Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was the Law inept?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Was the Law inept?

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    I don't agree. Maybe the word doesn't work for everybody, but God intentionally gave Israel a law that was *incapable of* producing eternal justification. It was a temporary fix, in my view. It covered Israel's relationship with God on a temporary basis until final justification could be provided by Christ.

    I'm not insulting the Law. I'm suggesting that its purpose was limited, and intentional unusable with respect to final justification.
    It's the word you used brother. Inept doesn't mean incapable. It means "clumsy" or "having no skill". The law is not clumsy and it is very, very good at what it is meant to do. It works death. It is good at that. It increases sin. It's good at that. Nothing about the law is inept. However, there are things that it is powerless to do, i.e. incapable of.

    And also, man was the problem, not the law. The law was powerless to fix man so God did something else that could fix man.

    Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
    "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
    When I will effect a new covenant
    With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
    9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
    On the day when I took them by the hand
    To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
    For they did not continue in My covenant,

    The problem with the first covenant was with people. That is why the covenant had fault. It didn't fix the problem, which was people. But it wasn't inept in what it was meant to do.

    Forgive me for "squabling" over words. That is not my intention. I agree with your very broad point though. And I think we are on the same page.

    Grace and peace

    Mark
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Was the Law inept?

      Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
      It's the word you used brother. Inept doesn't mean incapable. It means "clumsy" or "having no skill". The law is not clumsy and it is very, very good at what it is meant to do. It works death. It is good at that. It increases sin. It's good at that. Nothing about the law is inept. However, there are things that it is powerless to do, i.e. incapable of.

      And also, man was the problem, not the law. The law was powerless to fix man so God did something else that could fix man.

      Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
      "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
      When I will effect a new covenant
      With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
      9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
      On the day when I took them by the hand
      To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
      For they did not continue in My covenant,

      The problem with the first covenant was with people. That is why the covenant had fault. It didn't fix the problem, which was people. But it wasn't inept in what it was meant to do.

      Forgive me for "squabling" over words. That is not my intention. I agree with your very broad point though. And I think we are on the same page.

      Grace and peace

      Mark
      You're wrong. Inept is short of ineptitude, which means incapable. It's not surprising that we use words differently from different regions we live in, being in different circles. It's just the word I use for "incapable." Check the Merriam Webster dictionary. It's there.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Was the Law inept?

        Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
        It's the word you used brother. Inept doesn't mean incapable. It means "clumsy" or "having no skill". The law is not clumsy and it is very, very good at what it is meant to do. It works death. It is good at that. It increases sin. It's good at that. Nothing about the law is inept. However, there are things that it is powerless to do, i.e. incapable of.

        And also, man was the problem, not the law. The law was powerless to fix man so God did something else that could fix man.

        Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
        "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
        When I will effect a new covenant
        With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
        9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
        On the day when I took them by the hand
        To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
        For they did not continue in My covenant,

        The problem with the first covenant was with people. That is why the covenant had fault. It didn't fix the problem, which was people. But it wasn't inept in what it was meant to do.

        Forgive me for "squabling" over words. That is not my intention. I agree with your very broad point though. And I think we are on the same page.

        Grace and peace

        Mark
        Yes, we're squabbling over words. I use words rather loosely. Often, ineptitude refers to one who is unqualified, and persists in doing something he is unqualified to do, or is clumsy, at doing. But it doesn't have to be used that way. It can simply mean that something is not qualified to do something, which is how I'm applying it to the Law.

        Your point is that the Law is legitimately qualified at doing what is was supposed to do, and I agree. However, my point is that God did not design it to provide eternal justification--only set a foundation for it. Only Christ could, by contrast, provide eternal justification.

        So, the Law was not qualified (inept at) providing for eternal justification, and was not designed to do so. This is not a slam on the Law of Moses! It was simply not designed to do anything beyond keep Israel in a temporary covenant under those particular provisions.

        It really didn't matter that people failed or succeeded under that covenant. Both happened. What Paul really means by its lack of qualifications is that no matter how much the Law succeeded in keeping Israel under covenant with God, it *could not provide eternal justification.*

        The Law could only temporarily keep people in God's good graces until the problem of the sin nature could be dealt with. The sin nature spoiled anything Israel could do--even in obedience! As long as sin was still undealt with, legally, it would return Man back to the Garden, where he would be, once again, expelled.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Was the Law inept?

