Why do people try to obey the law when it's not possible

woodpecker said:

we are told to try and obey the Law. Jesus says if you follow me, you must obey my commands. what commands...to love God with all my heart and mind, and love my neighbor as myself.

We follow these two commands, we fulfill all the 10 commandments

does works save us of from damnation, no, Gods grace does this. We have faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross, what is faith,... trusting in God, and following His commands.

Faith and works, are one and the same, if there are no works, there is not faith.

Click to expand...

Yes. One cannot please God unless that one is Gods own.
Do not worry, Paul agrees with God and disagrees with strivings about the law.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnalhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/romans/8-7.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-a mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

someguy14 said:

Yes. One cannot please God unless that one is Gods own.
Do not worry, Paul agrees with God and disagrees with strivings about the law.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Click to expand...

Indeed - obedience is the relationship to the Law of God that the saints have - not one that the lost person has. The Lost person cannot obey their way into salvation.

Thus the saints are those who "Keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

The Lost person has a heart that "does not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed can it". Rom 8:5-8

The saved person (the saints) has the New Covenant promise of the "LAW of God written on the mind and on the heart" Heb 8, Jer 31:31-33.

The saved person's faith (the saints) establishes the Law of God "Do we than make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31.

So it is not surprise that after a short reference to the Law of God James says that we (the saints) are to "Live as those who ARE to be judged by that law of Liberty" the Ten Commandments.

No wonder then that 1John 2 claim that those who do not Keep Christ's commandments and YET claim to Love Christ - re not telling the truth.


No wonder then that Paul says that for the saints. "What matters is KEEPING the Law of God" 1Cor 7:19

in Christ,

Bob

On the contrary, the significance of the scripture is very much related to walking in obedience to the will of God in righteousness and holiness;the preceding verses do insist on a holy walk with God but the opposite error of self-righteous pride is what is guarded against in 1 John 1:5

A second point, more directly related is, in Jesus Christ , upon the renewal one's mind ,obedience to the commandments becomes more of a subjective spiritual necessity than a requirement.
This is a manifestation of what God does in our hearts and minds under the new covenant Heb 8:10; our heart's desires and our way of thinking become synchronized with that of God our Father . In other words, the origin of our fulfillment of the Law and walking in the instruction of God would be our acknowledgement and understanding , professing and love of His will and commandments in our minds and hearts. No wonder an indicator for true faith is deeds.

Thirdly, one of the many gains of fulfillment of the law is an elation of spirit and mind which fuels us through our spiritual walk with Lord. -

Exaltation comes through obedience.

Click to expand...

- Basic theology.
Of course a prerequisite being Grace through Jesus Christ, which comes down to the fact that grace through Jesus Christ enables us to fulfill the law and not to neglect it. Especially not when Christ himself said he came not to the condemn the law but to fulfill it.

I agree with disciple1. The Law was given to show man the utter impossibility of ever keeping it. This is why Joshua scolded the children of Israel for their presumptuous posturing. The people promised over and over again to keep the Law but instead they bowed down and worshipped false gods over and over again.

Abraham was never required to keep the Law. In fact he broke the 6th, 7th and 9th commandment (several times) and was not even rebuked for it. Abraham kept the spirit of the Law which is love but violated the letter. This is why Paul says that we should serve in newness of the spirit not in oldness of the letter for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.

This isn’t a license to sin either. It just means that with great freedom comes great responsibility. I’m not going to go out and break every commandment I can but I’m not going to feel guilty if I’m doing 70 mph down the highway either.

Hello, I am going to jump in here now with a different view. I believe it was and is possible to keep the law. Now when I say law, and most of the time when the Biblical writers refer to the law, they are referring to the law of Moses as contained in the first five books of the Bible. I don't want to quibble about exceptions, I know there are some. But most of the time that is the law they are talking about. So how can I say that it is possible to keep the law?

First of all, Deuteronomy 30:11 says that "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Also, it is said of Hezekiah the king in 2 Kings 18:6: "He held fast to the Lord and did not cease to follow him; he kept the commands the Lord had given to Moses." And it is said of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1:6 that: "Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly."

