# Being BLAMELESS before God



## C. Matthew McMahon

How do we handle this verse?

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, *walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.*

Can this be said of us at _any_ time?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think Scripture can help us define what being "blameless" before God means



> There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was *blameless* and upright, *one who feared God and turned away from evil*. (Job 1:1)
> 
> Blessed are those whose way is *blameless*, *who walk in the law of the Lord*! (Psalm 119:1)
> 
> *May my heart be blameless in your statutes*, that I may not be put to shame! (Psalm 119:80)
> 
> even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and *blameless before him*. In love (Ephesians 1:4)
> 
> Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and *may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ*. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)



There are many more verses that seem to point to being blameless as having to do with living according to God's Law and fearing Him. Only regenerate people can do this, as God makes it possible and expected from our new heart:



> And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and *cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules*. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)



If a "blameless man" to God is one who walks according to His statutes and fears Him, then all regenerate people are blameless before God.


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think Scripture can help us define what being "blameless" before God means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was *blameless* and upright, *one who feared God and turned away from evil*. (Job 1:1)
> 
> Blessed are those whose way is *blameless*, *who walk in the law of the Lord*! (Psalm 119:1)
> 
> *May my heart be blameless in your statutes*, that I may not be put to shame! (Psalm 119:80)
> 
> even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and *blameless before him*. In love (Ephesians 1:4)
> 
> Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and *may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ*. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many more verses that seem to point to being blameless as having to do with living according to God's Law and fearing Him. Only regenerate people can do this, as God makes it possible and expected from our new heart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and *cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules*. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a "blameless man" to God is one who walks according to His statutes and fears Him, then all regenerate people are blameless before God.
Click to expand...


Well said. It's all about grace:

Genesis 6:8-9 "But Noah found _grace_ in the eyes of the LORD. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God."


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih

I will have to look it up. I was reading about this last week. In the book of Acts there is a similar introduction to a person or a few people which adds another clause to the statement which got me thinking. Hmm... maybe I am thinking elsewhere in the gospel of Luke. Acts 22:12 could be it but if so then I remember it wrong.


----------



## Scott

It does seem the most ardent Calvinists would jump on anyone who said that somebody (anybody but Jesus) walked blamelessly in the commandments of the Lord.


----------



## wsw201

This is what Calvin said:



> But if, in keeping the law, Zacharias and Elisabeth were blameless, they had no need of the grace of Christ; for a full observance of the law brings life, and, where there is no transgression of it, there is no remaining guilt. I reply, those magnificent commendations, which are bestowed on the servants of God, must be taken with some exception. For we ought to consider in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant which he has made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted righteous and blameless, because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness, that the fear of God dwells in them, so long as they give a holy example. But as their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God without obtaining pardon. The righteousness which is commended in them depends on the gracious forbearance of God, who does not reckon to them their remaining unrighteousness. In this manner we must explain whatever expressions are applied in Scripture to the righteousness of men, so as not to overturn the forgiveness of sins, on which it rests as a house does on its foundation. Those who explain it to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith, simply because they freely obtained the favor of God through the Mediator, torture and misapply the words of Luke. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the truth, but not the whole. I do own that the righteousness which is ascribed to them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of works, but by the grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed to them their sins, he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect life, the appellation of righteousness. The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. With the righteousness of faith they contrast this righteousness, which is ascribed to Zacharias, which certainly springs from the former, and, therefore, must be subject, inferior, and, to use a common expression, subordinate to it, so that there is no collision between them. The false coloring, too which they give to a single word is pitiful. Ordinances, they tell us, are called commandments of the law, and, therefore, they justify us. As if we asserted that true righteousness is not laid down in the law, or complained that its instruction is in fault for not justifying us, and not rather that it is weak through our flesh, (Romans 8:3.) In the commandments of God, as we have a hundred times acknowledged, life is contained, (Leviticus 18:5; Matthew 19:17; ) but this will be of no avail to men, who by nature were altogether opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are still very far from observing it in a perfect manner.



