Under the law??

[pat34lee]

There are quite a few ways of looking at what Paul wrote...

1.)that Paul did preach, teach and believed since Yeshua's death, His death did do away with God's stuff like His Laws and Moses' laws..
2.)that Paul following an earlier version of a noahidian/godfearer/prostyltite mentality that the Jews used to keep gentiles in a different compartment relationship with God from the privileged one the Jews enjoyed. ....
3.)that Paul started a new religion that is without God's Laws now, and without the Laws of Moses..
4.)that Paul was a Torah observant believer and wanted the Gentiles he was teaching to not make the mistake of obedience to the letter rather than learning how to live via Holy Spirit and intent that God gave His Laws.
5.) that Paul taught the Law of God is so spiritual that it looks nothing like the one written on stone.

and I am sure there are other similar combinations of thought on this subject. I prefer #4 myself.

I'd have to go with #6.
Paul was a Torah observant believer that taught obedience to the letter and the spirit of the law, not for salvation, but as the result of it. A believer should want to please YHWH by doing the things that he told us to do.

 

[Lulav]

Why would they be different? Are gentiles second-class citizens? Or are they more special? Does the Husband not look on his bride as being one? Or is the bride split up?

Maybe that's why Joseph Smith came up with his theology, that G-d has many wives.

(sorry, just finished reading a series about Mormons)

 

[Lulav]

There was no confusion. I was simply writing how the gentiles walked in the law according to Gal and Romans, letters being delivered unto the gentiles..

Lulav wrote: "If the law being spoken of is the Torah, which I think is what it is, than in essence Paul is telling the gentiles that they are not to subject themselves to this law, this Torah. "

Here she had written the gentiles are not subject to the laws of the Torah. but yet Jesus has shown the 2 laws He gave fulfilled the whole law.. Just made me question my understanding of the Torah..

Hi there,

To keep it simple, Yeshua/Jesus did not give 2 laws to fulfill the whole law. In fact he did not give any laws that fulfill what was given at Mt Sinai.

What he did say was that all the law, the whole torah, hung from the two laws of Love G-d, Love each other.

Have a look at this chart I made awhile ago to explain this concept.

And I did not say that the gentiles are not subject to the law, I said that Paul taught this.

than in essence Paul is telling the gentiles that they are not to subject themselves to this law, this Torah. "

 

[yonah_mishael]

I'd have to go with #6.
Paul was a Torah observant believer that taught obedience to the letter and the spirit of the law, not for salvation, but as the result of it. A believer should want to please YHWH by doing the things that he told us to do.

Yeah, I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds exactly like 1 Corinthians 9:20 to me. (insert sarcastic smiley here)

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.​

"Torah observant" is another way of saying "under the authority of the law." One will not observe the law if there is no requirement to do so. This "I myself am not under the law" (אֵינֶנִּי כָּפוּף לַתּוֹרָה - μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον) is exactly what Paul meant, that he was not under any requirement to keep Torah - and, thus, he didn't. I still do not understand how this isn't clear from Paul's letters. He preached Jesus, not Torah.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

Yeah, I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds exactly like 1 Corinthians 9:20 to me. (insert sarcastic smiley here)

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
​

"Torah observant" is another way of saying "under the authority of the law." One will not observe the law if there is no requirement to do so. This "I myself am not under the law" (אֵינֶנִּי כָּפוּף לַתּוֹרָה - μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμο&#957 is exactly what Paul meant, that he was not under any requirement to keep Torah - and, thus, he didn't. I still do not understand how this isn't clear from Paul's letters. He preached Jesus, not Torah.

If one isn't under the law, then what is he under? What will he be judged by? (Question for Christians)

Paul preached his own understanding of Yeshua. It doesn't make it right, there were many others at the same time as Paul with their own ideas.

Yeshua clearly said in Matthew 5

15. Do not think that I have come to loosen the law or the prophets, I have not come to loosen but to fulfill. 18. For truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass away not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from the law until everything happens. 19. All who loosen, therefore, from one (of) these small commandments and teach thus to the sons of man, will be called little in the kingdom of heaven, but all who do and teach this will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There were many groups who accepted Yeshua as the promised Messiah and still observed Torah before Paul.

 

[yonah_mishael]

If one isn't under the law, then what is he under? What will he be judged by? (Question for Christians)

Paul stated this already in Romans 6:14:

you are not under law, but under grace.
οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν.
אֵינְכֶם תַּחַת הַתּוֹרָה כִּי אִם־תַּחַת הֶחָסֶד​

Is that really a question? Every single Christian I've ever met knows that fact.

There were many groups who accepted Yeshua as the promised Messiah and still observed Torah before Paul.

I would agree with that, but the question was as to Paul's meaning by "under the law," not what other groups did before Paul.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

Paul stated this already in Romans 6:14:

you are not under law, but under grace.
οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν.
אֵינְכֶם תַּחַת הַתּוֹרָה כִּי אִם־תַּחַת הֶחָסֶד
​

Is that really a question? Every single Christian I've ever met knows that fact.

