Law or Grace

[Jillo]

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4 KJV

 Christ is become of no effect unto you - You will derive no advantage from Christ. His work in regard to you is needless and vain. If you can be justified in any other way than by him, then of course you do not need him, and your adoption of the other mode is in fact a renunciation of him. Tyndale renders this: "Ye are gone quite from Christ." The word here used (καταργέω katargeō), means properly, to render inactive, idle, useless; to do away, to put an end to; and here it means that they had withdrawn from Christ, if they attempted to be justified by the Law. They would not need him if they could be thus justified; and they could derive no benefit from him. A man who can be justified by his own obedience, does not need the aid or the merit of another; and if it was true, as they seemed to suppose, that they could be justified by the Law, it followed that the work of Christ was in vain so far as they were concerned.

Whosoever of you are justified by the law - On the supposition that any of you are justified by the Law; or if, as you seem to suppose, any are justified by the Law. The apostle does not say that this had in fact ever occurred; but he merely makes a supposition. If such a thing should or could occur, it would follow that you had fallen from grace.

Ye are fallen from grace - That is, this would amount to apostasy from the religion of the Redeemer, and would be in fact a rejection of the grace of the gospel. That this had ever in fact occurred among true Christians the apostle does not affirm unless he affirmed that people can in fact be justified by the Law, since he makes the falling from grace a consequence of that. But did Paul mean to teach that? Did he mean to affirm that any man in fact had been, or could be justified by his own obedience to the Law? Let his own writings answer; see, especially, Romans 3:20. But unless he held that, then this passage does not prove that anyone who has ever been a true Christian has fallen away. The fair interpretation of the passage does not demand that. Its simple and obvious meaning is, that if a man who has been a professed Christian should be justified by his own conformity to the Law, and adopt that mode of justification, then that would amount to a rejection of the mode of salvation by Christ, and would be a renouncing of the plan of justification by grace. The two systems cannot be united. The adoption of the one is, in fact, a rejection of the other. Christ will be "a whole Saviour," or none. This passage, therefore. cannot be adduced to prove that any true Christian has in fact fallen away from grace, unless it proves also that man may be justified by the deeds of the Law, contrary to the repeated declarations of Paul himself. The word "grace" here, does not mean grace in the sense of personal religion, it means the "system" of salvation by grace, in contradistinction from that by merit or by works - the system of the gospel.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

[Vine Abider]

48 minutes ago, believeinHim said:

Both. We need both. We can not live one without the other. The New Testament is in conjunction with the Old Testament. It is the way that it is. I didn't write it, I have studied it.

I don't think that's the case. Personally, I live just fine without trying to follow and adhere to the outward law.  Why?  "Because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and of death!  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh."

Paul goes on to explain further, "So that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to flesh, but according to spirit.  For if you live according to flesh, you are about to die.  But if by the spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live!"

(Those verses are in Romans 8 and from memory, so if I misplaced a word or two, your forgiveness please . . .)

Now, don't get me wrong - the law is good to show God's standard to all men, and shows us believers when we are not living according to the indwelling Spirit of Christ.  But Paul is abundantly clear in Romans chapter 6-8 that if we are sourced in our flesh we will fail in keeping God's law - that is why Christ comes to live in His born of the the Spirit believers . . . in order that He may live a life that is pleasing to God in and through us.  That is the new covenant of grace and freedom given to us in Christ Jesus!

In fact, Paul even says in 1st Corinthians 15:56 that the "strength of sin is the law." (See also Romans 7:10-11)  Why would he say that!?  Because when the law meets the rebelliousness in the flesh (which is weak & unable to please God), things go off the rails quite badly and sin dwelling in our flesh is victorious over us.

But even if we do find ourselves living according to the flesh and then failing to live in line with His law/standard, the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. So we can immediately get back up, turn to Him and agree that we have gone off the mark (don't hide it) and claim His precious blood! Therefore, because of the shedding of His all-efficacious blood, we are free to seek Him with zero condemnation! (see Romans 8:1) Hallelujah! 

[AdHoc]

5 hours ago, Jillo said:

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4 KJV

 Christ is become of no effect unto you - You will derive no advantage from Christ. His work in regard to you is needless and vain. If you can be justified in any other way than by him, then of course you do not need him, and your adoption of the other mode is in fact a renunciation of him. Tyndale renders this: "Ye are gone quite from Christ." The word here used (καταργέω katargeō), means properly, to render inactive, idle, useless; to do away, to put an end to; and here it means that they had withdrawn from Christ, if they attempted to be justified by the Law. They would not need him if they could be thus justified; and they could derive no benefit from him. A man who can be justified by his own obedience, does not need the aid or the merit of another; and if it was true, as they seemed to suppose, that they could be justified by the Law, it followed that the work of Christ was in vain so far as they were concerned.