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          Yes, we're squabbling over words. I use words rather loosely. Often, ineptitude refers to one who is unqualified, and persists in doing something he is unqualified to do, or is clumsy, at doing. But it doesn't have to be used that way. It can simply mean that something is not qualified to do something, which is how I'm applying it to the Law.

          Your point is that the Law is legitimately qualified at doing what is was supposed to do, and I agree. However, my point is that God did not design it to provide eternal justification--only set a foundation for it. Only Christ could, by contrast, provide eternal justification.

          So, the Law was not qualified (inept at) providing for eternal justification, and was not designed to do so. This is not a slam on the Law of Moses! It was simply not designed to do anything beyond keep Israel in a temporary covenant under those particular provisions.

          It really didn't matter that people failed or succeeded under that covenant. Both happened. What Paul really means by its lack of qualifications is that no matter how much the Law succeeded in keeping Israel under covenant with God, it *could not provide eternal justification.*

          The Law could only temporarily keep people in God's good graces until the problem of the sin nature could be dealt with. The sin nature spoiled anything Israel could do--even in obedience! As long as sin was still undealt with, legally, it would return Man back to the Garden, where he would be, once again, expelled.
          Yes, the Law was inept at providing salvation. As you said, it wasn't designed for that. The law never could give salvation. It was incapable of it. No one has ever been saved through law. All that have ever been saved, were saved by grace through faith.

          However, the law does have uses. For instance, David taught us that "Thy Law have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee". The law in the heart can keep us from sin. Paul taught us that it is the "spirit of the law" that gives life, not the letter. The letter brings death. The spirit of the law always points to Jesus. It is not referring to our common saying "the spirit of the law" as we speak about it. Rather, it is seeing Christ in the law that is the "spirit of the law".

          Grace to you brother.
          Matt 9:13
          13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
          NASU

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Was the Law inept?

            Originally posted by randyk View Post
            I stated elsewhere:


            "When I refer to the Law as "inept," I'm not saying it was "imperfect." I was saying it was incapable of providing complete legal justification for us in our sin. Only Jesus could do that.


            I agree with you that the Law served to show our sin so that we could repent of it. But still the Law was inept inasmuch as it could not deliver us from our sin completely. It could only temporarily cover Israel's sin so that they could remain in relationship with God under that covenant.


            The Law did *not* just show man what he could not do for himself, that he was a helpless sinner. Rather, it showed him that he could in fact do good, obey God, and find a basis for relationship with God through faith. It just could not *complete* our justification. It could not *eternally redeem* us from sin. Only Christ could do that."


            Is it Scriptural to say that the Law is inept, that it was incapable of justifying us in our sin?
            Is it Scriptural to say that the Law temporarily covered Israel's sin, in order to maintain a covenant relationship between them and God?

            Is it Scriptural to say that the Law not only exposed human sin, but also enabled Man to live in righteousness?
            I believe that the way Paul worded the difference between the OT and the NT expressed a kind of "coded" differentiation between the 2 covenants, leading some to believe the difference was greater than it really was.


            To say that faith was not under the Law, and to say that faith came through Jesus is an important distinction, but not a huge difference in terms of spirituality.
            To say that righteousness was not under the Law, and to say that righteousness came through Jesus is an important distinction, but not a huge difference in terms of law.

            Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
            Gal 3.21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law...
            24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
            Phil 1.11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

            In one sense Paul is saying, in coded fashion, that faith and righteousness did not come under the Law--not that there was no faith or righteousness under the Law. He was speaking of the faith and righteousness revealed in Christ, as expressed in his atonement for sin.

            Israel expressed faith *under the Law,* but not faith *in the Law* as an eternal atonement. The Law could only temporarily justify, maintaining a temporary relationship between God and Israel. Only faith in what Christ did could bring eternal justification.

            This is difficult to untangle, theologically, and may boggle the mind. But I believe it's very important. Thoughts? Do you have a better way of expressing these things?


            all men are sinners, sinners are inept under the law and they can't repent because they are condemned by the law. The law has no flaw, but what happens when sinful people, must keep a holy law that provokes and condemns a sinner?

