Not under law but under grace.

[BobRyan]

Bob asks

Quote:
BR: In Matt 5 when Christ speaks a curse to those who would teach others to ignore the Law of God - how does exegesis tell us the LISTENERS to Christ's words (his primary audience and primary intent) would have understood "LAW" to be defined?

HP: Excellent question. I can see it as being nothing other than the immutable moral law of God as given to Moses in the Decalogue. Do you suppose there was some significance of writing the ten commandments in stone instead of merely verbally to be transcribed to paper as all other inspirations of God?

Jesus said, Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments. Again, as BR asks, what would the listener have understood ‘the commandments’ to consist of that He was referring to?

What commandments was Jesus referring to when he said the following?

Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Can anyone be said to love God and be a breaker of His commandments according to Scripture?

According to Christ the answer appears to be "no".

HP said --
DHK has stated that no one can keep the commandments of God. Where is his Scriptural evidence for that assertion?

Suppose in John 14:15 God HAD said "IF you LOVE Me you will quickly realize that you can not obey the commanments I have given in scripture. It simply can not be done"

IF he had said that we might be having a very different conversation here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The law is simply a system of works. Lay hold of that truth please. And then memorize and meditate on this verse:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

In Gal 3 Paul argues that no law was ever given as a means of salvation -- not in the OT and not in the NT.

Christ stated in Matt 5 that if anyone teaches others to disobey God's Word -- disobey scripture -- disobey the Law of God -- they are doing the wrong thing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

Where you say that they ‘could not keep it’ for it was ‘impossible’ to keep, you are not only refuting the clear testimony of Scripture but are casting a blight upon the character of God. You paint a picture of a taskmaster demanding, upon pain of eternal torment, commandments out of man that God knows full well it is ‘impossible’ (in your words) to keep. Nothing could be further from the truth or more inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture. Listen carefully to the words of the man entrusted with giving the law to man. De 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

I am of two minds on this. I think that the passage from Deuteronomy that you quote with its clear "That thou mayest do it" specifically addresses what is the case after the covenant is renewed. And the covenant is renewed, I will claim, with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the giving of the Spirit. So I am not sure that one can specifically use Deuteronomy 30 as any kind of argument that it was possible to obey the Law in the times before the covenant was thus renewed.

I assert that the following material from earlier in Deuteronomy 30 shows that that the verses you quote above are about the state of affairs when the covenant is renewed:

and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

I suspect that some will dispute my claim that this passage is fulfilled in Christ - I think it is, not least for the reason that Paul, in Romans, echoes the "circumcision of the heart" theme suggesting that Paul at least thinks this passage from Deuteronomy 10 has been fulfilled in his day.

In defense of what HP is suggesting, there is that text which states (in respect to the Law) something like "do these things and you will live" - suggesting that the Law is not impossible to obey.

I think that Paul saw the Law as as both intended to "give life" and, paradoxically, as the strange and seemingly sinister (but only seemingly) mechanism by which God accumulates sin on national Israel so that it can then be borne, in fidelity with the Abramic covenant, by Israel's Messiah.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not think that exegesis in EITHER OT or NT will sustain the view "God commanded obedience in scripture -- obedience to His word but did not really expect anyone to do what He said until Christ showed up".

The basic problem is that SCRITPURE IS the Word of God.

When People try to argue that nobody in the OT could OBEY God -- could OBEY scripture -- could OBEY God's Word -- for 4000 until Christ came... they are leaving ALL mankind (even those in Heb 11) in the same unsaved - unconverted, enslaved-to-rebellion-against-God state.

And that is NOT what we see in Heb 11. Nor can that view be exegetically sustained from any commands found in all of scripture.

In fact God pronounces people like Noah and Job and Enoch "righteous" to the point that "they walked with God" in some cases - taken directly to heaven without seeing death. Scripture gives us NO reason to think "people before the cross were all enslaved to sin and had no actual ability to obey God's Word"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[trustitl]

There is a problem with equating "walking with God" and keeping the law. One can keep the law without walking with God. Enoch walked with God without keeping the law.

Many people are beguiled of their reward by going back into living according to the letter.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

John says it is the Father that draws us to Jesus, and it is Jesus who draws us to the Father. The Law is for the transgressor - and I am one - a forgiven one - for all my life. So Paul also said everyone is under the Law for as long as he lives.
Why try to avoid the paradox Paul also said we are no longer under the Law, but under Grace? Law and Grace are not the contradicting things; sin and Grace are!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is a problem with equating "walking with God" and keeping the law. One can keep the law without walking with God. Enoch walked with God without keeping the law.

