Is compliance with the Law impossible?

[McCulloch]

Following the Law is just obeying the various dictates and commandments given by God for humans to obey, so why is it that Christians claim that all humans must have broken the Law.

Questions for debate:

1. Is compliance with the Law impossible?
2. Why is it impossible to believe that a human (other than Jesus himself) who could be
   blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law?

[Vanguard]

I should back up and ask your clarification of what you mean by the "law"?

Perhaps whatever the writers of the epistles meant by the Law. The set of rules laid down by God for the people.

Do you consider the Lord's command to love thy neighbor to be part of this "law" that you refer to?

Jesus' own words to the contrary notwithstanding, no, I do not consider the command to love one's neighbors to be part of the law. Do you? Did the epistle writers?

I'm not sure why you make the distinction? Your OP questions why one cannot make it through this life without error though you only wish to focus on one particular set of laws? Why wouldn't Christ's be in included?

[OpenedUp]

I should back up and ask your clarification of what you mean by the "law"?

Perhaps whatever the writers of the epistles meant by the Law. The set of rules laid down by God for the people.

Do you consider the Lord's command to love thy neighbor to be part of this "law" that you refer to?

Jesus' own words to the contrary notwithstanding, no, I do not consider the command to love one's neighbors to be part of the law. Do you? Did the epistle writers?

I'm not sure why you make the distinction? Your OP questions why one cannot make it through this life without error though you only wish to focus on one particular set of laws? Why wouldn't Christ's be in included?

Hello Vanguard, good to see you.

I think you run into a problem when you equate Jesus's notions of loving others with it being a "law"

A law implies submission under that law. it also sets up a "do or die" kind of mentality. You either do it, or there will be punishment.

I feel that if Jesus did exist that he would not want his notions of love to be forced upon people. I think he would genuinely want people to love each other for the sake of loving each other, not because they feel that they MUST.

Does that make sense?

[Vanguard]

Hello Vanguard, good to see you.

I think you run into a problem when you equate Jesus's notions of loving others with it being a "law"

A law implies submission under that law. it also sets up a "do or die" kind of mentality. You either do it, or there will be punishment.

I feel that if Jesus did exist that he would not want his notions of love to be forced upon people. I think he would genuinely want people to love each other for the sake of loving each other, not because they feel that they MUST.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does though I take exception. Of course, we should never love others disingenuously but that does not free us of the responsibility of extending ourselves on behalf of our fellowmen. I can imagine many scenarios where one follows the "law" as I believe McCulloch suggests and yet does not practice the principles of service toward our neighbors.

But that aside, perhaps McCulloch could fill us in on a few examples of this law that in his estimation should be easy to follow? Are there any more difficult?

Thanks for the civility.

[justifyothers]

Following the Law is just obeying the various dictates and commandments given by God for humans to obey, so why is it that Christians claim that all humans must have broken the Law.

Questions for debate:

1. Is compliance with the Law impossible?
2. Why is it impossible to believe that a human (other than Jesus himself) who could be
   blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law?

Are you referring to OT law (covenant), which 'could not be successfully followed' and lead to NT covenant, which nullified OT laws? I think most of this is Paul's gospel. Such as " ...for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own son..." Rom 8:3

This is one example of how the idea came about that man could not follow the OT law. Jesus, on the other hand taught that the OT law should go hand in hand with his new covenant laws...(love your enemy, etc.) That he came to fulfill the law and added to it.

I guess nobody could be 100% in keeping the OT law, but can they be 100% in keeping NT covenant either? All anyone can do is put forth effort either way.

[McCulloch]

I should back up and ask your clarification of what you mean by the "law"?

Perhaps whatever the writers of the epistles meant by the Law. The set of rules laid down by God for the people.

Do you consider the Lord's command to love thy neighbor to be part of this "law" that you refer to?

Jesus' own words to the contrary notwithstanding, no, I do not consider the command to love one's neighbors to be part of the law. Do you? Did the epistle writers?

I'm not sure why you make the distinction? Your OP questions why one cannot make it through this life without error though you only wish to focus on one particular set of laws? Why wouldn't Christ's be in included?

I am referring to the same law as these writers:

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

Galatians 4:4-5"]But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

[cnorman18]

Okay, here comes a Jewish opinion:

The Law, in Jewish tradition, is the whole Torah. The word "Torah" is often translated as "Law" but in fact it means "Teaching." That's a clue. (For those who came in late, the Torah is the first five books of the OT, not the whole OT. It is considered by Jews to be the holiest and most authoritative part of the Bible)

As for the possibility of obeying the Law, I don't think you could get a more definitive Jewish opinion than that of Moses:

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

It's very clear in Jewish teaching that complete obedience to the Law is entirely possible and within the capability of an ordinary human, and is that teaching is explicitly supported by Scripture beginning with the passage cited above.

It is also taught that complete and perfect obedience to the Law was never either expected nor required:

26 The LORD said to Moses, 27 "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, and present an offering made to the LORD by fire. 28 Do no work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the LORD your God. 29 Anyone who does not deny himself on that day must be cut off from his people. 30 I will destroy from among his people anyone who does any work on that day. 31 You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. 32 It is a sabbath of rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath."

The Day of Atonement was provided precisely because it was assumed that no one actually ever would totally fulfill the Law. You will notice that Leviticus does not say that those who have not violated the Law are exempt from "denying themselves" (which has always been interpreted as a command to fast from all food and drink). On the contrary, it is commanded for everyone. The implication is obvious.

Of course, it's also worth noting that there is no mention of either Heaven or Hell here. There are none in the whole Torah. Draw your own conclusions.

The Jewish conclusion is that we have no warrant to speculate about or anticipate God's judgment on any human, including ourselves whatever his status vis-a-vis the Law; or to make assumptions about a life after death. On the latter, we are free to guess and believe as we like, but it is understood that there are no guarantees.  

Two more notes:

(1) The 613 positive and negative commandments of the Law (the number is traditional; no definitive list has ever been made) were intended to apply to Jews only, not to everyone. For Gentiles, there were seven commandments only, the Noachide Laws, which differ from the Ten in that not all of the Ten are included, and there are two which are not among the Ten. Compliance with the Law for Gentiles is, in Jewish tradition and teaching, entirely unnecessary.

(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

[McCulloch]

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

Thank you for the segue.

although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Paul differs with you regarding his own qualifications. But he agrees with you that the law can be followed by a human, himself. He is blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law.

[Goat]

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

Thank you for the segue.

although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Paul differs with you regarding his own qualifications. But he agrees with you that the law can be followed by a human, himself. He is blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law.

That is the exact passage that brings causes some concern. That was addressed.
Paul also said in Corthians 9:19-20

' For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more.

And I became to the Jews a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:.

To me, this means he mimicked whom ever he wanted to try to gain converts. That, and the issues about Paul's claims convinces me he was not Jewish.

[McCulloch]

To me, this means he mimicked whom ever he wanted to try to gain converts. That, and the issues about Paul's claims convinces me he was not Jewish.

Do you take it to its logical conclusion? Paul was dishonest.

[Goat]

To me, this means he mimicked whom ever he wanted to try to gain converts. That, and the issues about Paul's claims convinces me he was not Jewish.

Do you take it to its logical conclusion? Paul was dishonest.

Mimicking someone to gain converts is dishonest, yes.

The so called 'messanic temples', in particularly the "Jews for Jesus" are particularly dishonest, and follow in Paul's footsteps