Jesus v Paul

[Grumpy Old Man]

While reading through the Gospels, I noticed that Jesus seemed to emphasize the importance of the Law and living a holy life. However, Paul essentially tells Christians to abandon the Law (because righteousness cannot be attained by it) and live by faith instead. Why is there this discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and Paul and how are they reconciled?

 

[drich0150]

While reading through the Gospels, I noticed that Jesus seemed to emphasize the importance of the Law and living a holy life. However, Paul essentially tells Christians to abandon the Law (because righteousness cannot be attained by it) and live by faith instead. Why is there this discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and Paul and how are they reconciled?

Christ Taught what He needed to teach, in order to full fill or complete the Law. In other words Christ made it impossible to obtain righteousness through our works and deeds. This is all condensed in Christ's teachings in Mt 5 in the sermon on the mount. Do not be mistaken In Christ's teachings He does point to the new covenant that was to be established after His death.

After The sacrifice Christ made, it changed the way righteousness was obtained.(which is a good thing because now we know no one can live out the law.) Paul's works expounds on these changes.

 

[gennaoanothen]

While reading through the Gospels, I noticed that Jesus seemed to emphasize the importance of the Law and living a holy life. However, Paul essentially tells Christians to abandon the Law (because righteousness cannot be attained by it) and live by faith instead. Why is there this discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and Paul and how are they reconciled?

consider whom Jesus was speaking to and what covenant they were under at the time, also consider what Jesus said, to love Father with all your heart and others as yourself, thus you fullfill the law, the new covenant is a love relationship. We love God because He first loved us.

 

[bling]

The Law was nailed to the cross, so jesus was still under the "Law" while he was alive.

 

[jehoiakim]

There is a totally different and interesting position on paul... the argument is called "A new perspective on Paul"... basically it explains that Paul was not anti-law, he himself observed it even after becoming a christian. He even took a Nazareth vow and made a sacrifice in the temple on behalf of others as evidence that he still placed value in the law. The end of acts he is on trial for breaking the jewish law and telling people to disregard the Torah, but Paul defends himself.

Paul was clear that the law does not save, it never saved, it was merely to illustrate that we are all fallen, but as Paul says because we are saved now should we continue in sin, God forbid... no. The argument against the law is often sited as what Paul said regarding circumscion. When it comes down to it, that seems to be the only law Paul was freeing anyone from.

there are some disagreements in "the new perspective on paul" camp, but it is an interesting subject to study. Right now I am reading a whole commentary of sermons on Galatians written from that perspective and it is quite interesting.

The Law was not nailed to the cross... Jesus said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Christians keep 90% of the Torah laws anyway, they don't keep the cerimonal, they moved the sabbath, and skip the feast says, but other then that they do encourage observance the law, not to save us, but because we want to follow Chirst

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

The Law was not nailed to the cross... Jesus said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Christians keep 90% of the Torah laws anyway, they don't keep the cerimonal, they moved the sabbath, and skip the feast says, but other then that they do encourage observance the law, not to save us, but because we want to follow Chirst

Yes, I remember reading those verses in which Jesus said specifically that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it.

The Law was nailed to the cross, so jesus was still under the "Law" while he was alive.

If Jesus didn't come to do away with the law then it (the law) still remains.

 

[solarwave]

While reading through the Gospels, I noticed that Jesus seemed to emphasize the importance of the Law and living a holy life. However, Paul essentially tells Christians to abandon the Law (because righteousness cannot be attained by it) and live by faith instead. Why is there this discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and Paul and how are they reconciled?

Live a good and holy life but realised that you are saved by God, not because you are such an amazing person.

 

[jehoiakim]

yes... but the law never saved anyone, the Jews were not saved by the law either, they were also saved by faith, Hebrews 11 is a good reference for that.

many of the laws cannot remain simply because there is no temple so sacrifices and ceremonial temple law are not possible, and the Sanhedrin does not exist to enforce cultural and civil laws. Many will say that Gentiles must only keep the Noahide laws, I'm not sure I am on the same boat as them. I try to keep the kosher laws, and as much of the torah as I can, not to earn anything, but simply because I am not convinced we are just supposed to abandon them. I am of the mindset that Paul and the Jewish council in Acts 5 (i think it was 5) were trying to help gentile coverts to slowly integrate into the community without being overwhelmed with laws and teachings they did not understand. I don't certainly don't think it is necessary to follow all those laws to be saved, but as Jesus says, if you love me you will obey my commandments

 

[razeontherock]

While reading through the Gospels, I noticed that Jesus seemed to emphasize the importance of the Law and living a holy life. However, Paul essentially tells Christians to abandon the Law (because righteousness cannot be attained by it) and live by faith instead. Why is there this discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and Paul and how are they reconciled?