Now you may say, how is that possible? Everybody sins. That is true. Even Hezekiah, Zechariah, and Elizabeth sinned. However, we need to understand the way the Bible speaks about someone who keeps the law, or about someone who obeys the law. You see, the law of Moses was not simply a list of laws or rules, but contained within itself a way for sin to be forgiven. In other words, God expected that those who kept and obeyed the law would sin, and so, within the law itself, provided a way for atonement in the form of sacrifices. These sacrifices prefigured, were based on, and ultimately derived their power from the death of Christ on the cross.

So then, "keeping the law" or "obeying the commandments" in the Bible did not refer to those who were sinless, rather to those who trusted in God and determined to live their lives in obedience to him. By God's grace they followed him, and when they sinned, they repented and trusted in God's provision for atonement. We know that Hezekiah sinned in arrogance and foolishness. And yet, when summarizing his life, the Biblical writer says that on the whole, Hezekiah kept the commands the Lord had commanded Moses.

Thus, I think that asking the question is a misunderstanding of the way the Bible uses language, of the way the law worked in the Old Testament, and of how it can work today.

how were the men and women in the OT "saved" before Christ?

By FAITH,

faith in the knowledge of God shown to them through Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and hope and faith in the Messiah to come.

the Law never saved anyone.

with Faith, comes works.

If your faith never produces works, works being submitting to God,

submitting being doing your Gods will,

God's will being following His commands,

His commands being Love your God with all your heart and mind, and loving your neighbor as you love yourself.

Faith=works=obeying the law

If you truly have faith that saves, you will follow His commands.

There have been several responses since my post and I don't know who is responding to what. I'm just going to throw something in here.

For those of you who are saying that no can keep the law, I agree with what I think you are trying to say, but I disagree with your words because of what Scripture says. If by that phrase you mean that everyone has sinned and that no one (except Christ) can live without sinning, then I agree with you.

My difficulty is that the phrase that appears in Scripture, "keeping the law", does not refer to sinlessness. Otherwise how could I have given the Scriptures I did about people keeping the law. Those of you who do not think it is possible need to stop trying to prove that no one is perfectly sinless, and wrestle with the phrase in the passages above. Stop thinking about what you think the phrase means and look at how it is actually used in Scripture.

JLB777 said:

Now that the law has led us to Christ, are we now free to break the law?

Click to expand...

I'm not under the Law.

Galatians 5:18 (NASB)
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

@ dollarsbill and disciple1:

You have quoted passages that say that believers are not under the law and that all have sinned. What you need to understand is that I (and those who seem to agree with me) do not doubt or reject those passages. I fully believe those.

However, there are other passages that must be harmonized with the passages you quote. It is not enough, you will never persuade me to agree with you if you only quote and explain SOME passages, and not come up with a view that can explain ALL the passages.

Go back to my first post (on page 9, I believe) and tell me how those passages and interpretations harmonize with what you are asserting. Another verse to try to understand is 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 where Paul discusses one passage at least that was specifically written for us now and that should be obeyed.

So, what is my theory? How do I harmonize both the passages that I am quoting and the passages you are quoting? That is the task you see. It is not enough simply to quote the passages that say all have sinned and we are not under law. You must quote and explain also the passages that at least appear to contradict you.

I believe that most of the time the word law appears, that we are talking about the law of Moses. My theory is that the law of Moses was a temporary, historically conditioned expression of the eternal law of God. It was given as a national, Jewish unfolding and application of God's covenant with Abraham for the people living in the land just after the Exodus. This law was given to believers at that time to show them how faith should be expressed and lived out, not to show how salvation could be earned. This law established Jewish culture in many ways.

What is interesting is that it was temporary. Even within a few hundred years after Moses received it, many of its commands could no longer by literally obeyed. One third of the law relates to the tabernacle. But after David died, Solomon built a temple which was not mentioned in the law of Moses and only vaguely resembles the tabernacle. It does not match the dimensions and materials specified in the law of Moses. And yet God approved it and in at least this issue, Solomon was seen to be obedient to the law (I know he sinned in many other ways, don't quote Scriptures about how much he sinned, I am not talking about that).

The idea that the law of Moses was given primarily to the generation who received it explains why in the last verse of Hebrews 8, the writer says not that the law was bad, but that it had become obsolete. Why obsolete? Because it was specially tailored for a generation that no longer existed. At the same time, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is also true that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired and profitable for teaching believers how to live their lives today. But how can that be? It is because the law is based on God's eternal law. The core that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 23:23 is transcultural.