            “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

            But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

            What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid.

            Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

            But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

            For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

            And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

            For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

            Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

            Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
            **Romans‬ *7:5-13‬ *KJV‬‬


            Sin is not just what a person does, it's in our heart and nature. We're sinners , the law is meant for the knowledge of sin, that sin might be known as sin by sinners, we don't repent of something we don't understand is sinful. If Paul were to sum up the scriptures there from chapter 7


            “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

            Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
            **Romans‬ *3:10-12, 19-20‬ *KJV‬‬


            God did not make man sinners, that was the serpent, and then Adams fault even through Eve it was Adams fault. Man wasn't made to know sin, we weren't created to know evil, it's why the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. So after they took in that forbidden knowledge of,evil, we mankind, born of the first sinners, are sinners. Meaning we have a pre disposition towards both good and evil. The issue is that man had become sinners at heart.

            “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
            **Genesis‬ *6:5‬ *KJV‬‬

            there was no law at this point, so you have sinners at heart, not being able to distinguish between good and evil, it was part of them both good and evil. The law was added because of this fall into sin. In order that sin, might become known as sin, and that death results from sin would be known. It's part of the plan of salvation now because we're these people

            “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
            **Mark‬ *7:21-23‬ *KJV‬‬


            without the law who's to say it's wrong to commit adultery? How would sinful people know? Thier constantly conflicted sin feels good so what's to tell us sin is death? What's to tell us adultery is sin, lying is sin, coveting is sin? The law does that , it gives ignorant sinners , meaning ignorant of righteousness and sin, it gives us understanding of sin and its destruction to mankind. This is an essential part of anyone ever repenting, first we have to know " sin is condemned by God" and we need to,know what sin is , or a sinner will never have any reason to repent....but repentance is found in the gospel

            I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
            **Luke‬ *5:32‬ *KJV‬‬


            the law is meant to give us understanding of what is in us and what we need to repent of. Jesus is there to call us to repentance, through his gospel. The law isn't inept in any way, it's just not meant for salvation, but for showing sin and its condemnation upon mankind. This person will find reason to repent, because sin is death. The law is important, it's just not what saves anyone, we need what the law does, in order to repent and be saved through Jesus Christ and the gospel.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Was the Law inept?

              Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
              Yes, the Law was inept at providing salvation. As you said, it wasn't designed for that. The law never could give salvation. It was incapable of it. No one has ever been saved through law. All that have ever been saved, were saved by grace through faith.

              However, the law does have uses. For instance, David taught us that "Thy Law have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee". The law in the heart can keep us from sin. Paul taught us that it is the "spirit of the law" that gives life, not the letter. The letter brings death. The spirit of the law always points to Jesus. It is not referring to our common saying "the spirit of the law" as we speak about it. Rather, it is seeing Christ in the law that is the "spirit of the law".

              Grace to you brother.
              Thanks Mark. There is a lot in this, however, that I'd love to deal with, but is difficult to say without getting caught up in language difficulties. But let me just briefly try.

              Quite often we create a dichotomy, thinking that is what Paul is doing, separating Law from Grace. Well, he does separate them, but neither does he create as wide a separation as we often think.

              As you say, the Law had its purposes. It was not designed, however, to fail, as is sometimes said by those who misunderstand Paul. It was not designed to fail, but it was designed to fail at producing final justification. It was very capable of producing righteousness through obedience. It's just that this righteousness could not remove the stain of sin. And all sin needs is a single sin to spoil righteousness, and make Man fit for Hell.

              So the Law was good as a temporary system, establishing a covenant relationship in which sin was temporarily covered over. But justification still had to happen.

              I don't think we should ever say that the Law failed to produce righteousness. It was just as effective at that as Christ is! The only difference is that the righteousness Christ gives us contains eternal atonement for our sins. Now, we have both righteousness and justification.

              You see, in my view it is the *word of God* that enables Man to be righteous, whether OT or NT. The Law is just as capable, being the word of God, to make Man righteous as the word of Christ is. Both represent the word of God.