I would agree with that, but the question was as to Paul's meaning by "under the law," not what other groups did before Paul.

I disregard Pauls writings.. but how would you define being 'under grace'?

Yes, true, but by seeing the laws that the groups before Paul observed, we would get a better understanding of what he meant by 'under the law'.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I disregard Pauls writings.. but how would you define being 'under grace'?

Yes, true, but by seeing the laws that the groups before Paul observed, we would get a better understanding of what he meant by 'under the law'.

I would say that "under grace" means "under the power of God's grace." That's pretty obvious, too. I don't know why these phrases are under so much scrutiny. It's quite clear from Paul's writings what he meant. Christians are not "under the power of the law" (that is, they are not under the death penalty for disobeying it, and they are not under any compulsion at all to keep it) but "under the power of grace" (that is, that they depend on God's grace for their salvation and justification - and not on any deed that they can perform, since they cannot earn salvation and cannot be justified by their own deeds). This is repeated again and again in Paul's writings. "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16). "It is by grace you have been saved through faith... not of works so that no man could boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The way I understand it, anyone who would choose to live under the Torah would have to do as you have done - to reject Paul's writings. A choice has to be made: either choose to follow what Paul taught and not observe the law; or keep the law and reject Paul. I don't think that both can be done, despite the attempts of many within the Messianic Movement.

 

[visionary]

Yeah, I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds exactly like 1 Corinthians 9:20 to me. (insert sarcastic smiley here)

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.​

"Torah observant" is another way of saying "under the authority of the law." One will not observe the law if there is no requirement to do so. This "I myself am not under the law" (אֵינֶנִּי כָּפוּף לַתּוֹרָה - μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμο&#957 is exactly what Paul meant, that he was not under any requirement to keep Torah - and, thus, he didn't. I still do not understand how this isn't clear from Paul's letters. He preached Jesus, not Torah.

My understanding is the the stuff in brackets is not Paul's but what a translator is putting his understanding into Paul's writings.

 

[yonah_mishael]

My understanding is the the stuff in brackets is not Paul's but what a translator is putting his understanding into Paul's writings.

Your understanding is wrong.

 

[yedida]

Maybe that's why Joseph Smith came up with his theology, that G-d has many wives.

(sorry, just finished reading a series about Mormons)

What's really funny, I thoguht of ol' Smitty too!! (and the twilght zone theme song fades away)

 

[visionary]

Your understanding is wrong.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

AMP: And [how you] look forward to and await the coming of His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead -- Jesus, Who personally rescues and delivers us out of and from the wrath [bringing punishment] which is coming [upon the impenitent] and draws us to Himself [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah].

Words inside [ ] indicates "Amplified" phrasing, words which are added to the text. First, note that the "coming wrath" is restricted by the added words ["upon the impenitent"]. The Greek text has

EK THS ORGHS THS ERXOMENHS (from the wrath, the coming).

There is nothing about the restriction of the wrath.

Exegete Reflections: Brackets and the Amplified Bible

 

[ContraMundum]

I would say that "under grace" means "under the power of God's grace." That's pretty obvious, too. I don't know why these phrases are under so much scrutiny. It's quite clear from Paul's writings what he meant. Christians are not "under the power of the law" (that is, they are not under the death penalty for disobeying it, and they are not under any compulsion at all to keep it) but "under the power of grace" (that is, that they depend on God's grace for their salvation and justification - and not on any deed that they can perform, since they cannot earn salvation and cannot be justified by their own deeds). This is repeated again and again in Paul's writings. "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16). "It is by grace you have been saved through faith... not of works so that no man could boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The way I understand it, anyone who would choose to live under the Torah would have to do as you have done - to reject Paul's writings. A choice has to be made: either choose to follow what Paul taught and not observe the law; or keep the law and reject Paul. I don't think that both can be done, despite the attempts of many within the Messianic Movement.

Agreed, but with the qualifier that the term "law" is used in more than one context in the NT.

 

[yonah_mishael]

1 Thessalonians 1:10

AMP: And [how you] look forward to and await the coming of His Son from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead -- Jesus, Who personally rescues and delivers us out of and from the wrath [bringing punishment] which is coming [upon the impenitent] and draws us to Himself [investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah].

Words inside [ ] indicates "Amplified" phrasing, words which are added to the text. First, note that the "coming wrath" is restricted by the added words ["upon the impenitent"]. The Greek text has

EK THS ORGHS THS ERXOMENHS (from the wrath, the coming).

There is nothing about the restriction of the wrath.

Exegete Reflections: Brackets and the Amplified Bible

I don't care what conventions they use to represent their inserted words, those words are in the original.

 

[Heber]

Agreed, but with the qualifier that the term "law" is used in more than one context in the NT.

Precisely

 

[yonah_mishael]

Agreed, but with the qualifier that the term "law" is used in more than one context in the NT.

Precisely

D'accord.

 

[visionary]

I don't care what conventions they use to represent their inserted words, those words are in the original.

I see that you are correct, the greek manuscript used does indeed have those words in it.