Many people are beguiled of their reward by going back into living according to the letter.

GE
This is good!
One can keep the law without walking with God; one can walk with God without keeping the Law! Fabulaous, in a nutshell! Thank you, I am saving this for keeps!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustintL: There is a problem with equating "walking with God" and keeping the law. One can keep the law without walking with God. Enoch walked with God without keeping the law.

HP: You have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. You go beyond the evidence shown to us in Scripture with this conjecture.

While you are speaking of that which you do not know, are you going to tell us that the following passage is in error also, and that in fact they were not keeping the law as well? Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a problem with equating "walking with God" and keeping the law. One can keep the law without walking with God. Enoch walked with God without keeping the law.

"Can two walk together except they be agreed"?

Where do you find Enoch in rebellion against the Word of God?


5 [b]By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death[/b]; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.[/b]

According to scripture - is it "pleasing to God when we do not obey scripture:"??

Does it please God to have His people in rebellion against HIS commandments?

"If you love Me ignore My commandments"??

Where is that doctrine in scripture?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: In defense of what HP is suggesting, there is that text which states (in respect to the Law) something like "do these things and you will live" - suggesting that the Law is not impossible to obey.

HP: I believe BR answered your post effectively. If there was only one solitary reason that establishes the ability to obey the law once for all and undeniable in light of Scripture, justice and reason, it would be the fact that God says repeatedly that he will punish disobedience and is just in doing so. Punishment cannot be seen as just if in fact no other possibility exists other than to sin. Punishment or rewards can only be seen as just in light of contrary choice. Sin, can only be seen in a Scriptural light, i.e., as a transgression of God’s law, when contrary choice is possible. If you say that sin is unavoidable or obedience is impossible, you destroy all moral accountability, a fact Scripture upholds without question.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: I believe BR answered your post effectively. If there was only one solitary reason that establishes the ability to obey the law once for all and undeniable in light of Scripture, justice and reason, it would be the fact that God says repeatedly that he will punish disobedience and is just in doing so. Punishment cannot be seen as just if in fact no other possibility exists other than to sin. Punishment or rewards can only be seen as just in light of contrary choice. Sin, can only be seen in a Scriptural light, i.e., as a transgression of God’s law, when contrary choice is possible. If you say that sin is unavoidable or obedience is impossible, you destroy all moral accountability, a fact Scripture upholds without question.

GE
Are you, able to obey the Law - the Ten Commandments and the One Commandment?

DO, you, obey the Law - the Ten Commandments and the One Commandment?

If your answer is Yes, then you have answered well - we shall know you for the hypocrite you are. If your answer is NO!, you have answered better, for then Grace will hasten to your salvation.

 

[trustitl]

Enoch was before the Law, how could he have walked in it. I never said "in the commands" or "in the Word of God". We don't even know what God said to Enoch as they walked together.

The law was added because of transgression at the time of Moses, hundreds of years after Enoch. Some will say that the law has always been because Abraham tithed, and I am accused of conjecture.

We also have no evidence that God gave Adam the command to keep a sabbath, the Sabath, or sabbaths.

Noah, was allowed to eat "every moving thing that liveth". The law was added later, yet Noah was a righteous man. He obeyed God, yet he did not keep The Law.

Was Saul, before he became Paul, walking with God?
Yet, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" was how he described himself.

Was the Rich young ruler?

Was David when he went into the temple and ate the showbread?

"Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? (Matt. 12:5)

Or the man who worked at getting his lamb out on the sabbath?

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt. 5:27-28) This man would not have broken the law of adultry, but would he have been walking with God as he lusted after the woman?

According to Luke 1 Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless according to the law. But was he "walking with God" as he disbelieved the angel?

I will say it again: Many people are beguiled of their reward by going back into living according to the letter. Are these people "not saved"? Let's ask it this way: are these people living like they are saved?

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 

[BobRyan]

Enoch was before the Law, how could he have walked in it. I never said "in the commands" or "in the Word of God". We don't even know what God said to Enoch as they walked together.

According to scripture God "does not change".

The same "no Law of God" argument for Enoch that follows with "because scrsipture had not been written back then" applies to Abraham as well.

