“Keeping the Law”

[NetChaplain]

There is the issue of Gods' righteousness being upheld in the matter of pardoning the guilty, Christ was innocent but we are not.

The sin nature ("old man") and the sin that comes from it is never innocent. God does not forgive sin. But because it is "condemned" (Rom 8:3) in His Sons sacrifice, we are innocent from it. The sin isn't forgiven, but the believer is, through the atonement!

“He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9). "Forgive us." Paraphrased, He forgives us apart from our sins.

 

[RJ]

Jesus needed to over come sin in the flesh to redeem us in the flesh who were the fallen of Adam's race. (spiritually dead)... He died because as God he had cursed mankind, but now having overcome sin in the body (Jesus) he then overcame His obligation to His law, "the soul that sins must die", which his curse had placed us under.
That law was annulled through his death causing a change in the law, which was essential if God was to redeem us from his prior curse.

There was a change in his divine priesthood from law to grace. This gave God the freedom to save sinners. Praise God!

Jesus needed to over come sin in the flesh to redeem us in the flesh
Could you please provide some scripture to support that Jesus had to overcome sin in his flesh?

 

[NetChaplain]

the blood of Jesus covered all sin and all condemnation under the law we look so hard to keep

Hi BH - I can appreciate what you've shared, and thanks for the sincere reply. I believe the unnecessary battle many believers have concerning the forgiveness and cleansing we have in Christ (1 John 1:9) is due to a situation which is not yet realized enough concerning Christ's efficacy being sufficient for clearing the believer from all sin. Even if one does not comprehend this, the forgiveness nevertheless is always present for the believer in Christ.

Faith in God in this present dispensation will continue to be strengthened as the learning of differentiating between the prior and present dispensations (OT/NT) are comprehended. As we know, every single true believer will continually be conformed according to His desire, which is His will for the believer in Christ (Gal 5:17; Phl 2:13).

We know His desire for all is to be saved, but we also know most will perish (Matt 7:13, 14), this is why most are not concerned about being right with God. His will and desire are done within the believer, but only His will is done in the unbeliever. His will is that those who are saved have eternal life; and His will is that those who reject salvation perish. Thus, His will is being done in all, but not His desire!

 

[NetChaplain]

Jesus needed to over come sin in the flesh to redeem us in the flesh
Could you please provide some scripture to support that Jesus had to overcome sin in his flesh?

Hi RJ - If it's okay for me to share this, and unless I'm mistaken concerning his reply, he could be referring to Romans 8:3: "Condemned sin in the flesh." Your inquire seems to me to make a significant, because it seems to address the truth that He didn't had to overcome sin, being "without sin."

 

[B-A-C]

However I am not sure that Abraham's actions of attempting to sacrifice his son was as you put it... "keeping the law was the only way for eternal life".

Sacrificing his son, perhaps not. God doesn't usually require this of people. ( Gen 22:2; )
But sacrificing a Ram was part of the law ( Gen 22:13; ). Animal sacrifice was atonement for sins. Why would Abraham sacrifice a ram?
Circumcision was part of the law as well. ( Gen 17:11-14; ) Why would Abraham get circumcised?
Tithing was part of the law, why would Abram (Abraham) tithe to Melchezidek? ( Gen 14:20; )

Jas 2:10; For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

 

[Brighthouse]

Interesting reply Net! His will is being done by all, but not his desire!! question though. If your will is to become conformed to his,then will you not understand his desire?? thanks bro

 

[RJ]

Hi RJ - If it's okay for me to share this, and unless I'm mistaken concerning his reply, he could be referring to Romans 8:3: "Condemned sin in the flesh." Your inquire seems to me to make a significant, because it seems to address the truth that He didn't had to overcome sin, being "without sin."

• Sure it is fine; this is ,after all, an open forum. In Romans 8:3, Jesus had to bare the sin of the entire world, for then and all sin that would happen afterwards.
• I think there should be no mistake, Jesus was without sin and the perfect sacrifice, 1 Peter 1:18-19, the perfect lamb! He had to be the perfect , unblemished offering to satisfy God's requirement.But saying that, l see several things at work here:

1. Matthew 27: 45-46 . Jesus would have said this to satisfy Psalm 22:1
2. I have no scripture to support the following yet but I believe this is possible: that at the moment just before Jesus died, God pulled back and allowed Jesus to bare the world's sin alone, as the perfect human and the absolute perfect sacrifice, on his on and alone. I can see where, at the very moment of death Jesus was actually sin to fulfill the requirement 2 Corinthians 5:21
3. This brings us back to the point that Jesus had no sin of his own and was the perfect sacrifice.

