not seek justification by law, and yet tries to keep it, one is simply missing the purpose of law.

I will share my thoughts on Paul's words saying failure in one aspect of the law is failure in it all in the next post.

[shazeep]

Job 6:10
"But it is still my consolation, And I rejoice in unsparing pain, That I have not denied the words of the Holy One.

Job 23:11
My feet have followed in His tracks; I have kept to His way and not turned aside.

Job 31:7
"If my step has turned from the way, Or my heart followed my eyes, Or if any spot has stuck to my hands,

Psalm 17:5
My steps have held fast to Your paths. My feet have not slipped.

Psalm 44:18
Our heart has not turned back, And our steps have not deviated from Your way,

Psalm 119:51
The arrogant utterly deride me, Yet I do not turn aside from Your law.

[mfblume]

That's why we read offending in one point ruins it all.

Originally Posted by Esaias

No, that is not. The Bible does NOT teach 'if you offend in one point you ruin it all because nobody can keep the law consistently'. That statement doesn't even make any sense, actually.

Of course it makes sense. Keeping law consistently is maintaining success in keeping law. It's not like what ACTUALLY happens when a person tries... they strive and can keep themselves from not committing idolatry, for example, only so long. And then one day, bam, they put something ahead of God that makes them violated that commandment. Consistently contrasts keeping a certain law all the time with keeping it for only a short period of time before failure.

The Bible DOES teach that if you offend against one commandment you are a law breaker, you have offended against the law, you are just as guilty as if you had broken some other or a multitude of other commandments.

No. Paul said it's just as though you broke all the law.

Gal 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.

First of all "ALL" means ALL, not part. We are cursed if we cannot keep ALL the law.

Secondly:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

How can that simply mean we are a lawbreaker? It says failure in one point is contrasted from all the points. And that failure is equal to having failed in them ALL.

And this is common sense and plain to be seen.

on the contrary the plainer sense is violation of one point counts as violation of the entire law. It's so plain, a person has to strive to twist the scripture to make it say something else in order to maintain an urge for one to strive to keep law. And that's exactly the spirit Paul fought the most in the church. This is why some legalists deny everything Paul wrote, while others try to distort Paul away from his actual words to say he only preached against seeking justification from law, like you are dong, to maintain Paul's words. but ask the others who reject Paul as they try to keep law. They'll tell you Paul meant just what I statet.

For some reason, people can see clearly many subjects. But when it comes to religion, all of a sudden they get into a fog and everything gets all twisted and confused.

You can say that again!

If you do not rob banks, but you kidnap people, you are a criminal, a felon. One cannot pick and choose which laws they will obey and then say 'see, I am law abiding.' Either you obey the law, or you don't, regardless of which commandment (statute) you violate. If you don't kidnap people, but yet you rob banks, you are still guilty, in fact you are guilty of 'the whole law' meaning you are not excused, you are in rebellion against the entire system of law and the against the lawgiver. As applied to scripture, this should be plain to see: the same God who said 'do not steal' also said 'do not commit adultery'. So if you abstain from stealing, yet you commit adultery, you are not excused, you are a criminal, a transgressor of the law, a transgressor against the one and same Lawgiver. The law, as an entire system of legislation, stands against you and condemns you.

James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
There is nothing in there about 'obeying consistently', whatever that means.

The royal law is what Christ Himself said causes one to have fulfilled all the law.

When we commit any sin, death is ours. We are sinners. One has to be perfect in keeping law for this not to be the case. That's what failure to keep a single law means when it is said to be equal to violating the entire law. Failure to keep one law violates every other part of the law one has successfully kept.

Rabbis are known to have the concept that a single sin has the seeds of all other sins in it.

Again, I challenge anyone to point to any commandment of God that CANNOT BE OBEYED.

Name any given one. NONE of them can be obeyed perfectly, for each of them is not meant to be kept one time alone, but always and forevermore. You can get by not murdering for a while, but Jesus said hatred without cause is like murder. Adultery? Lust after someone in your heart! None of them can be kept consistently and over a long period of time for more than one instance. None of them.

Further, think about this: if you can go one moment without violating ANY of God's commandments, you can go two moments. If you can go any one moment without violating God's commandments, you can go any other moment, or all of them altogether.

