Nobody can keep The Law, but...

[Momo-P]

I know I normally ask really dumb and worrysome questions, but for once I feel like this one isn't very stupid. In some of my past threads, people usually remind me how we AREN'T able to live by the Law (hence the need for Christ), but...I'm kind of confused. ^^;

I can't recall everything perfectly, but didn't Christ say He didn't come to destroy the Law, but fufill it? If the Law won't disappear until the end of our current time, then exactly what did Paul mean (unless it was somebody else who said it) when they said it was impossible for us to follow both Christ and the Law? From how I'm understanding it, it comes off like this.

" You there! The Law says to be circumcised, but don't worry about that! It's true that Christ Himself said the law would not disappear until long after we're dead, but still ignore it!"

I mean...what the heck? Am I missing something here? At first I wanted to say "No, no, God had the Israelites circumcised as a symbol of their relationship with Him. Since we can already inherit the Holy Spirit through Christ though, having a physical character trait doesn't really mean anything..." but...what about the other stuff? We've had threads that covered it's ok to wear make up, say other god's names, etc. based on A) God only put those laws forward because of the culture/time and B) the whole "allowed to do anything, but just watch out what is actually good for you (or causes you to stumble)" deal.

I hope you all forgive me for being a nuisance, but like I said, for this one...I actually didn't feel so dumb asking. Since pretty much all Christians have no problem doing many of the things that were forbidden in the Old Testament, I know what Jesus was talking about must've been a bit different, but can someone at least tell me how and why? ^^;

[shooraijin]

This creeps a bit into theological controversy, so a reminder, as always, to be civil.

In my case, I consider the Law part of what allowed the Jews to exist under their program of salvation. We're not under that anymore. Christ's fulfillment of the Law indicated that for those who receive salvation through Him, his requirements are grace, not Law, and that program of salvation is considerably different. Remember Peter and the sheet?

[Whitefang]

Christ fulfilled the law by following it perfectly as we cannot. In Christ we have fulfilled the requirements that God commanded us to follow. BUT! Remember Paul's other message:
"Romans 6
Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

[LadyRushia]

In Paul's day, there were people following him around and telling Gentiles that they had to be circumcised in order to be Christians. This, in my understanding, was mostly what Paul was addressing. Some people, in order to escape persecution, went back to following the Law. Paul is basically saying that since no one can follow the Law perfectly, it will not help at all. That is why there's God's grace. So to Paul, when God is handing out saving grace, it makes no sense to go back and try to be perfect in every part of the Law.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in that he triumphed in every area where humanity had previously failed. This is why he was the perfect sacrifice and good enough to reconcile the entire world to God.

I hope this helps a little bit. I'm by no means an expert, and I second the suggestion to keep this civil.

[Dante]

Hey! You must be reading the same region of the Bible I am (I'm having similiar questions about these areas as well while I read through these books)...

PERSONALLY, I would more weight on the words of Christ then Paul. Paul started one of the first Christian Churches (whether he was the only one I cannot say, but some of the passages even he writes seem to suggest that there were other variations... I think this is the more likely case). Furthermore, he had an incredible testimony, I'd argue that few people in history have anything close to a testimony that he had (of course once again I could be wrong). That stated, he wasn't God, and the words he says should be given a little freedom to his human side. But he holds a lot of weight in my book all the same...

So far in my readings (and this is only my first time through this so take it at that) I've felt he's trying to get a philosophy accross: The critical idea is not that we can ignore the teachings of God, but that we are not JUSTIFIED by the LAW. Instead we are JUSTIFIED by GRACE. Or so it seems to me...

In other words, we can't be like the pharisees (SP?) who went around using the law to get what they wanted... when they wanted something they'd go to the law and use it like a chemistry set to get the desired outcome they wanted (YAY! FOR THE PERIODIC TABLE OF COMMANDMENTS). If something didn't go their way, they would claim that they were violating the law and that they themselves were suffering as a consequence of it (hence bad things happen to you if you ruffled their feathers). Yet at the same time, they themselves did not follow the law as no person can, so because they were justified by the law in destroying others, the law itself was justified in destroying them at Judgement even more so.

But if one is justified by grace, then one cannot use the law to get what they desire... if someone smacks you on the cheek then you cannot say they violated the law against you because you no longer have the law to be justified by. Instead, you must turn them the other cheek because you feel they should get a second chance and a third and so on... you are justified in doing this not by the law but by the same grace that justifies you in forgiveness of your own sins.