From Matthew Henry:




> They were both righteous before God; they were so in his sight whose judgment, we are sure, is according to truth; they were sincerely and really so. They are righteous indeed that are so before God, as Noah in his generation, Gen. 7:1. They approved themselves to him, and he was graciously pleased to accept them. It is a happy thing when those who are joined to each other in marriage are both joined to the Lord; and it is especially requisite that the priests, the Lord´s ministers, should with their yoke-fellows be righteous before God, that they may be examples to the flock, and rejoice their hearts. They walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless. (1.) Their being righteous before God was evidenced by the course and tenour of their conversations; they showed it, not by their talk, but by their works; by the way they walked in and the rule they walked by. (2.) They were of a piece with themselves; for their devotions and their conversations agreed. They walked not only in the ordinances of the Lord, which related to divine worship, but in the commandments of the Lord, which have reference to all the instances of a good conversation, and must be regarded. (3.) They were universal in their obedience; not that they never did in any thing come short of their duty, but it was their constant care and endeavor to come up to it. (4.) Herein, though they were not sinless, yet they were blameless; nobody could charge them with any open scandalous sin; they lived honestly and inoffensively, as ministers and their families are in a special manner concerned to do, that the ministry be not blamed in their blame.



And from John Gill:




> And they were both righteous before God"¦
> Not as the Pharisees, only righteous before men, but in the sight of God, who sees the heart, and whose judgment is according to truth; and therefore were not justified by the deeds of the law; for by them no man can be justified in the sight of God; but were made righteous through the righteousness of Christ, by which the saints were made righteous before the coming of Christ, as those after it: see (Acts 15:11) (Revelation 13:8) . God beheld them in his Son, as clothed with that righteousness he engaged to bring in, and as cleansed from all sin in that blood of his which was to be shed: and they appeared to him, and in the eye of his justice, and according to his law, righteous persons: though this character may also regard the internal holiness of their hearts, and the truth and sincerity of grace in them: which God, who trieth the hearts and reins of the children of men, knew, took notice of, and bore testimony to: as likewise their holy, upright walk and conversation before men, and which was observed by God, and acceptable to him, though imperfect, as arising from a principle of grace, being performed in the faith and fear of him, and with a view to his glory, and for the sake, and through the righteousness of his Son.
> 
> Walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord:
> this was not the matter of their righteousness before God, but the evidence of it before men: "by the commandments" are meant, all those that are of a moral nature, which regarded their duty to God and man, and which are comprehended in love to both; and by "the ordinances of the Lord", are intended the injunctions and institutions of the ceremonial law, which is called the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, which, though now abolished, were then in force: and it was right and commendable in them to observe them, who, by their "walking" in them, showed they loved them, both one and the other; esteemed them, concerning all things to be right; and had respect to them all, and observed them, and took pleasure in walking in them, which, by the grace of God, they continued to do; for walking not only shows that these commands and ordinances were a way marked out for them, but in which they took pleasure, and made progress: and were
> 
> blameless;
> not that they were without sin, as none are; and it appears from this chapter that Zacharias was not, see (Luke 1:20) but they were so in the sight of God; as they were justified by the righteousness of Christ, so they were without fault before the throne, and unreproveable before God; and as to their moral and religious character and conduct before men, they did not indulge themselves in any known sin, but lived in all good conscience among men: nor were they remiss and negligent in the discharge of duty: they were not guilty of any notorious breach of the law of God, or of any remarkable negligence in the business of religious observances: and though they might observe enough in them to charge themselves with, and to humble themselves before God and men; yet so strict were they, in their lives and conversations, that those who were the most intimately acquainted with them, had nothing very material to blame them for.


----------



## Puritanhead

No, I'm a sinner


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by webmaster[/
> Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, *walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.*
> 
> Can this be said of us at any time? _


_


I know it can't be said of me in a material sense. I know I am seen as blameless by the Father only because of Christ's righteousness imputed to me, but in my daily life I break the commandments continually if not by omission or comission, then at least in my heart and mind where no one sees it. I wish my life could be as holy materially as it is holy by imputation. If there is ever a day where I think that I am walking blamelessly in all of God's commands, I have either died and gone to heaven or sin has deceived me through pride and arrogance thereby proving I am not blameless. If any fellow human was to tell me I was blameless, I would see it as a temptation to pride and self-exaltation. If God Himself directly said that I was blameless in the sight of men, then I would have to believe Him. But of course this would mean that I was now glorified and in heaven with Him in perfect sanctification. So when I read this verse I notice a couple of things:
1) It is God, not man, who pronounces this about Zechariah and Elizabeth
2) it is given in contrast to the opinions of men who thought that they were unfaithful (childless parents were considered unfaithful)

Conclusion: in the sight of men, and perhaps in the opinion of themselves, they were not blameless. However, God pronounced them as blameless in His sight. Any obedience to the law they had was a fruit of this reckoning by God, not vice versa. And despite whatever childlessness meant to the community in determining who was and was not a faithful believer, God uses their situation to show that all things are of God's mercy (our blamelessness before Him, and the blessings of having a child), not of righteousness before men. We judge eachother externally, God judges us through our relation to Christ inwardly. And so, despite the community's external judgment about the faithfulness of this couple, God blesses them in His mercy because of what they are in His sight, and what they are in His sight is solely by his monergistic grace. As to what walking blamelessly means here, it seems to me that it means they were walking (living) in a blameless condition, not that they themselves were perfectly obedient to the law of God. And only in this sense can a believer say this about himself.

