Did Jesus and Paul have two different Ideas on sin and righteousness

[drich0150]

Before i get any more "No's" I know the answer is no, I'm asking that you help me prove it. I'm not the enemy here I'm just looking for answers.

Why was their so much difference between what Paul taught about sin and Righteousness, and what Jesus taught about sin and righteousness? On the surface they seem to contradict. (Mt 5 and Ro 7)

I am some what interested in your religious perspective, just know I am specifically asking for clear and concise scripture explaining the two seemingly opposite positions on sin. Not a hodge podge of verse fragments pieced together to support a religious theory. (Which is what I am currently saddled with.)

 

[Emmy]

Dear drich0150. I cannot believe that it is so, and would love to hear what exactly you mean. Mt 5 and Ro 7 are both long. I ask this with love, drich. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[MrPolo]

I agree. What exactly is the contradiction?

 

[Frogster]

Why was their so much difference between what Paul taught about sin and Righteousness, and what Jesus taught about sin and righteousness? On the surface they seem to contradict. (Mt 5 and Ro 7)

I am some what interested in your religious perspective, just know I am specifically asking for clear and concise scripture explaining the two seemingly opposite positions on sin. Not a hodge podge of verse fragments pieced together to support a religious theory. (Which is what I am currently saddled with.)

Because he had to go to the cross first,take the wrath of the law,Gal 3;13,die,and be raised,then the age of faith came.

Here shows transition.Now we live by faith.

Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Then we see the age of Spirit,which came after the age of law,in salvation history.

Gal 3;14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Then there are more verses about the Spirit putting the deads of the body,etc..Rom 8:13,and Gal 5:18.

 

[Dorothea]

Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit, chosen by Christ God. Why would he say or have a different idea than God, who was leading Him? Don't think so.

 

[drich0150]

Dear drich0150. I cannot believe that it is so, and would love to hear what exactly you mean. Mt 5 and Ro 7 are both long. I ask this with love, drich. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

I agree. What exactly is the contradiction?

If you look at Mt 5 Jesus is speaking of a righteousness found through works.

If you look at the majority of what Paul wrote it is to freedom we live apart from the Law. I believe that Ro 7 gives us the best insight to his understanding of this principle.

With respect I know Mt 5 and Ro 7 are both long but it is to the context in which those two messages were written that I speak. if I were to break it down specific verses I believe the point would be lost.

Just look at the contextual meaning of those two chapters and you will see a contrast.

I am simply asking for a biblical understanding of that contrast.

 

[drich0150]

Because he had to go to the cross first,take the wrath of the law,Gal 3;13,die,and be raised,then the age of faith came.

Here shows transition.Now we live by faith.

Gal 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Then we see the age of Spirit,which came after the age of law,in salvation history.

Gal 3;14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Then there are more verses about the Spirit putting the deads of the body,etc..Rom 8:13,and Gal 5:18.

...But wasn't Paul credited with the letter to Galatians? If so then how does this explain the differences between the teachings of Jesus and Paul?

If we were speaking of Joseph Smith rather than Paul, and I asked why their was a difference between the teaching of Joey and Jesus, and you referenced one of Joey's hand written verses.. would that give a Holy Spirit inspired explanation of why Jesus and Joey didn't see eye to eye on a specific topic? Couldn't one simply argue Joey purposefully arranged a doctrine that bridges the gap from Jesus's final words on the subject to the new direction he (Joey) wanted to take the church in? How would this not be true of Paul IF he decided to go off in his own direction?

Jesus knew of his up coming death burial and resurrection and He mentions it several times through out His ministry. Why doesn't He mention or even allude to the freedom from the Law, that Paul's Ministry speaks of? Or does He? If so where?

 

[drich0150]

Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit, chosen by Christ God. Why would he say or have a different idea than God, who was leading Him? Don't think so.

I think you misunderstood my point, and question. No where did I say the bible was in a contradiction, even though I used that word. I simply ask for an explanation of the apparent contradiction. I'm not looking for a yes or no answer I'm looking for scriptural proof (Specifically from the gospels or any non gospel recorded account of Jesus's teachings on the matter.)

Jesus makes it clear that we are to live by adhering to the law, and Paul makes it clear that we are free from the Law. Which is it and why?

 

[MrPolo]

Jesus makes it clear that we are to live by adhering to the law, and Paul makes it clear that we are free from the Law. Which is it and why?

Ah. Because the "law" can refer to either the OT ordinances or the moral law of the NT. Paul said the OT law could not save (i.e. sacrificing pigeons, cutting your hair a certain length, etc...). Jesus said the NT law can save (i.e. loving your neighbor, humbling oneself, etc...)

 

[drich0150]

Ah. Because the "law" can refer to either the OT ordinances or the moral law of the NT. Paul said the OT law could not save (i.e. sacrificing pigeons, cutting your hair a certain length, etc...). Jesus said the NT law can save (i.e. loving your neighbor, humbling oneself, etc...)

Specifically where in scripture is this division of the Law made?

In Mt. 5 Jesus Specifically states:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

To me this would indicate that there is no division between the moral law and the written code. Especially verse 18. Heaven and Earth are still here, so I would say it all still applies.

 

[Skipton]

Jesus and Paul?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John arent Jesus.

 

[Skipton]

Jesus and Paul?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John arent Jesus.
If you read the whole NT you see that the law is still valid for those who stick to the Old Covenant... Jesus was speaking to people rooted who only had the law at the time.

 

[MrPolo]

To me this would indicate that there is no division between the moral law and the written code. Especially verse 18. Heaven and Earth are still here, so I would say it all still applies.