In Matthew 19:8 Jesus says that Moses gave at least one of the commands as a concession to the hardness of their hearts. Thus my statement that the law of Moses was a historically conditioned expression of God's eternal law. But later in Matthew 23:23, Jesus mentions the transcultural core of the law: krisis (justice), eleos (mercy), and faith (pistis). If mercy and faith are not a part of the core of the law in your understanding, then you have not understood the law the way Jesus did.

So what is set aside? I believe that what is set aside is the aspect of cultural exclusivity. Ephesians 2:11-15 says that the law kept Gentiles out of the people of God just by definition, because they were not Jews. Isaiah 56:1-8 says that Gentiles may be saved and join God's people (and would do so by faith), but that they must express their faith in the forms of Jewish culture specified by the law (Sabbath, circumcision, etc.) They do not do this to earn salvation by works (which no one can do), but that if their faith is real it will express itself. And at that time faith was expressed in terms of Jewish culture.

But in Christ the dividing wall of cultural exclusivity in the law is removed, and it is that aspect of the law which we are no longer under. But the basic principles of the law, the core which Jesus described, is maintained because it is the eternal law of God which guides all cultures in how their faith should be expressed.

I'll stick with the New Covenant.

@dollarsbill -

******* STAFF EDIT ******* What I am talking about is in support of the new covenant from Jeremiah 31:31-34 and in the New Testament. What does it say in Jeremiah? The law will be written on our hearts. Which law? The only law available and understandable at that time was the law of Moses. But in Christ the ethnic exclusivity is taken away and the core of the eternal law of God is maintained and written on the hearts of believers.

Why do you not interact with the passages I quoted that do not support your statements? What role do you have for the law in the New Covenant as stated in Jeremiah 33:31-34?

Jeremiah 31:31-32 (NASB)
31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

That's why it's New, not refurbished.

I agree that it is "not like the covenant which I made with their fathers." But what does that have to do with the arguments that I have made or the other Scripture verse I have mentioned? Simply quoting a verse is not making an argument. You need to show how these verses you are quoting harmonize with the other Scripture verses I raised. Or do you believe that the Bible is filled with contradictions and whoever can shout their verses louder than the other guy wins? The New (not-like-the-covenant-I-made-with-their-fathers) Covenant consists of forgiveness and having the law (which law?, the same law) written on their hearts. What is the point of that? Was God not satisfied with blank hearts? hearts without writing? Why would God make a significant place for the old law in the new hearts? And please don't simply quote another verse, because I agree with the verses, all of them. I am trying to put all the verses together and come up with a unified interpretation, an interpretation that makes sense of all the verses together. So how do you make them fit? Don't just quote one here and there. How do you make them fit together?

mark273 said:

The New (not-like-the-covenant-I-made-with-their-fathers) Covenant consists of forgiveness and having the law (which law?, the same law) written on their hearts.

Click to expand...

How is that not contradiction? If it's not like it then it's not the same.

That is an excellent question. Keep asking it. Look back at my long post for a suggestion at an answer. What is your answer to that good question?

disciple1 said:

I think we agree mark 273.
What if I said I think these 2 verses sum up the bible and what I believe.
Part of Matthew chapter 12 verse 7 I desire mercy, not sacrifice
James chapter 2 verse 13 Judgement without mercy will be shown anyone who hasn't been merciful, mercy truimphs over judgement.
I think we just are using our understanding of it.
As it says in James chapter 3 verses 1,2 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
And I may have said things trying to say what I'm saying with my own understanding of the bible.

Click to expand...

Okay. I don't know that I completely understand. But okay. I write on this forum in order to learn. I read the Bible and have questions. I read this forum and learn things I haven't heard before. I try out views that I have adopted and listen to other people agree or (usually) disagree with what I propose. The disagreement leads me to reexamine what I am thinking. Often the criticisms direct me to things in my views that I have not thought through well enough. My goal in coming to this forum is to understand the Scripture better and to learn from iron sharpening iron.

If you have more critiques of my longer post above, I would be open to hearing where I might still have weaknesses. It is an honest attempt to understand the very important issue of the law.