Growth “Keeping the Law”

[netchaplain]

God never intended for man to keep the Law, it was His way of revealing to man, not only His requirement for fellowship, but also the inability (even if desiring to) of the creature to do so. Perfect obedience to His will cannot be accomplished in the creature (man), in who dwells the sin nature (old man), even in regeneration.

Perfect obedience to God will be the walk of the Christian in eternity because of the absence of the sin nature, which will involve the absence of all hindrances to man’s ability to obey Him perfectly—in the Spirit. Jesus was the only human who could keep the law perfectly because it required, not only an uninterruptence (even in thought) of outward compliance of actions (impossibility with a sin nature—Jam 2:10), but an inward holiness of intentions in all things (performed only out of divinity—Jesus). The outward keeping of the law could be keep by any human—but not perfectly—and that was the point.

Jesus’ Law keeping was not so that His obedience would be accredited to the believer, but for Himself—for the qualifying of a perfect sacrifice, and it is the result of this atonement which is accredited (imputed) to the believer. Now, the believer’s obedience is in the life of Christ (Col 3:4) by the Spirit, and this is why godliness is imputed (not imparted due to the sin nature).

-NC

 

[TOG]

God never intended for man to keep the Law

If He didn't intend for us to keep the law, why did he repeatedly tell us to do just that?

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (Deu. 17:18-20 ESV)

Only be very careful to observe the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments and to cling to him and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Josh. 22:5 ESV)

Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right hand nor to the left (Josh. 23:6 ESV)

Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets. (II Kings 17:13 ESV)

In a dispute, they shall act as judges, and they shall judge it according to my judgments. They shall keep my laws and my statutes in all my appointed feasts, and they shall keep my Sabbaths holy. (Ezek. 44:24 ESV)
​

That's just a few selected from various places in the Old Testament. There are many, many more.

it was His way of revealing to man, not only His requirement for fellowship, but also the inability (even if desiring to) of the creature to do so.

I've never been quite able to understand this "logic". God gave us a law specifically to show us that we couldn't keep the law that He was giving us. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's like a man telling his son to jump 100 feet into the air and tell him he'll be punished if he doesn't, just to prove to him that he can't jump 100 feet into the air.

Perfect obedience to His will cannot be accomplished in the creature (man), in who dwells the sin nature (old man), even in regeneration.

According to I John, sin is synonymous with violating God's law.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

So what you're really saying is that we cannot keep the law perfectly as long as we're transgressing the law. Not exactly profound, but I guess I can't argue with it.

Perfect obedience to God will be the walk of the Christian in eternity because of the absence of the sin nature, which will involve the absence of all hindrances to man’s ability to obey Him perfectly—in the Spirit. Jesus was the only human who could keep the law perfectly because it required, not only an uninterruptence (even in thought) of outward compliance of actions (impossibility with a sin nature—Jam 2:10), but an inward holiness of intentions in all things (performed only out of divinity—Jesus). The outward keeping of the law could be keep by any human—but not perfectly—and that was the point.

Since you (as well as most others) say that it can't be kept, can you point out to me which commandments are impossible to fulfill?

Jesus’ Law keeping was not so that His obedience would be accredited to the believer, but for Himself—for the qualifying of a perfect sacrifice, and it is the result of this atonement which is accredited (imputed) to the believer. Now, the believer’s obedience is in the life of Christ (Col 3:4) by the Spirit, and this is why godliness is imputed (not imparted due to the sin nature).

-NC

There was another reason as well. Rabbis had (and still have) different interpretations of the law. They agreed on what the law said to do, but disagreed on how to do it. Jesus not only told us, but also showed us the correct way to interpret and obey the law.

The TOG​

 

[netchaplain]

Hi TOG - Thank you for your reply. It's difficult to answer replies concerning the Law because many do not understand that it was for a certain people, at a certain time.

God teaches us in His way which can be difficult to understand by man's reasoning. I believe He gave the Law to Israel to reveal more to them concerning His will and desires. He knew it couldn't be kept, just as He knew Adam and Eve would not keep His first command, but it's His way of teaching.

If the Law was obeyed without ever breaking it, only then is it considered acceptable, which only Christ did (Jam 2:10). This includes never having a sinful thought, an impossibility for man with the Adamic nature, but not expected by God in this life.

