Do this and live; how does it fit with actual sin and imputed sin?

F

frog

Puritan Board Freshman
In Luke 10:28, when Jesus says that the man would have eternal life if he obeyed perfectly, how does that fit with:
1. The punishment due for our actual sin? Even if someone could start obeying perfectly they still deserve punishment for their life of past sin.
2. The punishment due for our imputed sin? Even if they could obey perfectly from their conception, they are still counted as having sinned in Adam.
 
Jesus could have used many pathways to provoke the man to see his sin. This man was an 'expert in the law'. So, Jesus sought to show that the law reached the thoughts and intents of the heart (which the parable follows). That silences every sinner. No sinner can go past that and then ask 'Ok, I will and am able to obey that now and in the future, what now?' (which your question sort of implies).

But to entertain your thought. Jesus is precise, He does not use long drawn out conversations to prove His point. If he had talked about past sin, the man would go on talking about his knowledge of the law yada yada. But Jesus simply points out the neighbor concept here to silence him. The man could probably state how he has obeyed this and that and drawn out the conversation. But Jesus shoots the arrow at the fundamental neighbor concept (which apparently many Jews ignored). You can 'obey' the law within your close circle, but who is the Jew that looks past ethnic distinctions to love his neighbor?

It is sort of like in apologetics, we do not go about discussing Adam's imputation so much (conversations wise) with strangers. One arrow is enough to reveal the heart and need for gospel—we are powerless to obey the law. Is that not what Jesus does here? One arrow is all that is needed.
 
Well, if Jesus said this to Adam pre-fall, we wouldn't really be asking the same question.

It was a true statement that Jesus made, but he didn't imply that the man was actually capable of doing this. The man came to Jesus looking for what "he must do" to inherit eternal life. Jesus answered him from that perspective.
 
I typically understood what Jesus was saying as "If you could hypothetically obey perfectly you would get eternal life. But you can't." and thus the man is silenced. But I guess then that the hypothetical isn't complete because not only is positive righteousness required, but our debt must be cancelled to have eternal life.

To confirm if I'm understanding you correctly: Jesus made this statement to show that the man is unable to obey the law and is not saying that hypothetically if the man did start obeying perfectly then the man would be granted eternal life?
 
frog said:
To confirm if I'm understanding you correctly: Jesus made this statement to show that the man is unable to obey the law and is not saying that hypothetically if the man did start obeying perfectly then the man would be granted eternal life?
Click to expand...

I would say you are correct.

Jesus as we know also taught that the flesh profits nothing John 6:63, and that all who commit sin are slaves to sin, and need to be set free by another (namely Him) John 8:34-36.
 
1. James 2.10 - For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
- The rhetoric is that "James is not suggesting that anyone is in reality fulfilling every demand of the law; he simply puts forth a “suppose it were so” assumption" - Pillar Commentary - Assuming you keep the whole law... but one law breaking (e.g Luke 10's misunderstanding of neighbor) - is enough to undo the whole argument from the sinner.

Jesus differs from the self-righteous sinner especially in the obedience out of a genuine true love to the neighbor.

2. If you could focus on either the present/future ability to obey vs. the past ability to obey: One ought to choose to refute the present/future ability to obey
because if you can prove one cannot obey presently and in the future, the past ability to obey is ALSO refuted.

However, if you focused on the past ability to obey, the sinner can argue back, "Well I did not do so in the past, but I shall do better from now on". Then the argument gets long drawn.
The evangelist needs only break down one part : which is the present/future.

3. The present future emphasis is seen in the verse Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top