 

[NetChaplain]

Interesting reply Net! His will is being done by all, but not his desire!! question though. If your will is to become conformed to his,then will you not understand his desire?? thanks bro

Hi Brother - Yes, as I stated in post # 43; "His will and desire are done within the believer." To have His desire done in us is to understand His desire, as His Spirit instructs us through Scripture. It's only the unbeliever who will not know nor understand His desires.

All who truly desire His desires results from Him working this within: "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phl 2:13).

 

[NetChaplain]

God pulled back and allowed Jesus to bare the world's sin alone

Thanks for the reply RJ - Myself, I believe Christ's out-cry concerning being forsaken exhibited how far He entered into humanity with us, "with the feeling of our infirmities." This relates only to the hardness of being in a physical body and the emotions, but not the human nature, for His human nature was divine (2 Pet 1:4) and "without sin" (Heb 4:15).

I prefer comprehending 2 Cor 5:21 that since He "knew no sin," He could only be made out to be sin but not literally become sin, an unreasonable assumption being deity, and is consistent with "in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering" (Rom 8:3); representing sin for us but not actually being the essence of sin, but rather only its "likeness"; made to become a sin offering.

To qualify to be a sin offering required spotlessness, as the sacrificial types of Christ in the OT ordinances, thus, Christ becoming sin would conflict with Scripture, and would frustrate the overall character and plan of God.

Concerning Christ's infirmity of feeling forsaken (Psa 22:1; Matt 27:46), I believe He was overwhelmed concerning it, same as the moment He was overwhelmed about the "cup" (Matt 26:39), which He already was certain of it occurring even upon His momentary request to avoid it "if it be possible" (Matt 26:39).

The concept of being forsaken would also conflict with these: "And He that sent Me is with Me: the Father hath not left Me alone" (John 8:29); also John 10:30. I believe the forsaken-concept originated from this Scripture: "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity" (Hab 1:3).

The sensible design of the intention here would refer to the understanding that "He does not look upon the sins of men with pleasure, for the Lord with His eyes of omniscience beholds all things good and evil, and all men good and bad, with all their actions" John Gill. Another conflict would be Proverbs 15:3.

 

[eddieb]

Jesus did keep the law. and His mom, Mary, was born under the law and gave birth to Jesus so Jesus was born "under the law" since He did not break the law He fulfilled the law.

 

[DHC]

Sacrificing his son, perhaps not. God doesn't usually require this of people. ( Gen 22:2; )
But sacrificing a Ram was part of the law ( Gen 22:13; ). Animal sacrifice was atonement for sins. Why would Abraham sacrifice a ram?
Circumcision was part of the law as well. ( Gen 17:11-14; ) Why would Abraham get circumcised?
Tithing was part of the law, why would Abram (Abraham) tithe to Melchezidek? ( Gen 14:20; )

Jas 2:10; For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Hello B-A-C.

I do appreciate your reply on a very interesting subject.

My approach to understanding Abraham and his unique role in the
plan of God is through the covenant specified in ( Genesis 15 ). This covenant
that God established with Abraham specifies the parties involved, here read
the following.

Genesis 15
17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there
appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants
I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

From the text it is clear that the covenant applied only to Abraham and his descendants.

So the laws(?) that you specified in your post are contained within this Abrahamic
covenant. So according to the specification found under this covenant any descendant of
Abraham could in fact sacrifice a ram. Whether this sacrifice could be called a 'law'
I am not sure about that B-A-C.

Further B-A-C, the promise of this (unconditional?) covenant involves the acquisition
of a parcel of land for Abraham and his descendants.

Circumcision again only applies to the party mentioned within the specification of the
covenant. It does appear that circumcision could definitely be seen as a condition, as access
to the promise of the covenant (the land) was conditional upon this act. The descendants
had to be circumcised. Abraham was instructed to be circumcised by God.

Did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek? The NASB uses 'a tenth' to describe the amount
Abraham gave to the king of Sodom. This gift giving was widespread through out history,
whether it is a tithe or not is unknown.