 

[farouk]

Really conservative folk that are always talking about law keeping remind me of a teenaged girl spending hours putting on her face in front of the mirror. The law is like a mirror. But it's no use falling in love with the mirror!

 

[for_his_glory]

Law vs. grace, which one are we under or are we under both! Some believe all 613 Mosaic laws were fulfilled in Christ and some only believe we only have ten of them to keep as they are separate from the other 613. Logic tells us if God loves all His creation then His grace covers everyone and all will go to heaven. It always comes down to what and how one is taught doctrine and becomes a battle field when it is debated. I would dare say there are more that have never even heard of or even taken the time to read all 613 laws to see what has actually been fulfilled in Christ then there are that have taken the time for a deeper truth. Do all of the laws only apply to that of the Hebrews or do some parts of the law apply even after grace as in keeping those certain laws as they are written on our hearts. Sometimes you just have to empty your mind of all the teachings you have ever heard on this topic of law vs. grace and go straight to the source which is the word of God to find out what He has already said.


The only laws that were done away with or fulfilled were that of the Temple and the sacrifices as the physical Temple and it's sacrifices no longer exist under grace by Christ fulfillment of them, Matthew 5:17,18. We are now that temple that the Holy Spirit dwells in, not our flesh for that will turn back to the dust of the ground and will never enter the kingdom of God, but that of our spirit making union with that of Gods Spirit through His grace that is freely given, not by works, but as a fee gift of Gods love, Mark 7:14-23; 1 Corinthians 3:16,17; 6:19; Ephesians 2:8-18.


The books of the NT are not part of the Hebrew scriptures (Torah or the Tanakh), but that of instruction of Gods righteousness as God has given first to the Hebrew a new covenant of grace and then extended His grace to those outside of Israel (Gentiles) the same free gift of His grace, Romans 15:16. When we being that of a Gentile nation partake in that of Christ life, death and resurrection our inner man (spirit, not this flesh) is renewed by that of Gods Holy Spirit, John 3:5, 6, as we are led by the Holy Spirit to guide us and teach us all truths, John 14:26, but we are still under the moral laws of Gods commandments that are written upon our hearts that we need to keep until that of Christ return.


There are laws that were especially written just for the Hebrews pertaining to the rituals of the Temple, sacrifices, festivals, Torah, Kohanim and Levites, the King and the Nazarite and then there are the existing moral laws for us to still follow as in prayers and blessings, love and brotherhood, the poor and unfortunate, treatment of the Gentiles, Marriage, divorce and family, forbidden sexual relations, business practices, employees and servants, vows, oaths, swearing, Court and Judicial procedures, injuries and damages, property and property rights, Criminal laws, prophecy, idolatry and all its practices as the moral laws keep us in line with the will of God that we present ourselves a vessel of honor that God delights in as we allow that light of Christ shines in us and through us as a testimony of Gods grace and mercy as it is not ourselves that do any good thing, but Gods Spirit working in us and through us as we surrender our will to that of Gods will to be done.

 

[TOG]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the nature and purpose of the law. Many seem to think of it as only a list of do's and don'ts (primarily don'ts) or even as some kind of punishment to show us how horrible we are. Some believe it was the way people got saved before Christ came. But there's much more to it than that. Besides the commandments, the law also contains history, prophecy and examples for us to follow (or avoid in some cases). Someone who sees the law as restrictive or a burden can't possibly understand why anyone would want to live by it's teachings. But once you understand it's true purpose and nature, it becomes a joy to follow the commandments.

There are many places in the law itself that explain it's purpose, but I think probably the clearest verse on that subject is in the book of Joshua. After Moses had died and Joshua was taking over as leader of the Israelites, one of the first things God told him was concerning the law:

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Josh. 1:8 ESV)​

Prosperity and good success - how can anyone object to that?

The TOG​

 

[farouk]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the nature and purpose of the law. Many seem to think of it as only a list of do's and don'ts (primarily don'ts) or even as some kind of punishment to show us how horrible we are. Some believe it was the way people got saved before Christ came. But there's much more to it than that. Besides the commandments, the law also contains history, prophecy and examples for us to follow (or avoid in some cases). Someone who sees the law as restrictive or a burden can't possibly understand why anyone would want to live by it's teachings. But once you understand it's true purpose and nature, it becomes a joy to follow the commandments.