Gen 26:5 "Abraham OBEYED ME and kept My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My STATUTES, and My LAWS".

Let it not be forgotten "God's WORD is law" to teach rebellion against God's Law is to teach rebellion against God's Word.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Trustitl
"Enoch was before the Law, how could he have walked in it. I never said "in the commands" or "in the Word of God". We don't even know what God said to Enoch as they walked together. "

'The Law' is God's revelation, not a set of rules, whichever; it is man's duty before God.
Says philosophy or 'natural theology',
"Der Mensch erkennt sich nur in Menschen, nur
Das Leben lehret jedem, was er sei." (Goethe)
But Christian Faith defines it, "Sondern Christlich es ist das Selbst coram Deo das in dieser Weltbewegnung zugleich seine je eigene und einmalige Geschichte-mit-Gott, hat." (Helmut Thielicke 1398)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Trustitl
"The law was added because of transgression at the time of Moses, hundreds of years after Enoch. "

In fact! For the most wonderful of Truth: "So that Grace may abound"! My favourite passage, this Romans 5-6! (or one of my favourites). I have the last few days made a study of Ez20 - or just have begun! There one sees God's mercy returning over and over, to at last be revealed in wrath. First God when He had chosen Israel, commanded them to leave the filthy gods of the Egyptians, so that He could reveal to them His character through Grace, and time and time again Israel failed Him. In the end God vowed He would now give the Israelites those very bad laws He forbade them at first! and said He will destroy them through them! What do we make of these laws from God?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE
Are you, able to obey the Law - the Ten Commandments and the One Commandment?

HP: Every moral agent is well able to obey the commandments.

GE: DO, you, obey the Law - the Ten Commandments and the One Commandment?

HP: This discussion is not an inquest into anyone personal walk with the Lord or ones standing before God. As I have said before I will choose another venue to cast my pearls.

In the final analysis, what would it prove one way or another if I am walking in full obedience or not as far as our discussion goes concerning Scripture? Do you think that if one states that he is not walking as he could that somehow that would prove that no one could? I for one will believe Scripture regardless of my walk or anyone else’s walk.

 

[DHK]

Trustitl
"Enoch was before the Law, how could he have walked in it. I never said "in the commands" or "in the Word of God". We don't even know what God said to Enoch as they walked together. "

Enoch was not before the law; he may have been before the Mosaic law, but not before the law. Adam and Eve broke God's law, and sin entered into the rule. There has been law ever since Adam. If you are a dispensationalist, then from the time of the flood to the time of the law is the dispensation of government, which of course implies laws.
Whether you argree with that or not is totally irrelevant. For here is what the Bible says:

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

After Adam, (or the fall), God put within the hearts of every man his moral law. Man knew automatically that such laws as murder and adultery were wrong. The first few chapters of Genesis demonstrate that well.

 

[BobRyan]

According to scripture God "does not change".

The same "no Law of God" argument for Enoch that follows with "because scripture had not been written back then" applies to Abraham as well.

Gen 26:5 "Abraham OBEYED ME and kept My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My STATUTES, and My LAWS".

Let it not be forgotten "God's WORD is law" to teach rebellion against God's Law is to teach rebellion against God's Word.

When we see that Enoch "walked with God" and Noah "Walked with God" and we see God speaking to Noah and to Abraham we can conclude that the Word of God was getting conveyed to pre-historic man verbally.

Christ states in John 8 "Abraham saw My day and was glad" yet the Genesis record does not tell us the details of Abraham seeing in vision the days of Christ.

Genesis is not an exhaustive account of every word spoken during the first 3000 years of earth's history.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

In its most basic form, law is simply 'a rule of action with sanctions.' Even Adam and Eve had law given to them. DHK points out very well that even the heathen have became a law unto themselves due to the intuitive knowledge of right and wrong God gave them. To suggest that there was no law before God gave it to Moses, or only the law God gave to Moses was considered law, is simply an unfounded and misguided presupposition.

 

[trustitl]

Never said Enoch just walked around the countryside holding hands with God. No doubt God told Enoch things. "The law" is Moses' law which was added because of transgression.

Do not eat of the tree is not "THE LAW", it is a law, or a command. People before Moses either had direct commands from God or were a law unto themselves as stated in Romans.

Some want "THE law" to be from creation so they can glory in people's flesh forever.