              However, the word of God is no longer active in the Law of Moses, because that Law is now inactive. It has been rendered obsolete. It is not as though moral Law has gone away, but that the *covenant* of Law has gone away. And performing law without God's word in it is pure vanity. That's what the Pharisees did, and Jesus viewed it as a mere whitewash over corrupt humanity.

              No, the true word of God, in whatever form it is presently active, is capable of producing righteousness. But the essential thing today is that we have righteousness together with justification. And that only comes by Christ.

              Men may actually do righteousness in the world, but until they embrace Christ they lack a cleansing of their conscience by Christ's justification. They will never feel that they are truly righteous because apart from Christ they won't be--they'll still have idols.

              Christ is the only means of disposing of all idolatry and sin. He alone is the perfect standard of righteousness, combined with justification.

              And God wants men to not only be righteous but to also have an assurance of their salvation, to have their consciences cleansed--to find peace. He wants us to have this purity of heart so that we can know God personally, to have fellowship with Him.

              I said it would be difficult...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Was the Law inept?

                Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


                This proves the first covenant was faulty and needed to be replaced. The law is the words of a covenant so this is speaking of covenant and law together.
                James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Was the Law inept?

                  Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                  Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


                  This proves the first covenant was faulty and needed to be replaced. The law is the words of a covenant so this is speaking of covenant and law together.
                  Yes, brother, I think that is the entire point. It is about righteousness, but it is also about a covenant. It is the covenant relationship that provided cover for sin, whether OT or NT . It was God and His word that provided cover for sin, as long as a Man lived in covenant relationship with Him.

                  When men in the world do good, they can truly be righteous. But unless they live in covenant relationship with God, they have no cover for their sin. It is in our living with God, as our Lord, that enables us to substitute our life for His spiritual life. And this enables God to put away our sins.

                  The Law did provided righteousness, and it did provide cover for sin, because it represented a covenant with God. But it was "inept," or incapable of, covering for sins on an eternal basis. And that's because Men, as sinners, cannot provide atonement for themselves except on a limited basis. It was only Christ who made the covering for sin acceptable on an eternal basis. And that is because only God can permanently forgive sins, when all of mankind is guilty of sin.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Was the Law inept?

                    Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                    Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


                    This proves the first covenant was faulty and needed to be replaced. The law is the words of a covenant so this is speaking of covenant and law together.
                    God goes on to explain where the fault was in the first covenant:

                    Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says,

                    The fault was in mankind. The law had no fault. It did exactly what it was designed to do. It never was designed to save or to make righteous. We see that all the way back with Abraham, who had circumcision before the law. He was saved before the law. The law was never intended nor designed to make man righteous.

                    The new covenant changes man. That's part of what makes it so much better than the old. It addresses what the first covenant did not and could not. The new covenant fixes the faulty part of the old covenant, which is us.
                    Matt 9:13
                    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                    NASU

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Was the Law inept?

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      The Law did provided righteousness, and it did provide cover for sin, because it represented a covenant with God. But it was "inept," or incapable of, covering for sins on an eternal basis. And that's because Men, as sinners, cannot provide atonement for themselves except on a limited basis. It was only Christ who made the covering for sin acceptable on an eternal basis. And that is because only God can permanently forgive sins, when all of mankind is guilty of sin.
                      That wasn't a fault. It was by design. The fault with the law, in Hebrews 8, was mankind. The new covenant fixes the faulty part of the old covenant, which is us.

                      Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says,

                      Note that in Hebrews 8:7, it doesn't say the Law was faulty. It says the covenant was faulty. And then He explains in the very next verse, where the fault was at... it was with us. The new covenant was designed to change us. The Law was designed to reveal to us how sinful we really are. It worked perfectly, without fault. It was inept at salvation in the same way a car is inept at flying. It was never meant to save. It wasn't even designed for it. What we do when we try to use law to save is like trying to use a boat to climb a mountain. It won't work. It wasn't ever designed or supposed to do that.
                      Matt 9:13
                      13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                      NASU

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Was the Law inept?

                        Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
                        God goes on to explain where the fault was in the first covenant:
                        Both were faulty. The verse I posted shows that the first covenant itself was also faulty. Then we read how the NC is made with better promises showing that it was made superior to the first, not having the flaws it had.