There are many places in the law itself that explain it's purpose, but I think probably the clearest verse on that subject is in the book of Joshua. After Moses had died and Joshua was taking over as leader of the Israelites, one of the first things God told him was concerning the law:

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Josh. 1:8 ESV)​

Prosperity and good success - how can anyone object to that?

The TOG​

The Lord Jesus said: 'If ye love me, keep my commandments.'

This didn't include the Sabbath, or circumcision, etc. In fact, Paul and Peter were strongly opposed to those who tried to put New Testament believers under grace, back under the law.

 

[netchaplain]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the nature and purpose of the law. Many seem to think of it as only a list of do's and don'ts (primarily don'ts) or even as some kind of punishment to show us how horrible we are. Some believe it was the way people got saved before Christ came. But there's much more to it than that.

Everything you've shared in this reply indicates to me a careful understanding and genuine concern, and thanks for the encouragement from it. I'm hoping the article I'm posting today which is related will encourage others in this issue.

God's blessings to your Family!

 

[Danus]

Some good stuff here. One of the ways I like to reconcile truth is to boil it down to it's simplest form. And when it come to the law and grace, to me, grace follows the law in perfect harmony.

This is not a question of one or the other, or one over the other, or one vs the other, or most importantly, salvation by one or the other. I think too often we can tend to separate the two, and in doing that, If all we have is one or the other, we may find we have neither.

 

[JLB]

TOG said -

According to I John, sin is synonymous with violating God's law.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)

So what you're really saying is that we cannot keep the law perfectly as long as we're transgressing the law. Not exactly profound, but I guess I can't argue with it.

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4-5


The reason and purpose Jesus Christ redeemed those who were under the law, was that they might receive the adoption as sons.

If Jesus redeemed those who were under the law of Moses, why would Christians be under the obligation to the law of Moses?


JLB

 

[TOG]

The Lord Jesus said: 'If ye love me, keep my commandments.'

This didn't include the Sabbath, or circumcision, etc. In fact, Paul and Peter were strongly opposed to those who tried to put New Testament believers under grace, back under the law.

Why do you say it didn't include that sabbath or circumcision? From a human point of view, Jesus was a rabbi. Rabbis had (and still have) 2 ways of teaching - by word and example. Jesus showed by his example that we should keep the Sabbath. As for circumcision, Jesus had no children to circumcise, and there's no record of him teaching either for or against circumcision. And since Jesus didn't change it, who else had the authority to do so?

The TOG​

 

[jasoncran]

Why do you say it didn't include that sabbath or circumcision? From a human point of view, Jesus was a rabbi. Rabbis had (and still have) 2 ways of teaching - by word and example. Jesus showed by his example that we should keep the Sabbath. As for circumcision, Jesus had no children to circumcise, and there's no record of him teaching either for or against circumcision. And since Jesus didn't change it, who else had the authority to do so?

The TOG​

jesus also didn't take away the power of the rabbis to put to death, children for disobedience. execution of liars, murderers, witches and gays, and adultery and fornicators.yet paul who was a Pharisee didn't say that did he? he tell us what to do with a person who commited incest. it was... remove him from the church. yet under moses he would have died.

 

[farouk]

Why do you say it didn't include that sabbath or circumcision? From a human point of view, Jesus was a rabbi. Rabbis had (and still have) 2 ways of teaching - by word and example. Jesus showed by his example that we should keep the Sabbath. As for circumcision, Jesus had no children to circumcise, and there's no record of him teaching either for or against circumcision. And since Jesus didn't change it, who else had the authority to do so?

The TOG​

The New Testament church of Jesus Christ does not practise circumcision: it's now of the heart, not the flesh, according to the inspired Word in Romans 2.29.

In fact, Paul says: 'Beware of the concision' (Philippians 3.2).

The Resurrection corresponds with the Feast of Firstfruits, and now we have the substance, so going back to the shadow and legal bondage makes no sense (1 Corinthians 5.23-28).

 

[TOG]

jesus also didn't take away the power of the rabbis to put to death...

No, he didn't. The Romans had already done that. That's why the Jews needed Pilate to pass the death sentence on Jesus. But just because the Jews no longer had the authority to pass the death sentence doesn't mean that those things became acceptable. In the same way, we can't execute a man for violating the Sabbath, because we have no authority to do so. But that doesn't mean that violating the Sabbath has become acceptable.