Well, they are reconciled to be sure. And the reason we know they are reconciled, is because of why the Church accepted Paul:

he knew things he only could have known from Jesus Himself. So right away, there's a whole argument that "none of the writers of the NT ever had any contact w/ Jesus," right out the window.

Paul didn't just get lucky on this, either. Everything he contributed to the NT is established in the OT; he was just the first to see it, although it was all explained to those on the road to Emmaus with Jesus.

So the above we KNOW. After this, it gets trickier! One explanation I have seen, is that Jesus taught specifically to a certain time period, after law but before Grace. I don't like this idea but i cannot refute it solidly, and there is at least a little Scriptural backing for such a position so I won't speak against it.

I think a much better understanding comes along the lines of what you will find in the Messianic Jew's (MJ)sub-forum, and it seems to me this is an understanding that is still evolving. Paul never renounced law, he practiced it! The only (apparent) conflict is, WHY. And it is NOT for Salvation, or Life.

The MJ's that practice law with this in mind, as practice and conscience allow, seem to me to be on very solid ground. There are a few threads on this which use a lot of verbiage to try to illustrate the point, but I think Jesus said it best: He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.

As non-Jews we have a separate set of "laws" given to us to observe, as believers. Not nearly 613

 

[CryptoLutheran]

While reading through the Gospels, I noticed that Jesus seemed to emphasize the importance of the Law and living a holy life. However, Paul essentially tells Christians to abandon the Law (because righteousness cannot be attained by it) and live by faith instead. Why is there this discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and Paul and how are they reconciled?

Paul and the Law is one of the most complicated and most debated arguments in the Christian tradition.

In some cases it seems to sound as though Paul is saying the Law is wholly unnecessary in every respect and even harmful; in other places Paul sounds like he's saying the Law is good and must be obeyed.

Then, of course, there may be the debate as to what Paul means by "the Law" and if he means the same thing every time. Does Paul always mean the Torah or does he sometimes refer more generally to "Divine Law" and/or how do we navigate these?

Here's my perspective, and it is largely informed by the broad Christian tradition and Lutheran theology in particular:

Paul, with the conviction that he has been given a calling to preach Christ and the message of Christ (the Gospel) to the Gentiles is convinced that the Christian message and Christian vision is much bigger than it being a "Jewish thing". So largely the theological opponents he's facing are those who are saying that Christianity is fundamentally a "Jewish thing", i.e. to be a Christian one must become a Jew and participate in the Jewish Covenant and therefore become circumcised and fully Torah observant. In stark opposition Paul is convinced that God fully embraces and accepts the Gentiles as Gentiles.

God, through Jesus, has reached out and into the world and accepts both Jew and Gentile equally, and the Gentile can be a Gentile--uncircumcised, non-Torah observant and be a Christian, be a follower of Jesus, and reconciled to God.

That's crucial to Paul's theology, as Paul envisions Jesus' message and movement as uniting all disparate groups of people--Jews and Gentiles, circumcised and uncircumcised, civilized and barbarian, slaves and freemen, men and women (everyone)--into this new creation and kingdom which God is birthing into the world (i.e. the Church).

Because of this, Paul is adamant that Gentiles don't have to become Torah-observant in order to be part of this God movement, and goes to great lengths to argue that point and at times seems to speak with some level of exasperation and frustration (in Colossians, I believe, Paul in an outburst of frustration says of those who continue to insist that Gentiles have to be circumcised says, "They should just cut the whole thing off"). For Paul whether one has a bit of skin or not is, in what God has done and is doing through Jesus, is absolutely irrelevant. Not because what God did for the Jews, God's giving of Torah and circumcision to Israel was meaningless; but that this Jesus thing is much bigger and getting caught up in something like circumcision is totally missing the point.

But Paul is equally adamant that, because of the great universalization of the Jesus movement and vision, that Grace is what matters. That is, it's God's love and kindness extended toward the world through Jesus that is reconciling us, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with how good we act; God loves us unconditionally anyway, (e.g. "God demonstrates His love for us in that while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us." and "This is a trustworthy saying, Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners").

That's fundamental here.

Now Paul is saying all this after the fact. It's being said in the wake of the Jesus Event. Thus Paul is iterating Jesus and the meaning of Jesus for the sake of other Christians and Christian communities.

The Gospels are the bare Jesus Event--what Jesus taught and did, the story of Jesus and the message of Jesus as it is. Paul's writings are to specific people and communities, that means the proper application of the Jesus Event, the story and message and teachings of Jesus for communities of disciples of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings are absolute. And Paul is not in contradiction to Jesus, nor do his teachings overwrite Jesus. If Paul and Jesus contradict, then the solution would be simple: Jesus is Lord, Paul is not. Jesus' teachings trump Paul every time without question.