 

[eddieb]

Did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek? The NASB uses 'a tenth' to describe the amount
Abraham gave to the king of Sodom. This gift giving was widespread through out history,
whether it is a tithe or not is unknown.

"Tithe" means tenth.

 

[brakelite]

Did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek? The NASB uses 'a tenth' to describe the amount
Abraham gave to the king of Sodom. This gift giving was widespread through out history,
whether it is a tithe or not is unknown.

Hi DHC, if you read and understand Hebrews 7:1-10 you will answer your own question. And Melchizedek was not king of Sodom, but king of Salem.

 

[brakelite]

Sure my pleasure: Precisely without failure: James 2:10

Hi RJ. Your original question, with the definition included, was....From the old covenant law, do you follow the original 10 commandments precisely without failure today, right now?

Your original question said follow the ten commandments , may I presume you are asking if I obey them without fail?

Now I could, like Paul, boast that in the flesh, yes, I obey God's commandments.

Phil. 3:6.... touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless......

However, I would also, like Paul, add that I would far rather count all claims to such as dung, and would by a long way prefer

9 ¶ to be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (This RJ is what I teach and contend for in all my posts...I have never promoted the idea that any man can in his own strength keep God's commandments, however, constantly and repeatedly I have magnified the concept that by faith a man can attain to righteousness...this is Christ's own righteousness which He gives to all who ask and seek for it...Matt. 5:6; )

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection (see http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/46508-creative-power-god.html#post231259 ), and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Now RJ, notice above the bolded portion in verse 12, Paul is here saying that he has not yet attained to perfection. Yet verse 15, says, in part,

15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded:

This is why I asked for your definition of perfection regarding our spiritual walk in Christ. We can see here that there are at least two different concepts or ideas of perfection. One Paul was claiming was as yet not attained, the other he was including himself in a group that was perfect. How do you explain this RJ?

 

[brakelite]

Hello Brakelite.

Long time no see.

You stated "As Christians we are required to obey all God's commandments".

The scripture nowhere states that Gentiles are under the law or God's commandments
as you call them. The only way one can arrive at the legalism position is by inference.
For the legalist there is a very annoying absence of the specific instruction that Gentiles are under
the ten commandments within the scripture itself. It is this absence of the specific divine instruction
that creates a very serious issue for the legalism theology.

Inference is the main tool in the interpretive toolbox of the legalist.

Hi again DHC.
"Legalism".... that old "go to" catchphrase so popular with those bereft of any other argument to counter the obvious. Yes DHC, I said, and I will repeat it,
"As Christians we are required to obey all God's commandments".

Now let us take just one commandment as an example. One perhaps that we are all familiar with,

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Now DHC, I, as a Christian, am firmly convinced that the above commandment applies to every person, black, white or brindle, of every gender and in every age. Yet in this we markedly differ DHC for you maintain that this applied only to Jews between the the time of Sinai and 31ad, the time of the cross. Thus anyone who isn't born of a Jewish heritage, or who was born outside of that specific time-frame, "was not under that law". That tells me that Christians, according to you, can indulge in certain behaviors of a similar nature so prevalent in the world, behaviors lauded and extolled on our TV screens daily, accepted as normal societal behavior by today's media, and because these modern non-Jewish adulterers are "not under the law" , therefore in the sight of God they can continue to practice these things with impunity. Christian and non-Christian alike. I presume this goes for every other commandment also, because, quote:
The scripture nowhere states that Gentiles are under the law or God's commandments

 

[petrosmyers]

Hi Brakelite!
The way I understand this is that we are not 'under the law'; but because of the Holy Spirit living in us we find adultery abhorrent and keep away from temptation as much as possible.
Think of when we were children. We can either avoid stealing from our parents because of a house rule; or because we love and respect them.
Love rather than law is what brings Godly order.
This is how I would express it:
The commandments are not obeyed, but they are not infringed.

 

[DHC]

Hi again DHC.
"Legalism".... that old "go to" catchphrase so popular with those bereft of any other argument to counter the obvious. Yes DHC, I said, and I will repeat it,
"As Christians we are required to obey all God's commandments".

