Goodness and Commands
For some reason people have tried to tie commandment keeping to the motive of trying to make yourself good enough to go to heaven on your own. There may be other motives for keeping commands other than pride or self-glorification. Abraham in offering Isaac was focused on God's promises vs his own goodness.
Jesus knew you had to keep the commandments to go to heaven. He also knew commandment keeping didn't make you good.
Can't you be a commandment keeper without thinking they made you good? Sure you can. Yet "faith only" teachers tend to accuse all commandment keepers of trying to make themselves good enough.
They are satan's accusers I guess.
Jesus knew you could be a commandment keeper without thinking of yourself as perfect or good enough without God's grace.
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
As you can see Jesus used them together without them being mutually exclusive. Yes, Jesus tied commandment keeping to inheriting eternal life without insinuating it was to make us good enough. There must be some other reason it applies.
1. Commandment keeping is necessary to inherit eternal life. Jesus said it is. We have a general obligation to keep God's New Testament commandments, when we sin we ask for forgiveness and try again. Even if we have failed in the past our attitude should be submissive and obedient, start keeping them..
2. Jesus said no one is good.
Jesus never thought of commandment keeping as making ourselves good as our accusers have said. That would be wrong if it was true, but we don't think like that. Commandment keeping verifies faith and love, we love him because he first loved us. We have the ability to do good or bad in a relative sense, we aren't inherently good as God is. God is love while we learn love from him.
Only God is good of himself. We have to have commands to educate us and help us do God's will, then God uses commands to test the sincerity of our faith. If we were inherently good we wouldn't need moral commands, we would just do right.
God tested Abraham didn't he?
The rich fellow in the story was getting a lesson on the purpose of commandments without realizing it. Maybe a test of his affections, whether he would follow the flesh or spirit.
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Maybe they are tied to eternal life to test our spiritual mindedness, whether we will strive toward eternal life, with a spiritual mindset.
He kept the commands from his youth and still wasn't good. Even if he had sold all and given to the poor, he wasn't good in his nature. We actually have the power to keep the commands when educated, but even then we aren't by nature good. We are only able to do good because we are educated by a good God.
Even so, the fellow was brought face to face with his love of money or land, and when educated about what he needed to do to serve Christ, he went away sad.
He didn't keep Christ's commandment to sell his stuff and follow.
He could claim it was too hard, but most of the apostles gave up all and followed. The command wasn't too hard. Even so, the ones forsaking all weren't good, they just had faith greater than their love of money.
Poor people have less to leave.
Being a commandment keeper doesn't imply you are good, it doesn't imply you know everything, it does test your commitment to Jesus as the messiah.
Act 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Act 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
We can keep his commandments without thinking we are good. His commands can be fashioned so that they are within our created abilities and being inherently good isn't God's requirement.
Of course some will accuse me of being a legalist, but keeping commandments and doing God's will isn't legalism. Even if you consider the general attitude of commandment keeping necessary for salvation, it isn't legalism.
Legalism is the concept that one disobedient act disqualifies you, that without the chance of Grace.
James taught obedience and salvation by works, but dismissed the idea that breaking one law disqualifies us from Grace.
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Jas 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
James knew we could violate the royal law and still have grace.
Legalism is the modern concept that a violation not only convinces us of sin, but also disqualifies us from the Christian covenant. It is graceless and demands penalty. Yet, it is not found in the Bible under that terminology.
Yet, we will be judged by the Law Of Liberty, we are under law that excludes us from certain requirements found in the Law of Moses. The Gospel is in itself law.
Evangelicals invented the term legalism to claim adherence to any law is against the Gospel, their usage is heretical.
Even though it says we are under grace, and not under law, grace is the idea that we are not automatically judged under a statute, as if the statute is the only guiding principle. Under law would mean the statute itself is the determining guide to our fate.
Under grace doesn't infer lawlessness, but is the idea of a judge who will determine on other grounds than statuatory law. We will be judged by Jesus Christ in the last day.
There is one judge and law giver (James 4), therefore the judge has the ability to pass by the statute. Grace simply passes the final outcome to the judge vs the statute itself.
Law can be formulated with concepts we find in the Gospel, the law of liberty embodies such concepts. Even the Law of Moses had these basics we find in the Gospel, but with more baggage.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
All three points being incorporated into the Law of liberty. It isn't that we are without law and judgment, it is the makeup of the New Covenant is truly quite different in wording.
Again, the modern Evangelical use of legalism is remarkably heretical. We are certainly under law, but with an intermediary judge incorporated, who can make a decision based upon concepts outside the statute.
We find differeng references to law--
1. Law of Moses
2. Law of faith
3. Law of liberty
4. Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus
The last 3 refer to the Abrahamic and Christian dispensations.
The point, commadments aren't always in legal form or under a law's jurisdiction.
1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.