That...

That is a very difficult thing to implement, I am by no means complete in my ability to do what I've just said... hopefully knowing is half the battle. And so that is why I feel it is possibily a correct interpetation (because it seems really hard to do). After all, its easy for us to say we want grace to forgive us of all of our sins but break out the police and lawyers at our neighbor's most minor offense... That is an example of this topic, for in doing so we would be justifying our actions by the law, but hoping that God would be justified in grace in saving us.

At the same time, we are justified by grace in trying to do the right things, because the grace given to us is sufficient that we should want to do it out of love... can we always... I don't know... I know that I haven't... I do know that I don't want to mess up.

Like I said... that also makes it hard. If I justify myself by the law in shooting a thief that enters my house and may do me harm, am I justified by grace in Heaven? Or should I cook him a meal and claim that I know by grace he'll change in time?! You and I can probobly see a lot of immidiate consequences of this that are hard to swallow. And that is what makes it a somewhat cool philosophy... it really gets under your skin! O_O

That stated. Given that I'm not a Biblical Scholar or the most brilliant man in the world, I'm probobly wrong... It is only my first time through this text after all... but I would like to know what my fellow Christians think about the idea all the same without causing any debate. (Of course, because I'm to this point that will soon change )

-Pascal

[Peanut]

The above posts pretty much sum it up pretty well...so I'll point to them instead of reiterating what they've already said.

[Sakaki Onsei]

I hope not to derail this thread...

But for some odd reason, I kept thinking "I fought the law, and the law won."

[That Dude]

What I believe that Paul meant when he said that you can't follow both the law and Christ is exactly what you said. Christ fulfilled the law, but the people to whom Paul was writing were trying to separate Christ's fulfillment of the law and follow the law separately from from following Christ.

Christ fulfilled the law so we don't have to. He did it so we can take his righteousness on him. That's why Paul wrote this and other similar things. People were trying to say that it was by OUR actions that we are saved. And we all know

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."

What the people that Paul was writing to had the tendency to do was to try and use works to get to salvation by following the law...Just like many of us do now days. We try and be good people and go to church and do community activities in order to work our way to God when that does nothing at all to bring us to salvation.

I hope this helps a little bit.

[Paul]

O.k., here's my take on the topic. When Paul was dealing with the issue of "Law and Grace", he was talking about the Circumcison (That's how I remember it). Alot of the Jews who were converted and now witnessing to gentiles was telling them they had to become circumcised to be saved, Paul was debating that wasn't so. The Old Testament Law stated that a man was to be circumcised as part of being a Jew. This was a act faith on the part of the O.T. Laws for being obedient to God's word. They didn't have Christ the Savior yet, so they were dependent on God. This is where the passover comes into play when sacraficing an unspotted lamb on the altar for our remission of sins. When Christ was crucified on the cross he became the last sacrafricial unspotted lamb, once and for all, for all men, that day forward. In the New Testament, the Crucified Christ being the risen savior, did away with the old law of "works" with the lamb of sacrafice I mentioned above, and now we live under grace through the blood of Christ. Many of the O.T. are still in effect. Marriage, being a good neighbor, don't kill, don't steal, ect, the basic laws of life and living. However the laws which were done away were such things as: the sacrafice of animals as an offering for remission of sin, bringing your concerns to the high priest, we'll use Aaron and Moses as examples, who in turn bring it before the Altar, and the circumcision of the flesh. Laws like these were fullfilled, or redirected through Christ. Because of his sacrafice, we now no longer have to bring blood sacrafices to the altar because he is that sacrafice, we no longer have to go to the High Priest because we now have direct access to the throne, through Christ's blood, and now we have a different type of circumcision, which is of the heart, and we often demontrate that circumcision through partaking of communion and being baptised, dying to flesh, and rebirthing a new creature. If you think about it, it's a different type of circumcision. Thus this is the laws which were done away which I believe Paul heavily talked about in the scriptures.

So, we are still bound by the general laws of the O.T. but we live under grace in the N.T. because we are no longer dependent on the sacraficial laws such as the passover, instead we are dependent on the sacrafice of Jesus Christ.

That's how I understand it.

Paul

[That Dude]

Very well said Paul.