 

[Shimshon]

Originally Posted by Heber

Originally Posted by ContraMundum

Agreed, but with the qualifier that the term "law" is used in more than one context in the NT.
​

Precisely
​

D'accord.

So then, you three unanomously agree that Paul taught NOT to observe the Torah, to both Jews and Gentiles?

The way I understand it, anyone who would choose to live under the Torah would have to do as you have done - to reject Paul's writings. A choice has to be made: either choose to follow what Paul taught and not observe the law; or keep the law and reject Paul. I don't think that both can be done, despite the attempts of many within the Messianic Movement.

Are you three agreeing together that Paul taught anyone and everyone (Jews and Gentiles) not to observe the law?

That anyone who choses to 'live under Torah' as a Jew, would have to reject the preaching of Jesus? Since Paul preached Jesus as opposed to Torah observance (Judaism)?

This "I myself am not under the law" (אֵינֶנִּי כָּפוּף לַתּוֹרָה - μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμο&#957 is exactly what Paul meant, that he was not under any requirement to keep Torah - and, thus, he didn't. I still do not understand how this isn't clear from Paul's letters. He preached Jesus, not Torah.

Are you three in agreement that Paul taught that neither he nor anyone else is to observe Torah and be considered Jewish (required to keep Torah) after Jesus? If we follow Jesus we are no longer obligated, even as Jews, as proved by Yonah's example of Paul above? ie. Paul 'was' required to keep the law but after Jesus he taught that he and 'anyone' who followed Jesus was free as well?

You see, this is what I see you agreeing on. Do Jews become Christians and never the two will meet? Once you become Christian you loose your Jewishness (observance of law)? Paul was teaching that Jesus made him and the Gentiles free from the requirements of Torah observance (Judaism)?

I just want to make sure that my eyes are seeing what I believe is being said here.

Paul taught that once you become a Christian (believer in Yeshua Messiah) no one (anyone) is not required to observe the law? Paul taught 'anyone' not to observe the law?

The way I understand it, anyone who would choose to live under the Torah would have to do as you have done - to reject Paul's writings. A choice has to be made: either choose to follow what Paul taught and not observe the law; or keep the law and reject Paul. I don't think that both can be done, despite the attempts of many within the Messianic Movement.

Originally Posted by Heber

Originally Posted by ContraMundum

Agreed, but with the qualifier that the term "law" is used in more than one context in the NT.
​

Precisely
​

D'accord.

 

[yedida]

So then, you three unanomously agree that Paul taught NOT to observe the Torah, to both Jews and Gentiles?

Are you three agreeing together that Paul taught anyone and everyone (Jews and Gentiles) not to observe the law?

That anyone who choses to 'live under Torah' as a Jew, would have to reject the preaching of Jesus? Since Paul preached Jesus as opposed to Torah observance (Judaism)?

Are you three in agreement that Paul taught that neither he nor anyone else is to observe Torah and be considered Jewish (required to keep Torah) after Jesus? If we follow Jesus we are no longer obligated, even as Jews, as proved by Yonah's example of Paul above? ie. Paul 'was' required to keep the law but after Jesus he taught that he and 'anyone' who followed Jesus was free as well?

You see, this is what I see you agreeing on. Do Jews become Christians and never the two will meet? Once you become Christian you loose your Jewishness (observance of law)? Paul was teaching that Jesus made him and the Gentiles free from the requirements of Torah observance (Judaism)?

I just want to make sure that my eyes are seeing what I believe is being said here.

Paul taught that once you become a Christian (believer in Yeshua Messiah) no one (anyone) is not required to observe the law? Paul taught 'anyone' not to observe the law?

It does sound like that is what they are saying. And it does sound like that is what Paul taught.

But if I believe that, then I have to ask why Paul was so dishonest when James confronted him about the rumors going around. When James said he sure that what he was hearing was not true, why didn't Paul right there and then own up to the truth of the matter. He had an attentive ear. And his not correcting James was lying to James. Was he a liar?

But instead of saying that what James was hearing is true, he did what James suggested to prove that the rumors were false. That would have been mighty dishonest of him in my book. False impressions. Misrepresentation of himself.

He claims, when on trial, that he has done nothing against the laws, traditions and customs of his people. Is this true or is he once again openly lying?

It appears in Luke's narrative that there was at least one time in particular that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem at the time of the fast (which I conclude must be that at Yom Kippur). If he was not observing the Law, why would that particular fast hold any meaning for him? Why would he want to be in the City for that fast?

 

[SGM4HIM]

Well, it seems my first post on MJ forum has drawn unusual attention..
Would you mind going back and quoting where I had stated such.. As it
stands your post is in error..

I'm not sure what the problem is; I never used your direct quote.I used the term "seems to be saying". I was trying to give you support.. but here's a direct quote from you

"For though I am not under the law yet, I am not without the law. (The law of Christ)"

I was implying that although gentiles did not follow the Torah, that they still followed "the Law" of Christ. Another member had implied we "gentiles" would not be a pleasing bride to Christ.

Hope this helps clear the confusion.