However, we don't view there being a contradiction, but rather Paul as interpreting and applying Jesus for actual living and breathing communities of Christians living out the daily grind of having to exist and apply Jesus to their lives day in and day out. That's what Paul is doing.

When Paul "criticizes" the Law, it's for the purpose of his theology of mercy, of emphasizing God's full embrace of all people equally in Jesus against certain theological opponents.

Jesus, as teaching about the Law, is simply saying that we should be faithful and obedient to God. Paul speaks of the Law in similar ways in his writings as well.

The Law was never abolished, contrary to the thinking of some Christians, rather:

1) Torah was never given for non-Jews. It is part of God's unique Covenant that He made with the Children of Israel at Mt. Sinai.

2) Torah was never given for salvation as Christians understand salvation. That wasn't the reason God gave Israel the Torah, that's not why He gave the Jews the Torah.

So, again, when Paul talks about the Law not being for Gentiles or it's inability to save, this is what he's talking about. He is not saying it was abolished, or that it's bad (he says the opposite many times in his writings).

Jesus, again, is teaching people to grow up spiritually, and as such being obedient to God is far more than simply the written mitzvot of the Torah.

These things are not in opposition to one another, but are in harmony with each other.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Well, they are reconciled to be sure. And the reason we know they are reconciled, is because of why the Church accepted Paul:

What if the Church accepted Paul in error? It can reasonably be argued that there are books in the Bible that shouldn't be there; Martin Luther himself is said to have disputed the inclusion of James, Jude and Revelation in the Protestant Canon. Modern Bible scholars have an excellent case against 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and some of the other books allegedly written by Paul.

I don't want to debate the Biblical Canon here; my point is that Paul's theology was in many places a lot different from what Jesus himself taught. What if Paul got it wrong? Ultimately, you're just trusting in the "wisdom" of those who jumbled the Bible together in the days of the early church.

Look at it this way; Jesus openly said he had not come to do away with the Law; many of his sermons were based on principles from the Law. Paul, on the other had, said the Law had been done away with. So who was wrong? If Jesus' intention was to abolish the Law after he died, why base his teachings on it, support it and emphasize several times that he had not come to abolish the Law? Wouldn't he be contradicting himself?

 

[bling]

If Jesus didn't come to do away with the law then it (the law) still remains.

Jesus completed the "Law" which is not to say it was "stopped", but there is no more to be done with the Old Law except as an example.

 

[drich0150]

What if the Church accepted Paul in error?

One of the same people who established the deity of Christ, documented the ordination of Paul as an Apostle of Christ. To Question Paul's Authority is to Question Christ's Deity.

What if Paul got it wrong?

Then it is up to God to forgive us or change what Paul established.

Ultimately, you're just trusting in the "wisdom" of those who jumbled the Bible together in the days of the early church.

Actually no. We are trusting that God is who He says He is, and Has the Power to give us his word and protect it from us, or from those like Luther who would change what he does not understand.

Look at it this way; Jesus openly said he had not come to do away with the Law; many of his sermons were based on principles from the Law. Paul, on the other had, said the Law had been done away with.

Never once did Paul say this. Paul repeatedly taught the importance of the law.

If Jesus' intention was to abolish the Law after he died, why base his teachings on it, support it and emphasize several times that he had not come to abolish the Law? Wouldn't he be contradicting himself?

No one is abolishing the Law. Christ took the law to it's intended "Fulfilled" end. (Read Mt 5) Now not only is it wrong to murder it is wrong to hate. Not only is it wrong to have sex outside the confines of marriage it is wrong to even want to, or like murder/hate you guilty of the same sin.. And on and on. Christ established that it is not possible to obtain the righteousness needed to enter Heaven by our actions.

Because even if our actions are good our thoughts/heart can still be corrupt. The Law is now complete in that not only our actions must be pure, but our hearts as well. Not mostly but absolutely, and completely. Meaning if their was one slip. if you went to the beach and took a double take at some woman, by this newly completed law you are no longer worthy of the righteousness it takes to get into heaven. This is what Christ taught.

Paul teaches that because the bar has been raised so high, we must look to obtain righteousness apart from the Law. This is found in the blood sacrifice Christ made for us. (The book of romans is key to understanding this.) As a result the faithful become free in Christ.

 

[razeontherock]

What if the Church accepted Paul in error?

my point is that Paul's theology was in many places a lot different from what Jesus himself taught. What if Paul got it wrong? Ultimately, you're just trusting in the "wisdom" of those who jumbled the Bible together in the days of the early church.

You have me addressing this in one way, and Crypto Lutheran addressing it in a very different way. We're both pretty thorough and therefore long winded, but let me briefly summarize that we each draw on very separate trains of thought to arrive at the same conclusion. This is significant!