                        Note that in Hebrews 8:7, it doesn't say the Law was faulty. It says the covenant was faulty.
                        The law is the words of a covenant so it's the same thing to say the law was faulty or the covenant was faulty.
                        James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Was the Law inept?

                          Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
                          That wasn't a fault. It was by design. The fault with the law, in Hebrews 8, was mankind. The new covenant fixes the faulty part of the old covenant, which is us.
                          You're using your own definition of "inept." As I said, it does not have to denote a "fault." It can indicate an incapacity to do something. It does, at times, imply that there is the wish that something could be accomplished but can't. In this case, I'm simply saying that the Law was incapable of producing eternal atonement. It could only provide limited atonement.

                          So, I'm *not* saying the Law is at "fault" for anything! I'm only saying that the Law could not *do something!* It could not provide a lasting atonement because, as you say, man cannot succeed without Christ's atonement. To obtain eternal life, we must have God's forgiveness, and we must obtain the benefit of Christ's sacrifice. We must also obtain Christ's free gift of God's Spirit, to enable us to live in him.

                          Originally posted by Brother Mark
                          Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says,

                          Note that in Hebrews 8:7, it doesn't say the Law was faulty. It says the covenant was faulty. And then He explains in the very next verse, where the fault was at... it was with us. The new covenant was designed to change us. The Law was designed to reveal to us how sinful we really are. It worked perfectly, without fault. It was inept at salvation in the same way a car is inept at flying. It was never meant to save. It wasn't even designed for it. What we do when we try to use law to save is like trying to use a boat to climb a mountain. It won't work. It wasn't ever designed or supposed to do that.
                          And I'm not saying the Law was ever designed to save us. It wasn't. I agree with that.

                          But neither did I even begin to imply that the Law was at "fault" for not saving us! It was "inept" in the sense that it *cannot save.* I never said it *tried to save.*

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Was the Law inept?

                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            It was "inept" in the sense that it *cannot save.*
                            If one kept the law, they were saved ie: would receive eternal life.


                            Mat 19:17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"
                            James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Was the Law inept?

                              The intent of the sacrifices under the law was not to remove or cleanse anyone of their sins. None of those sacrifices under the law ever removed any sins. Those sacrifices that they did every year was to stave (or to shove forward) their sins until the following year. Then in the following year, the sacrifice at that time would be staved for another year. The sins were never removed or wiped away clean.

                              But the intent of the law was to keep the people in a protected state until the time that the Christ should come. They were all anxiously awaiting for this time. The intent of the law was not to redeem the children of Israel. All of those people abiding under the law knew this. They all knew that the Christ is coming and is the only one that could fulfill this role. Only those who did the things contained in the law were justified by the works of the law. This was what the old covenant was based upon; keeping the law and obeying the commandments of Moses. God made the covenant with Abraham, he said within thy seed (which is Jesus), all the nations of the earth would be blessed. And the token or seal of that covenant was in circumcision of the foreskin of the flesh.

                              John the Baptist was the last prophet under the law. He also knew this, as he came preaching preparing the way for Jesus. Notice what he said to the people:
                              John 1:29
                              "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

                              Therefore, intent of the law was not to redeem, and those sacrifices would not take away any of their sins. But the intent was to deliver the people safely to Christ, being a school master.

                              Galatians 3
                              24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
                              25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
                              Last edited by TMarcum; Apr 16th 2019, 11:57 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Was the Law inept?

                                Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                                If one kept the law, they were saved ie: would receive eternal life.

                                Mat 19:17 "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"
                                It's true that if Israel had been able to flawlessly obey the Law, they would've received eternal life. But they couldn't because they had the sin nature in them. And so, the Law was never designed to give them eternal life. Rather, it was designed to keep them in temporary contact with God, to live before Him as His people, until final redemption could be won.

                                The promise of "life" under the Law was not the promise of eternal life *by the Law,* but rather, the promise of eternal life *by Christ,* which was to follow later on behalf of those who were in covenant with God through the Law. The Law offered spiritual life and blessing, but it could not provide eternal redemption. But inasmuch as Israel had temporary atonement, they could proceed to wait for Christ's final redemption in order to complete their obedience and faith.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X