And here's something else to ponder. Most here on this forum (myself included) believe that Jesus is God. But if Jesus is God, then how is it that people seem to think that God's commandments and those of Jesus can be different and even contradictory? If God the Father said "keep the Sabbath", would God the Son say "don't keep the Sabbath"? If God the Father said "don't eat pork", would God the son condone eating pork or say it didn't matter?

The TOG​

 

[farouk]

No, he didn't. The Romans had already done that. That's why the Jews needed Pilate to pass the death sentence on Jesus. But just because the Jews no longer had the authority to pass the death sentence doesn't mean that those things became acceptable. In the same way, we can't execute a man for violating the Sabbath, because we have no authority to do so. But that doesn't mean that violating the Sabbath has become acceptable.

And here's something else to ponder. Most here on this forum (myself included) believe that Jesus is God. But if Jesus is God, then how is it that people seem to think that God's commandments and those of Jesus can be different and even contradictory? If God the Father said "keep the Sabbath", would God the Son say "don't keep the Sabbath"? If God the Father said "don't eat pork", would God the son condone eating pork or say it didn't matter?

The TOG​

Hebrews: "We are come....to Jesus, the Mediator of the New Testament'.

Between Malachi and Matthew the New Testament begins.

 

[jasoncran]

No, he didn't. The Romans had already done that. That's why the Jews needed Pilate to pass the death sentence on Jesus. But just because the Jews no longer had the authority to pass the death sentence doesn't mean that those things became acceptable. In the same way, we can't execute a man for violating the Sabbath, because we have no authority to do so. But that doesn't mean that violating the Sabbath has become acceptable.

And here's something else to ponder. Most here on this forum (myself included) believe that Jesus is God. But if Jesus is God, then how is it that people seem to think that God's commandments and those of Jesus can be different and even contradictory? If God the Father said "keep the Sabbath", would God the Son say "don't keep the Sabbath"? If God the Father said "don't eat pork", would God the son condone eating pork or say it didn't matter?

The TOG​

the romans didn't kill gays. if they did , well rome wouldn't be rome.

"men are for fun, women for inheritance" that is a roman saying about sex with men and marriage. the roman government didn't kill men for failing the sabaath. it wasn't an executable offense in their eyes.

paul said whatsoever is given unto to eat, that eat after giving blessing. besides good luck doing the shabat. by typing you force others to sin. jews didn't seem to have a problem to force gentiles to work on the shabat. as they KNEW IT .james, also mentions that. besides the penalty for eating pork is what? not death.if its in the Talmud and yet the chassidics don't force men to do kosher today. they knew that they cant until the temple is rebuilt.

see acts 15, no command unto the gentiles to be kosher was given. only to abstain from meats offered to idols, blood and nothing about the shabat nor circumsion.

know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean

paul statement on unclean.

 

[JLB]

No, he didn't. The Romans had already done that. That's why the Jews needed Pilate to pass the death sentence on Jesus. But just because the Jews no longer had the authority to pass the death sentence doesn't mean that those things became acceptable. In the same way, we can't execute a man for violating the Sabbath, because we have no authority to do so. But that doesn't mean that violating the Sabbath has become acceptable.

And here's something else to ponder. Most here on this forum (myself included) believe that Jesus is God. But if Jesus is God, then how is it that people seem to think that God's commandments and those of Jesus can be different and even contradictory? If God the Father said
"keep the Sabbath", would God the Son say "don't keep the Sabbath"? If God the Father said "don't eat pork", would God the son condone eating pork or say it didn't matter?

The TOG​

Where did God the Father say " don't eat pork "

JLB

 

[TOG]

The New Testament church of Jesus Christ does not practise circumcision: it's now of the heart, not the flesh, according to the inspired Word in Romans 2.29.

Circumcision has always been of the heart.

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deu. 30:6 ESV)​

In fact, Paul says: 'Beware of the concision' (Philippians 3.2).

Paul also says:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. (Rom. 3:1-2 ESV)
​

That doesn't exactly sound like he's against it. What people often don't realize is that "circumcision" was used as shorthand for conversion to Judaism. If a Gentile wanted to convert to Judaism, he would have tostart by explaining to a council of rabbis (at least 3) why he wanted to convert. If they accepted his reason, he would start studying under a rabbi, who would teach him Hebrew and how to read, understand, interpret and live by the law. This study could take a number of years, before the rabbi felt he was ready to convert. Only then would he be circumcised. Some people in the first century believed that the only way Gentiles could be saved was to first go through this conversion process. When speaking of these people and the belief that formal conversion was necessary for salvation, it was convenient to use the final step - circumcision - as a kind of shorthand way of referring to the whole process. We mustn't confuse that shorthand with the actual commandment to circumcise all 8 day old males.