We could address your concept of "those who jumbled the Bible together in the days of the early church." This is in error, but let's live to hash that out another day, eh?

The case I build for the subject at hand does NOT rely on this, at all! (And I'm pretty sure Crypto Lutheran's doesn't either) I state plain and simple, and very strongly, Paul does NOT differ from Jesus, neither does Paul make anything up himself, but it is all well-founded in the OT. That's quite a mouthful! And I back it up in a study in a thread I started, that I think I already linked. It's very involved, and goes into one very short passage Paul wrote in Ephesians 6 where he merely mentioned our breastplate of righteousness. If you read through even just my own posts that comprise the study, if nothing else you'll come away with more appreciation of the depth of Paul's words, who even Peter said wrote "things hard to be understood."

A side issue of all of that can come out of such a brief phrase Paul wrote, what would it take to really understand Paul's position?

Paul, on the other had, said the Law had been done away with.

No, he really didn't. He, as a Jew, practiced the Law, even after coming to Christ. I think others have given you specific citations demonstrating this. (It took me a while for this concept to sink in, too) Paul taught the difference between God's Covenant with the Gentiles (the whole world) vs Israel, when such first became available. This is what makes it so fitting that Paul is such an overwhelming contributor to the NT! He was the first to break down the meaning hidden in the OT, and make it understandable outside of Israel. And even if some of the books of the NT were not actually written by Paul, there is still every reason to see his own teaching communicated in those books that have been attributed to him. (As an aside, I do think it likely that Hebrews was not written by Paul, but by a very smart and learned woman)

 

[golgotha61]

Grumpy Old Man;58637792]What if the Church accepted Paul in error? It can reasonably be argued that there are books in the Bible that shouldn't be there; Martin Luther himself is said to have disputed the inclusion of James, Jude and Revelation in the Protestant Canon. Modern Bible scholars have an excellent case against 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and some of the other books allegedly written by Paul.

I don't want to debate the Biblical Canon here; my point is that Paul's theology was in many places a lot different from what Jesus himself taught. What if Paul got it wrong? Ultimately, you're just trusting in the "wisdom" of those who jumbled the Bible together in the days of the early church.

Look at it this way; Jesus openly said he had not come to do away with the Law; many of his sermons were based on principles from the Law. Paul, on the other had, said the Law had been done away with. So who was wrong? If Jesus' intention was to abolish the Law after he died, why base his teachings on it, support it and emphasize several times that he had not come to abolish the Law? Wouldn't he be contradicting himself?

The only verse where Jesus talks about abolishing the law is this: Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them." He says He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.



Paul talks about the Mosaic Law verses the law of faith in Romans chapter 3 and 4. In verse 31 of chapter 3 he says this: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Paul was not talking about abolishing the law, he was looking at the law being fulfilled as Jesus did in Matthew.

Paul was teaching as did Jesus that the keeping of the law cannot make one right with God. Righteousness is not accomplished by the Mosaic law but rather by the law of faith in Christ and His sacrifice that made atonement for our sins. Christ fulfilled the law of sacrifice of Leviticus since He is the final and never ending sacrifice and the law of death since He defeated death when He rose from the dead. The law of death is this: “the wages of sin is death”. Christ satisfied this law with His atoning death.

 

[TheGMan]

Jesus of Nazareth was not unambiguous about the Torah. At some points affirms it but at other times he is distinctly antinomian: Matthew 12 for instance. The interesting difference is not that Jesus affirms the Torah and Paul does not but how big a deal they think it is.

For Paul, Christian antinomianism is a big deal. He persecutes the Christians for it, then after his conversion he builds his theology around it. For Jesus, the Torah is not a theological absolute in the first place. He says, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard." Jesus's Torah is subject to revision and evolution. For Paul, there is only one, immutable Torah and his antinomianism means it has been overturned once and for all.

 

[razeontherock]

Paul was not talking about abolishing the law, he was looking at the law being fulfilled as Jesus did in Matthew.

The law of death is this: “the wages of sin is death”. Christ satisfied this law with His atoning death.

Great post! Let me just say that for clarity, the word "satisfied" that I bolded could be replaced with "fulfilled." Note that Jesus never explains to us in Scripture what it means to "fulfill the law." That's part of Paul's ministry.

And saying that Jesus fulfilled the law of sin and death in the same way that He fulfilled Torah is a wonderful example for us, explaining what this means. And if it's still not clear for the OP or anyone else, Scripture also gives us other ways of looking at it. Galatians 3:24 is a great one, and there are of course others.

Paul understood this better than anybody before him, and this sorta puts Peter and James to shame, IMHO. Paul alludes to this, graciously.

Gman, I can't go along with your post the way your last sentence reads, but I do think you have a lot to contribute on this subject! (How's the discussion on this very thing coming in the MJ's sub-forum?)