The LAW Paul vs. Jesus

[miknik5]

And all need the RIGHT GARMENT, or they can't come to THE WEDDING

(Matthew 22)

 

[miknik5]

I owe you an apology ding ding. I thought your name was ding dong


I am going back to correct this

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I guess I wonder if you think God's law was perfect (although I see you believe it was incomplete and I agree) such that disobeying it would be to si and how that applies to us today?

You've asked a lot of questions and you've received a lot of answers. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question now.

What kind of answer do you think would satisfy your wonderment on this issue?

 

[SkyWriting]

Hey it's the atheist again asking a question that came up in my bible study group this week (yes it is a Christian bible study group).

We were talking about how to harmonize Paul and Jesus and we got to talking about obeying the ot law.
Our group was split with some saying that Jesus intended his injunction to follow all the ot laws for Jews only and others saying it should be read to apply to all believers (although not as a salvation issue)

What says you? What are your most compelling arguments for each interpretation and where do you come down?

Paul was chief of all sinners and his ego created some poorly
worded edicts upon church members.

 

[Sketcher]

I see no conflict between Paul and Jesus, personally. When Jesus gave us Matthew 5:18, he was speaking to a Jewish audience. Moreover, the Law itself doesn't say it is for everybody, but rather for the Jewish people. This is a major reason why Jews generally don't evangelize and teach that everyone must follow the whole Law. Their emphasis is on themselves and other Jews.

 

[Athée]

You've asked a lot of questions and you've received a lot of answers. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question now.

What kind of answer do you think would satisfy your wonderment on this issue?

That is a great question (and of course you are welcome to ask ). I would say what I am looking for is at the very least an internally coherent one, which deals consistently with all the relevant passages.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I would say what I am looking for is at the very least an internally coherent one, which deals consistently with all the relevant passages.

C'mon Athee. You can do better than that. Give us the same detail and effort that you'd like from us when answering your questions.

 

[miknik5]

Paul was chief of all sinners and his ego created some poorly
worded edicts upon church members.

1 Timothy
15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting


There was more to his declaring himself chief of sinners

"Howbeit for this cause" means that althiugh, but
And for this cause is referring to his being chief of sinners (something that declaring (according to THE GOSPEL) is not an ego booster at all)

Being a chief sinner, he, being chief of sinners, was shown mercy

 

[miknik5]

Paul was chief of all sinners and his ego created some poorly
worded edicts upon church members.

1 Timothy 1 is not poorly worded and in fact discusses that the law is good if used properly. That the law was not made for the righteous not for sinners of which Paul considered himself chief sinner

The LAW keeps in check anything contrary to sound doctrine according to THE GOSPEL

(All this is discussed in 1timothy 1

But when we say the Law is not for the "righteous" of course one would have to read Paul's letter to the Romans to understand what the HOLY and PURE and PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS of GOD is

It wasnt the Law
It is faith in CHRIST ( which Paul greatly, and without reserve, professed)

 

[mark kennedy]

That is a great question (and of course you are welcome to ask ). I would say what I am looking for is at the very least an internally coherent one, which deals consistently with all the relevant passages.

I think it would help if you differentiated between the 'holiness code' and the Decalogue (Ten Commandments). Some of the externals can reform and revise over time but the one reflecting God divine attributes are eternal:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)​

God can manifest different ways but divine nature won't, his prescriptions and methods can reform as circumstances change.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Look Up]

Why not just obey all of the law with the exception of things that are now impossible or which have been revised by Jesus?

At some level, I suspect your above question has no small merit. At least it is similar, if memory serves, to ones I have asked myself in the past. The present form of the question however depends on the meaning of "possible/ impossible to obey" (if you will), which seems patient of too many options (e.g., what is possible politically) and likely rabbit trails not to ask for clarification or narrower focus (by way of illustration?) at this stage. And apparently whatever the focus, one must ask on what theological or philosophical grounds possibility/ impossibility (of obedience) is chosen as rationale for obedience. Is ethical pragmatism a presupposition here? And the way Jesus "revises" the old law may also impinge on what is meant by possible/ impossible to obey.

In any case, I am also having a hard time at present imagining a response from my perspective that would not be substantially redundant of my past posts on this thread: The NT does not seem to encourage the direction your question seems headed where the NT's subject matter would make your question's direction natural--granting also that my own questions on the matter remain from the vantage point of my own reading of the NT/Bible.

P.S. I am impressed by your willingness to engage the number and variation of perspectives and the depth to which you engage them on this thread--perspectives given in response to your OP question, a question I think important for understanding the grounds of Christian ethics.

 

[expos4ever]

What says you? What are your most compelling arguments for each interpretation and where do you come down?

I believe both Paul and Jesus believed that, as of the cross, no one - neither Jew nor Gentile - was supposed to follow the Law. To keep things short, and because your question appeared to focus on Jesus, I will say a few things about why I believe Jesus intended that no one follow the Law.