Whosoever of you are justified by the law - On the supposition that any of you are justified by the Law; or if, as you seem to suppose, any are justified by the Law. The apostle does not say that this had in fact ever occurred; but he merely makes a supposition. If such a thing should or could occur, it would follow that you had fallen from grace.

Ye are fallen from grace - That is, this would amount to apostasy from the religion of the Redeemer, and would be in fact a rejection of the grace of the gospel. That this had ever in fact occurred among true Christians the apostle does not affirm unless he affirmed that people can in fact be justified by the Law, since he makes the falling from grace a consequence of that. But did Paul mean to teach that? Did he mean to affirm that any man in fact had been, or could be justified by his own obedience to the Law? Let his own writings answer; see, especially, Romans 3:20. But unless he held that, then this passage does not prove that anyone who has ever been a true Christian has fallen away. The fair interpretation of the passage does not demand that. Its simple and obvious meaning is, that if a man who has been a professed Christian should be justified by his own conformity to the Law, and adopt that mode of justification, then that would amount to a rejection of the mode of salvation by Christ, and would be a renouncing of the plan of justification by grace. The two systems cannot be united. The adoption of the one is, in fact, a rejection of the other. Christ will be "a whole Saviour," or none. This passage, therefore. cannot be adduced to prove that any true Christian has in fact fallen away from grace, unless it proves also that man may be justified by the deeds of the Law, contrary to the repeated declarations of Paul himself. The word "grace" here, does not mean grace in the sense of personal religion, it means the "system" of salvation by grace, in contradistinction from that by merit or by works - the system of the gospel.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

 

1 hour ago, believeinHim said:

Both. We need both. We can not live one without the other. The New Testament is in conjunction with the Old Testament. It is the way that it is. I didn't write it, I have studied it.

Info @Vine Abider

In God's plan to recover man and the earth, God started off with a man "who walked with Him". To Abraham the Syrian, God said; "walk before me and be thou perfect". To Moses He says "put off your shoes for the ground is holy" and to Israel at Horeb He says "don't touch the mountain lest you die". God reveals two crucial things here. (i) He wants personal fellowship with His man, and (ii) He is too Holy for the man to come near Him. So God gave this Nation a set of Laws. These some 615 laws were designed to produce a righteous living by the Jew where God got His due, man got his due and the earth got its due. This righteos living made Israel holy and ritually clean so that God could dwell WITH them.

But it is clear from Adam being set before a Tree and commanded to eat its fruit, that God's original plan was that He would dwell IN man. God's plan needs "Christ IN you the hope of glory".

The trouble was that while the righteousness attained by the Law was good enough for God to dwell WITH men (albeit behind a curtain), this righteousness fell far short of making fallen man holy enough for God to dwell IN this man. The solution is very clever.

God sends His Son as a Man. This man is born under Law. He lives 33.5 years and never breaks the Law. Then His Father asks Him to die for the guilty - a point way above Law (for Law demands retribution on the guilty). This He complies with and the Father calls this righteousness; "The righteousness of God". To make a sinner ritually clean up to the standard of the First Man in wWhom God  dwelt, God IMPUTES this righteousness to the man He wants to dwell WITHIN. So ...

- If a man is an Israelite he is under the Law.
- If a man under Law refuses Jesus Christ, he simply continues under Law - for it is a Covenant - a Contract
- If a man under Law embraces Jesus, he is a New Creature and the Old passes away.
- If a man is under Law and he embraces Christ the Law of Moses is INADEQUATE for God living IN the man
- If a man is under Law and embraces Christ but clings to the Law, he deeply insults both Jesus and the Father. He in effect says that (i) God's standard is not adequate but his is, (ii) Christ's grand righteousness is not enough, but his is, and (iii) he refuses God's decision to abolish this Law by nailing it to the cross with Christ

The book of Galatians and the Book of Hebrews deal with this subject intensely. They contain condemning words for the BELIEVER who returns to Law. The Law is God-given and good. But it addresses the flesh. It can only condemn a man for the flesh is utterly weak. The Law will only pass when heaven and earth pass at the end of the Millennium. Until then Israel is subject to it. But the believer is freed from Law. The Law forbade relations between Israel and the Gentiles. It is a "PARTITION" (Eph.2:14). It would cause DISUNITY in the New Man. So God nails it to the cross FOR THE NEW MAN.

[Stewardofthemystery]

Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.