Please correct me if I am wrong._


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> No, I'm a sinner



I don't think this is the right feeling to have, as believers.

Yes, our nature is tainted by sin, but at our very core we are holy in Christ.



> For I delight in the law of God, *in my inner being* (Rom 7:22)


----------



## Texas Aggie

I see that there is more than the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to the believer. There is also "your" righteousness which involves obedience to His law under the New Covenant.

Before regeneration, "your" righteousness is as filthy rags (means nothing to God). Your justification (the imputed righteousness of Christ) sets you in proper standing before God.

The terms of the New Covenant gives you the means to "walk with God" as Enoch and Noah. You have the law and the equipment (via His Spirit) to live a life, blamelessly before God.

This is a righteousness that exceeds the scribes and the Pharisees. For them, the outside of the cup was clean yet the inside was dirty. You have imputed righteousness provided to you at regeneration as well as "your" righteousness (via a walk with God, led by His Spirit). This is "your" righteousness because your "will" is involved with obedience to the law and the Spirit.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Here's the thing, the passage is not theological, its practical. Its not a discourse on Romans, its a statement about the way they were living. Its historical narrative.

How could they have been blameless? (Grace, yes). But practically, do we not all have grace as the Elect of God?

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Texas Aggie

I see we have "grace" as unmerited favor. But I also believe "grace" is more than this.

I view grace as a spirit (Hebrews 10:29). To me, the Spirit of Grace is nothing more than the Holy Spirit. This also fits with Titus 2:11-12. Unmerited favor teaches us nothing, the Holy Spirit does. I see Grace as both unmerited favor as well as the Spirit. More importantly, grace it is the Spirit of God.

"Walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord" tell me they observed both the moral and ceremonial law. This is God's will for man.

The elect, "under Grace" now have the law and the Spirit to walk blameless before God. The Spirit of Grace will not lead you to do anything contrary to the law of God. Naturally, your will is involved.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> No, I'm a sinner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is the right feeling to have, as believers.
> 
> Yes, our nature is tainted by sin, but at our very core we are holy in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For I delight in the law of God, *in my inner being* (Rom 7:22)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not a dwelling place of righteousness..." -Martin Luther

As I said, I am a sinner, and I accept my condition... I am not changing until I get my resurrected body... that I might try to progress in sanctification is a given, but it's only through God's grace that I do any good works.... i've been browbeaten into obvillion by people who like to wring some king works-rightousness out "perfect" and "blameless..." that we should strive earnestly for those attributes is admitted. 

It's kind of like the John Eldredge book _Walking The Dead_... When I read it amongst charismatics... all I hear about is how we are holy and pure in heart; true enough, by the imputed righteousness of God, our eternal destiny is secure, but as Jeremiah says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9) That verse only drew a befuddled pause when I quote it in person, and elicited a reply, "But we have a renewed nature!" I don't disavow that, but we're still sinners. A stepping to sanctification is recognizing that we are sinners, we will stumble and fall, and we have to pick up from our failures... having confessed and repented, when we _really_ fathom our sinful nature (which comes with time) and really acknowledge it-- only then we can began to progress in sanctification recognizing our unequivocal dependence on God.

A sinner saved by grace,
Ryan

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by Puritanhead]

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Here's the thing, the passage is not theological, its practical. Its not a discourse on Romans, its a statement about the way they were living. Its historical narrative.
> 
> [Edited on 6-28-2005 by webmaster]



Is this similar to 1 John 3:6?

"Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him."

Meaning, practically speaking Christians do not live a life marked by sin--even though they do sin?


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Here's the thing, the passage is not theological, its practical. Its not a discourse on Romans, its a statement about the way they were living. Its historical narrative.
> 
> How could they have been blameless? (Grace, yes). But practically, do we not all have grace as the Elect of God?


----------



## bond-servant

Good thread. 

There is also this verse, that equates blamelessness with lack of presumtuous sins...

Psa 19:13 Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Where is the Scriptural evidence that it is historical?


----------



## larryjf

To me, being blameless is walking in the holiness of Christ - and when we fall we repent.

I don't think being blameless can be divorced from repentance as if we could be "perfect".


----------