I begin by challenging what would appear to be a rock-solid argument that Jesus certainly believed that the Law would endure to the end of time (and that, therefore, at least somebody needs to follow it). In Matthew 5, Jesus declares that the Law will last "until heaven and earth" pass away. What most people do not know, uneducated as we are about the culture of Jesus' world, is that such "end of the world" language was often used as a literary device. In short, to say "the law will last to the end of the world" could be a way to say "the law will last until there is a radical change in the social / political cosmic order". And while I do not have the time now to make the relevant arguments, I believe that change happens at the cross.

There are other reasons to believe Jesus teaches that the time of following the OT Law was coming to an end:

1. Jesus declares Himself to the be "the true temple" and thereby effectively declares the Jerusalem temple obsolete. Well, the Temple was absolutely central to the Law of Moses. How could the Law continue without it.

2. Jesus clearly overturned the food laws in Mark 7 and its parallels (people dispute this, of course, and make awkward and unworkable arguments that Jesus was only challenging Pharisaical additions to the Law).

3. Jesus challenged the Sabbath (again, of course, people argue over this).

Enough for now, perhaps more later.

 

[Ken Rank]

Hey it's the atheist again asking a question that came up in my bible study group this week (yes it is a Christian bible study group).

We were talking about how to harmonize Paul and Jesus and we got to talking about obeying the ot law.
Our group was split with some saying that Jesus intended his injunction to follow all the ot laws for Jews only and others saying it should be read to apply to all believers (although not as a salvation issue)

What says you? What are your most compelling arguments for each interpretation and where do you come down?

All believers but not a salvation issue.

When it comes to Paul, we in the west in the 21st century lack necessary context. Unlike what some teach... that context is the verse before and after... context is ANYTHING that effects or influences the writing. So, if Paul us using various rules of exegesis in his writing.... and we don't recognize that, we are not getting all God has for us in Paul's words. If Paul is using certain Hebraic idioms or other abstract phraseology unique to that time and place, and we are not taught how to recognize it, again, we leave food on the table. If we read only in English and assume that we have "exactly" in English what is found in Hebrew or Greek, we leave food on the table. If don't have a clue that there were two schools of Pharisees (one letter of the law and one spirit of the law) and that one was rebuked by both Yeshua and Paul in EVERY instance but once... we leave food on the table. If we don't understand that there is a difference between God's Law and Jewish Law and don't understand when Paul is talking about one and not the other, we leave food on the table. Yeshua and Paul are not in conflict, ever. What is conflict is when those who don't have the context and who were raised in a religious culture that gives facts and not methods to discern facts... read Paul... they come away with an anti-law zealot (though they won't call him that) and are forced to have Yeshua follow in Paul's footstep despite his words making it clear that the law was not done away with. Context rules and we don't know how to find it or use it and that is the issue here. IMHO

 

[Look Up]

In Acts 10:28, we have another example of a reference to an oral law that is not found anywhere in God's Law, and is in fact contrary to it (Leviticus 19:34).

Would not the social and canonical contexts of Lev. 19:34 in effect have implied the goy "sojourner" in question would either have been a proselyte or at least submissive to the Mosaic laws of the land to the extent that such person would knowingly and consistently have avoided causing native Israelite neighbors and associates to become unclean by means of transference via the goy sojourner himself (at least after a probationary period as a novice talmid of sorts)?

And is not the social and religious context of Acts 10:28 chiefly concerned with Jewish social interaction with goy members of an occupying nation over which Jews in many cases had insufficient authority to ensure at least such minimal compliance with Mosaic cleanliness laws as (per the above) assumed in Lev. 19:34?

Granted at least, your above claim constitutes a warning, and very likely in individual cases outside the Peter-Cornelius events, your point is well made (cf. "the good Samaritan" pericope). But can we wholly separate observance of actual Mosaic cleanliness laws from mere oral tradition (cf. Jubilees 22:16) in Peter's Acts 10:28 concern? How far with respect to Mosaic cleanliness laws can we press Cornelius's (and his household's) reputation among Jews prior to Peter's "sheet with animals" vision (of Acts 10)?

In regard to justification, it is that it is important to understand that the Mosaic Law was never instructed for the purpose of becoming justified.

Granting as you write that "living by faith has always been about trusting God enough to live in obedience to His commands," was "the purpose" the Law was "instructed" for the one who lives by such faith mutually exclusive of another "purpose of" the Law as "so that the sin might increase" (Rom. 5:20), notably among those who do not have faith, but who rather seek their own justification by works of the Law? There is also a difference, is there not, between Adonai's purpose(s) of the Law and the purposes of the people who profess to observe the Law in their use of the Law. Granted, "the Mosaic Law was never instructed [by Adonai] for the purpose of becoming justified [esp. in Rom. & Gal. sense]" if I understand you aright. I think of Isaiah, who was called to prophesy "lest they ... understand with their hearts and turn and be healed" (Isa. 6:10, cf. John 12:38-40).