Now let us take just one commandment as an example. One perhaps that we are all familiar with,

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Now DHC, I, as a Christian, am firmly convinced that the above commandment applies to every person, black, white or brindle, of every gender and in every age. Yet in this we markedly differ DHC for you maintain that this applied only to Jews between the the time of Sinai and 31ad, the time of the cross. Thus anyone who isn't born of a Jewish heritage, or who was born outside of that specific time-frame, "was not under that law". That tells me that Christians, according to you, can indulge in certain behaviors of a similar nature so prevalent in the world, behaviors lauded and extolled on our TV screens daily, accepted as normal societal behavior by today's media, and because these modern non-Jewish adulterers are "not under the law" , therefore in the sight of God they can continue to practice these things with impunity. Christian and non-Christian alike. I presume this goes for every other commandment also, because, quote:
The scripture nowhere states that Gentiles are under the law or God's commandments

Hello Brakelite.

I would not say that the anti-legalist fraternity is bereft of any argument.

"As Christians we are required to obey all God's commandments".

The scripture is silent regarding Gentile circumision or should I say membership
of the old covenant. Which the ten commandments are most clearly representive of.

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Brakelite, whether nor not you believe this commandment applies to everyone is really
irrelevant. What is relevant is what the scripture states regarding the ten commandments.

Exodus 19
5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be
My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be
to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

As we can easily read Brakelite, God's covenant which includes the ten commandments is
with the nation of Israel. The Gentile nations are not included in this covenant Brakelite.
That is what the text states Brakelite that is not my opinion.

What you do not understand Brakelite is the word 'covenant', for some reason of which I am
at pains to understand. A covenant is a binding legal agreement and God enacted a covenant
with the nation of Israel at Mt Sinai. So the ten commandments become legal proclamations
to be obeyed by Israel, that is, they become the national law of Israel.

Now brakelite you need to demonstrate using the scripture and not inference, that any nation
other than Israel should become members of this old covenant. We are not dealing with a
personal legal code, it is a national legal code. Failure to obey the laws of the covenant carry
penalties punishable by the state.

Further Brakelite, I know that you are fond of the idea that the ten commandments existed
outside of the Mt Sinai covenant. Scripture brakelite, that is the required legal tender on
'TJ' not your personal conviction. You need to prove that the ten commandments were
ratified prior to Mt Sinai and not by inference.

 

[brakelite]

Hello Brakelite.

I would not say that the anti-legalist fraternity is bereft of any argument.

"As Christians we are required to obey all God's commandments".

The scripture is silent regarding Gentile circumision or should I say membership
of the old covenant. Which the ten commandments are most clearly representive of.

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Brakelite, whether nor not you believe this commandment applies to everyone is really
irrelevant. What is relevant is what the scripture states regarding the ten commandments.

Exodus 19
5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be
My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be
to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

As we can easily read Brakelite, God's covenant which includes the ten commandments is
with the nation of Israel. The Gentile nations are not included in this covenant Brakelite.
That is what the text states Brakelite that is not my opinion.

What you do not understand Brakelite is the word 'covenant', for some reason of which I am
at pains to understand. A covenant is a binding legal agreement and God enacted a covenant
with the nation of Israel at Mt Sinai. So the ten commandments become legal proclamations
to be obeyed by Israel, that is, they become the national law of Israel.

Now brakelite you need to demonstrate using the scripture and not inference, that any nation
other than Israel should become members of this old covenant. We are not dealing with a
personal legal code, it is a national legal code. Failure to obey the laws of the covenant carry
penalties punishable by the state.

Further Brakelite, I know that you are fond of the idea that the ten commandments existed
outside of the Mt Sinai covenant. Scripture brakelite, that is the required legal tender on
'TJ' not your personal conviction. You need to prove that the ten commandments were
ratified prior to Mt Sinai and not by inference.

Genesis 39:7 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.
8 But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;
9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[RJ]

This is why I asked for your definition of perfection regarding our spiritual walk in Christ. We can see here that there are at least two different concepts or ideas of perfection. One Paul was claiming was as yet not attained, the other he was including himself in a group that was perfect. How do you explain this RJ?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

• Wow, I was expecting a simple yes or no.
• I will stick with my original question to you: Sure my pleasure: Precisely without failure: James 2:10
• James states that if you attempt to follow the whole law and fail one little tiny point, you have failed the entire law.
• My answer to you is no, I can not follow the law perfectly.I still don't your answer?
• While we are at it, would you mine telling me if you still sin or not?

 

[NetChaplain]

Not to take sides because we should be good to one another, "especially to those of the household of faith" (Gal 6:10), but even if it were possible to keep the Law it would not suffice. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20).