ANd tell me when you have successfully kept each and every one for every moment of your life so far since your salvation!

The question is not 'can you', the question is 'WILL you'...

No, it's "can you?"

[mfblume]

Paul quoted old testament laws, one after the other, making claims that none of the people were righteous.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Psalm 14:1-3)

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:3)

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (Psalm 5:9)

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (Psalm 10:7)

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: (Prov 1:16)

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known: (Isa 59:8)

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Psalm 36:1)

19 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.

Verse 19 says these were written to those under the law, testifying NOT A ONE OF THEM succeeded.

[mfblume]

Paul taught Law could not be kept:

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul quoted Moses and said law was meant to give lfe, but he said it brought death to him! How could it bring death if it was ordained to life? He said law was not the direct problem./ Sin in his flesh was the reason Paul could not keep law, and why none of us can either. Are we greater than Paul?

Now, if law cannot be kept by anyone, and Paul showed everyone under it could not keep it in ROmans 3, then obviously God knew we couldn't keep it. So why was it given?

God said the purpose for law is in verse 13. God wanted us to come to a realization about sin. That sin came to us in the Garden through Adam's transgression. It showed us how sin is indeed exceedingly sinful! It's so sinful that it uses a GOOD THING LIKE LAW to kill us. That is true because the more we try to keep it, the worse we fail. So, BY THE COMMANDMENT, sin is shown to be exceedingly sinful.

We would not have felt sin was a big thing if it had not been for this lesson. Picture Adam after his fall into sin being present with righteousness of God.
"Thanks, God. But I could attain that on my own. I'll make myself live right."

EVERYONE THINKS THAT legalistic way! So, Law shows it's a lie! No we cannot. So, God set forth to present a law that if a man keeps perfectly, never failing, he can make himself righteous. BOOM. He fails. Everyone fails. Romans 3 proves that NOT ONE PERSON did not fail in keeping law. NOT ONE.

[shazeep]

if that is strictly, technically true, then you have to fit

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”b
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”c
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”d
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”e
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”f
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

to Job, imo. Good luck.

Originally Posted by mfblume

That's why we read offending in one point ruins it all.

yet we are presented here with some who hold that they did not offend from their youth--or age of accountability, perhaps--and the context does not suggest that they were deceived. Granted, they may not have been many, but this would lead to "for a sinner, the law was impossible," not "for Job, the law was impossible."

i admit i'm not sure what to make of this in light of passages that suggest "none" were righteous; my guess is that is a deliberate exaggeration to illuminate a prevailing situation, not applicable to those few considered righteous, a la Job, a righteous man.

i think this has to lead to "agape is impossible," too, and strikes me as a direct contradiction to the will of God, Be Holy, as I am Holy.

[mfblume]

Scriptures showing PURPOSE OF LAW:

Romn 3:19 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.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

[shazeep]

you are dealing with the passages that support you, but not with those that oppose you, tho. Do you just avoid reading Job then, or what?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yet we are presented here with some who hold that they did not offend from their youth--or age of accountability, perhaps--and the context does not suggest that they were deceived. Granted, they may not have been many, but this would lead to "for a sinner, the law was impossible," not "for Job, the law was impossible."

i admit i'm not sure what to make of this in light of passages that suggest "none" were righteous; my guess is that is a deliberate exaggeration to illuminate a prevailing situation, not applicable to those few considered righteous, a la Job, a righteous man.

i think this has to lead to "agape is impossible," too, and strikes me as a direct contradiction to the will of God, Be Holy, as I am Holy.

All of this is only possible through God imputing and imparting his righteousness to us.

Speaking of Law, Peter said:

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

That of course is contrasted from grace:

Matthew 11:30King James Version (KJV)

Matt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

So, to reconcile Job's words with the New Testament, Job was not speaking of Law, since he lived BEFORE LAW.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

you are dealing with the passages that support you, but not with those that oppose you, tho. Do you just avoid reading Job then, or what?

Give a person time to respond. lol

None oppose any other passage. You might think there is contradiction, but there most certainly is not.

Always take the clear and plain passages and interpret the harder ones by them. And in time we see the harmony.

THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE, is far more plain than Job speaking about not straying. What was Job referring to? Law? Law did not exist in his day! Who knows what he had in his day? But it is certain he lived before Moses.