 

[SkyWriting]

But when we say the Law is not for the "righteous" of course one would have to read Paul's letter to the Romans to understand what the HOLY and PURE and PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS of GOD is

It wasnt the Law
It is faith in CHRIST ( which Paul greatly, and without reserve, professed)

I wouldn't do that, becasue I am convinced Paul was not a good source.

 

[Athée]

I believe both Paul and Jesus believed that, as of the cross, no one - neither Jew nor Gentile - was supposed to follow the Law. To keep things short, and because your question appeared to focus on Jesus, I will say a few things about why I believe Jesus intended that no one follow the Law.

I begin by challenging what would appear to be a rock-solid argument that Jesus certainly believed that the Law would endure to the end of time (and that, therefore, at least somebody needs to follow it). In Matthew 5, Jesus declares that the Law will last "until heaven and earth" pass away. What most people do not know, uneducated as we are about the culture of Jesus' world, is that such "end of the world" language was often used as a literary device. In short, to say "the law will last to the end of the world" could be a way to say "the law will last until there is a radical change in the social / political cosmic order". And while I do not have the time now to make the relevant arguments, I believe that change happens at the cross.

There are other reasons to believe Jesus teaches that the time of following the OT Law was coming to an end:

1. Jesus declares Himself to the be "the true temple" and thereby effectively declares the Jerusalem temple obsolete. Well, the Temple was absolutely central to the Law of Moses. How could the Law continue without it.

2. Jesus clearly overturned the food laws in Mark 7 and its parallels (people dispute this, of course, and make awkward and unworkable arguments that Jesus was only challenging Pharisaical additions to the Law).

3. Jesus challenged the Sabbath (again, of course, people argue over this).

Enough for now, perhaps more later.

Thanks for chiming in, I like a lot of what you presented here but I find that first argument lacking. While it could be hyperbolic language it seems really strained to me to interpret it to mean what happened at the cross. Perhaps you could make a case for it being a reference to the return of Jesus at the end but that doesn't solve our problem today. Maybe you could make the case for that initial argument in more detail, to support your interpretation of what Jesus said?

 

[Athée]

All believers but not a salvation issue.

When it comes to Paul, we in the west in the 21st century lack necessary context. Unlike what some teach... that context is the verse before and after... context is ANYTHING that effects or influences the writing. So, if Paul us using various rules of exegesis in his writing.... and we don't recognize that, we are not getting all God has for us in Paul's words. If Paul is using certain Hebraic idioms or other abstract phraseology unique to that time and place, and we are not taught how to recognize it, again, we leave food on the table. If we read only in English and assume that we have "exactly" in English what is found in Hebrew or Greek, we leave food on the table. If don't have a clue that there were two schools of Pharisees (one letter of the law and one spirit of the law) and that one was rebuked by both Yeshua and Paul in EVERY instance but once... we leave food on the table. If we don't understand that there is a difference between God's Law and Jewish Law and don't understand when Paul is talking about one and not the other, we leave food on the table. Yeshua and Paul are not in conflict, ever. What is conflict is when those who don't have the context and who were raised in a religious culture that gives facts and not methods to discern facts... read Paul... they come away with an anti-law zealot (though they won't call him that) and are forced to have Yeshua follow in Paul's footstep despite his words making it clear that the law was not done away with. Context rules and we don't know how to find it or use it and that is the issue here. IMHO

So what parts of the law do you currently believe Christians should be adhering to (out of obedience, not for salvation)?

 

[Athée]

All those who try obey the written ten commandments will perish but those who are in Christ will live forever.

2 Corinthians 3;
14: But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
15: Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;
16: but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed.
17: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

It's the Spirit that gives life, not some written commandments.

It seems to me that what you cited here is still consistent with the idea that believers should obey the ot laws out of obedience but not as a salvation issue. Read in this light the above verse could be understood as saying that if you obey the law without understanding the God behind it, you are blind and have no life. If you read the law but recognize the God behind it you have life in the spirit.
Do you have other reasons for believing that Christians should not obey the ot laws?

 

[Ken Rank]

So what parts of the law do you currently believe Christians should be adhering to (out of obedience, not for salvation)?

Whatever we can under the conditions we are in. Beyond just not stealing, killing, honoring parents (etc.) I think it is possible to refrain from things God never called food (bottom dwelling poop eaters, pork, etc.)... rest on the 7th day, enjoy the others days He set apart and called holy (Passover, First Fruits, Trumpets, etc.) and so forth. These are things Yeshua did, he is supposed to the model we follow, so as best I can I do these things. If I mess up somehow I fear not as I have an advocate in him.

 

[Ken Rank]

The Jews who tried to obey the ten commandments did not succeed because they didn't understand the King was an invisible spirit and not some words written in a book to obey. The invisible Lord is the King and Savior, not some visible words or visible man.

Not at all... they didn't succeed because they were incapable of keeping the law on their mind and heart (as commanded) on their own. So, that is why God is doing just that... writing it on the mind and heart as the mark of the New Covenant and as a major aspect of the perfecting process.