I see how it can read that way at first glance. But remember when it says heaven and earth will not disappear until everything is accomplished means that all the things the OT foreshadowed will take place, every iota. Remember, the OT was but a shadow of the glorious things to come. Things done under the Old law are fulfilled in the new. He is not going to just do away with the prophecies or laws that point to the things of the New Covenant, but rather everything in the Old will find its fulfillment is what he's saying.

As St. Augustine wrote:

By the words “one iota or one point shall not pass from the Law,” we must understand only a strong metaphor of completeness, drawn from the letters of writing, iota being the least of the letters, made with one stroke of the pen, and a point being a slight dot at the end of the same letter. The words there shew that the Law shall be completed to the very least matter.​

That's what is meant by nothing shall disappear till everything's accomplished. Also you see when Jesus speaks of "these commandments" he just got done listing moral commandments. So He is not endorsing the entire OT law as still in effect to Christians.

The reason you know Paul is talking about OT ordinances in the middle of Romans is because as his example of a work of the law, he gives circumcision.

Finally, here's what St. John Chrysostom (ca. 380) said of Jesus fulfilling the Old Law:

Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways: 1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin? 2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. 3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xvi.)​

 

[drich0150]

Jesus and Paul?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John arent Jesus.

So according to this statement you are saying The accounts written in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not accurately represent the life, times, and teachings of Jesus the Christ? If the gospels do not accurately represent Jesus and His ministry here then How do you know of Him?

 

[drich0150]

Jesus and Paul?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John arent Jesus.
If you read the whole NT you see that the law is still valid for those who stick to the Old Covenant... Jesus was speaking to people rooted who only had the law at the time.

I have indeed stumbled my way through the NT a time or two. In my journey I did notice that Jesus (When speaking to people rooted in the Idea that the Messiah was a person who was to physically free Israel from Roman oppression.) He still spoke prophetically of His actual purpose, and His coming death burial and resurrection.

My question here is why did He take time to speak of all that He was to do, and not spend any time speaking about what this means for us? (Freedom from the Law?)

 

[drich0150]

I see how it can read that way at first glance. But remember when it says heaven and earth will not disappear until everything is accomplished means that all the things the OT foreshadowed will take place, every iota. Remember, the OT was but a shadow of the glorious things to come. Things done under the Old law are fulfilled in the new. He is not going to just do away with the prophecies or laws that point to the things of the New Covenant, but rather everything in the Old will find its fulfillment is what he's saying.

As St. Augustine wrote:

By the words “one iota or one point shall not pass from the Law,” we must understand only a strong metaphor of completeness, drawn from the letters of writing, iota being the least of the letters, made with one stroke of the pen, and a point being a slight dot at the end of the same letter. The words there shew that the Law shall be completed to the very least matter.
​

That's what is meant by nothing shall disappear till everything's accomplished. Also you see when Jesus speaks of "these commandments" he just got done listing moral commandments. So He is not endorsing the entire OT law as still in effect to Christians.

The reason you know Paul is talking about OT ordinances in the middle of Romans is because as his example of a work of the law, he gives circumcision.

Finally, here's what St. John Chrysostom (ca. 380) said of Jesus fulfilling the Old Law:

Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways: 1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin? 2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. 3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xvi.)
​

Outside of what these "saints" had to say, is there anything in scripture/Jesus had to say that supports their commentary?

 

[wayseer]

Why was their so much difference between what Paul taught about sin and Righteousness, and what Jesus taught about sin and righteousness? On the surface they seem to contradict. (Mt 5 and Ro 7)

What did you have in mind? I can see any number of theological differences. But I have no idea what you mean by 'religious' differences.

But to clarify one point - where does Jesus talk about 'sin and righteousness' in Matthew 7?

For that matter, where does Romans 7 talk about 'sin and righteousness?

My question here is why did He take time to speak of all that He was to do, and not spend any time speaking about what this means for us?

I guess this is your real question.

As evidenced by Paul, 'working out' what the legacy of Jesus' sayings meant took some time and effort. Jesus' role that of an eschatological teacher - Paul was a theologian.

 

[drich0150]

What did you have in mind?

As far as what?

I can see any number of theological differences. But I have no idea what you mean by 'religious' differences.

I don't know what you mean here either... I did not reference "religious differences" in my OP. Nor in anything else that you quoted.

But to clarify one point - where does Jesus talk about 'sin and righteousness' in Matthew 7?

Again I am at a loss.. I referenced Mt 5 and Ro 7

For that matter, where does Romans 7 talk about 'sin and righteousness?

Are you kidding? Show me where it doesn't.

I guess this is your real question.

As evidenced by Paul, 'working out' what the legacy of Jesus' sayings meant took some time and effort. Jesus' role that of an eschatological teacher - Paul was a theologian.

Actually no. And i do know what you were trying to say: Paul was a teacher of theology or the practical application of Jesus' teachings on last, death, final matters, the judgment, the future state, the second coming, etc.. If this where the case then Jesus's teachings should parallels Paul's teachings. As it is Paul speaks of Freedom/Righteousness from the Law, and Jesus speaks of righteousness found through the Law.

One of My questions directly asked is if Jesus' intent was to support a doctrine apart from the law then why did he not teach this? even if you wish to limit or box The Christ's role Here on Earth as solely a eschatological teacher, then surely you must see the matter of how one is to obtain righteousness through His death burial and resurrection, to be a matter that should be covered in His role as an eschatological teacher.

In fact if you look at the account found in Mt. 5 He does cover how one is to obtain righteousness. In this account, righteousness is found through the Law, and not apart from it. (As Paul teaches.)

 

[Deut 5:29]

Did Jesus and Paul have two different Ideas on sin and righteousness

In a word NO!

 

[drich0150]

In a word NO!

If possible, Show me Book chapter and verse please.