The Resurrection corresponds with the Feast of Firstfruits, and now we have the substance, so going back to the shadow and legal bondage makes no sense (1 Corinthians 5.23-28).

It was only 3 weeks ago that the entire western world was celebrating Christmas. Well... Almost the entire western world. I didn't, because I see it as a Pagan holiday, and the law tells us not to learn the ways of the Pagans and do them for the Lord. And I expect that you didn't either, since you don't believe in celebrating holidays once "we have the substance". We have had that substance for over 2000 years now. And I expect you won't be celebrating Easter either, since we have had the substance behind that as long as we have had the substance behind the Feast of First Fruits... Right?

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

the romans didn't kill gays.

I never said they did. I said they took the authority to pass the death sentence away from the Jews.

besides good luck doing the shabat. by typing you force others to sin.

Can you quote a chapter and verse to support that? I don't see anything about typing (or writing) on the Sabbath in my Bible, and the Talmud isn't binding on Gentiles. In fact, it isn't even binding on Jews, although many of them seem to think it is, even more so than the Bible. The Bible is God's Word. The Talmud is men's interpretation of God's Word. Do you have anything other than the interpretation of men to support your claim that I'm forcing people to sin by typing on the Sabbath? Also, do you know where I am and whether the sun might have already set here? And even if I were typing on the Sabbath (which I actually am not), I still wouldn't be forcing anybody else to read on the Sabbath, would I? And on what do you base the idea that reading is prohibited on the Sabbath? Don't Jews read the Torah in the synagogue every Sabbath? You're accusation doesn't make any sense when you look at it more closely.

see acts 15, no command unto the gentiles to be kosher was given.

Look at it again. Four commands were given, and three of them are dietary rules:

• Don't eat what has been offered to idols
• Don't eat blood
• Don't eat what has been strangled

only to abstain from meats offered to idols, blood and nothing about the shabat nor circumsion.

With the exception of sexual immorality and idolatry, not one of the Ten Commandments were mentioned in that letter they sent to the Gentiles. Does that mean that it is acceptable behavior for Gentiles to lie, steal and murder? If you say that we don't have to keep the Sabbath because that commandment wasn't mentioned there, then it's only logical that the same would apply to the other commandments that aren't mentioned there either. Most people seem to stop reading after the part about strangled animals, but there's more.

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts. 15:21 ESV)
​

As I said in a previous post, some people were claiming that people had to go through a lengthy conversion process and start living according to the law before they could be saved. This is what was being addressed by the council. It wasn't about whether the law was still valid or whether it was everyone or just some. It was about how much of it you had to keep before being saved. The four things mentioned all had to do with Pagan worship practices, and the apostles said that that's all they needed to do before being saved - quit taking part in Pagan worship rituals. They didn't have to learn all the rest before being saved. They could learn it by going to the synagogue every week and hearing the Torah read.

know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean

paul statement on unclean.

That's not about pork or shellfish. It's about meat sacrificed to idols. As far as I know (please point it out to me if I'm wrong), there is not one single verse in the New Testament that actually addresses the dietary laws and refers to the various unclean animals, neither to confirm nor contradict those laws.

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

No, he didn't. The Romans had already done that. That's why the Jews needed Pilate to pass the death sentence on Jesus. But just because the Jews no longer had the authority to pass the death sentence doesn't mean that those things became acceptable. In the same way, we can't execute a man for violating the Sabbath, because we have no authority to do so. But that doesn't mean that violating the Sabbath has become acceptable.

And here's something else to ponder. Most here on this forum (myself included) believe that Jesus is God. But if Jesus is God, then how is it that people seem to think that God's commandments and those of Jesus can be different and even contradictory? If God the Father said "keep the Sabbath", would God the Son say "don't keep the Sabbath"? If God the Father said "don't eat pork", would God the son condone eating pork or say it didn't matter?

The TOG​

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Moses was the mediator of the Law of Moses, the law of a carnal commandment, it could not bring eternal life. Aaron, of the tribe of the Levi, the high priest.

Am I misunderstanding what these verses say? How is the law a carnal commandment?