ACCIDENTAL LAW KEEPING [177b]

I recently saw a blog where the person was pushing law again. They cited Matthew where Jesus said  “Think not that I have come to abolish the law, rather I have come to fulfill it” or similar. Now this is in direct  contradiction to Paul “He has abolished the law”.

Some law enforcers have attempted to explain it as only being the ceremonial law that was abolished. This chap insisted it was the moral aspect involved, and he is right, all these law references are concerning the moral law, IE the ten commandments.

This has always seemed a bit awkward that Jesus should say this. I wondered what the truth of it was, because it was obvious that Paul had spelled it out very conclusively, that law was indeed abolished. And it occurred to me that what Jesus was saying was because of the Pharisees.

He was saying to them that the law was not good enough. The righteousness of the law was not good enough and the righteousness of the Pharisees who claimed the righteousness of the law, was also not good enough.

Just as Paul himself, as Saul, a stalwart for the law, had given assent for Christians to be killed; who had said that he had kept the law in all good conscience, was on the Damascus road told by Jesus that “It was hard to kick against the pricks” (of conscience).

The rich young man who said to Jesus that he had kept the commandments, found that his “righteousness of the law” was not good enough.

By contrast, the word says “When Gentiles who don’t have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they show they are a law unto themselves, their conscience…” The Gentiles who did not have the law were applauded for meeting the requirements of the law, morally, even though they did not have the law. (Moral law was written on their hearts). They “accidentally” kept the law.

The Jews who pursued a law of righteousness fell short of that righteousness. “If there was a law given by which righteousness could be achieved then righteousness could certainly have come by law”. But such is not the case.

Now it is that Romans 8-3 “For what the law COULD NOT DO….And 8-4 “In order that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit”.

The Spirit was NOT given so the law could be kept, the requirement of the law is “accidentally” and “incidentally” “kept”   in the process of following the Spirit.

By fulfilling the law Jesus abolished the law so the law would be done with, complete, and finished with. Something greater than the law was now here.

[“Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees..”]

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s