Paul and the Law: Solid Foundations

[Nazaroo]

Examining the Argument against
bondage to the Law

In my view, you can't sort out the issue of Grace vs Works, or Pacifism vs Self-Defence,
until you first sort out what Paul really said about the Law.

Here are the two opposing sets of scriptures that seem to support one extreme or the other as to Law versus Grace:

--- SCRIPTURES LUTHER INTERPRETED TO FAVOUR SALVATION BY GRACE ---

'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. (Gal.3:13)

'...having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.' (Col.2:14)

'...having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in
ordinances...' (Eph.2:15)

for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, engraved on stones, was glorious, will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? (2.Cor.3:6-8)

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2.Cor.3:17)

'Stand fast then in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed, I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You who are justified by the law have become estranged from Christ; you have fallen from grace. (Gal.5:1-4)

------- SCRIPTURES THAT WARN OF COMPLICATIONS FOR LUTHER ----

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. (Rom.3:31)

Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Rom.6:1-2)

Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then, shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin, unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. But thank God that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine into which you were delivered: And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Rom.6:14-18)

'Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, he will also reap.'(Gal.6:7)

--------------------------------------------
Here is the Recap of a basic and ancient Protestant argument:

The Old and New Covenants: The moral laws were true from the beginning and

are true-for-all-time principles. The Sabbath is not one of these true-for-all-time principles, and had to be given by revelation from God. The core of the Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments. They are all part of the Law which was done away with when Christ died. But the other nine Commandments are restated in some form and even intensified in the NT because they are moral laws, (true for all time), and so they remain valid. The Sabbath law is merely ceremonial, and the specific day is actually arbitrary, and so only the principle if anything may need keeping.

So what's wrong with this picture? It seems like a straightforward summary of the Christian position. It appears to explain in a tidy manner facts like Paul's leniency on the Sabbath keeping, and the apparent switch to Sunday by early Christians.

The Beginning of the Sabbath Controversy

The Sabbath controversy begins with Jesus Himself. The Sabbath was considered the jewel of the Ten Commandments. It was the proud centerpiece and the very sign of the covenant for Israelites (Ex 31:16-17). Jewish groups actually competed over how strictly it should be kept. (Mk 3:2). When the authorities ignored John the Baptist, (Mk.2:18/Lk.7:30) Jesus seems to have deliberately provoked them by publicly ministering on the Sabbath. (Mk.2:23-28) Jesus knew the value of public controversy. Yet in all this, Jesus never actually broke the Sabbath. (Heb 4:15) In fact, His speech shows He does not teach or encourage Sabbath-breaking either (Mk 3:4). He wished to restore the Sabbath to its true purpose, (Mk.2:27) and make it an easier burden again. (Mt 11:30) He seems to say that the Sabbath will not pass away till the end of time. (Mt.5:18f)

There is no real difficulty in all this. Although He angers extremists, Jesus' position on the Sabbath is moderate, in harmony with the OT and easily accommodated by Judaism at large. The problem was that the Pharisees had exaggerated the Sabbath to the neglect of more important commandments. (Mt.23:23) It had become a 'holier than thou' piece of ethnocentric acting which perpetuated racism and dishonored God. (Jn.8:49)

The real difficulty and also the irony begins with Paul. This trained Pharisee was a zealous Law fanatic and a persecutor of Christians. (Phil.3:5-6) He was an accomplice in Stephen's murder for allegedly speaking against the Law (a false charge: Acts 6:13,8:1). Defecting from his own party and claiming a vision, he appoints himself Apostle to the Gentiles. He then goes far beyond Jesus and every other Apostle and says, 'The Law cannot save, (Rom. 8:3) the Law brings death, (Rom 7:10), we are dead to the Law, we are not under the Law' (Gal 5:18). He then goes on to dismiss circumcision, to make holy days irrelevant and food laws optional. Keep in mind Paul is speaking primarily to gentiles, not Jews! If Jesus provoked the Pharisees, Paul provokes Jews, Christians, Pagans, and just about everyone! Paul's tactics and the publicity they score for Christianity are hardly accidental.

The Legal Dilemma

Paul's statements cannot simply be explained away. Paul seems to tell us that the Law is 'done away with'. (Col.2:14-15) Then in the same breath he demands we keep the law! (Rom.3:31,6:1-2) If this weren't confusing enough, he then proceeds to pick and choose which laws to keep. (Gal.5:2,Col.2:16-17) In what sense can we be free from the law if we have to keep it anyway? What can such talk mean? By what principle are some laws retained and others dismissed? And where does Paul acquire the authority to do this? No one can just take the rest of the NT and with mere reason arrive at Paul's unique doctrines. If these questions cannot be adequately answered, Christianity must abandon Paul.

Yet we can't just dismiss him as a heretic. He is after all, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Nor can we follow Paul and ignore the rest of the Bible. If we want to keep Paul, we must class his teaching as revelation, just as Paul himself claims! (Gal 1:16) But in order to assess Paul's revelation, we must correctly identify what is new in Paul, and what is common to and harmonizable with the rest of the NT. For that we must properly understand exactly what Paul actually says in detail.

Past Solutions to the Problem

In the past, Christian theologians made a distinction between the moral laws and ceremonial laws of the Bible. They used these categories to explain why we are still obligated to keep the Ten Commandments (the moral code), but not the sacrificial (ceremonial) laws. Later, other Christians carried this idea to its logical conclusion. The Sabbath, since it was one of the Ten Commandments, was part of the moral code and must be obeyed. More extreme groups insist not just on a strict day of rest, but on keeping the 'correct' day. This isn't just 'legalism'. Since the Sabbath is a day of remembrance, it is obviously rebellious to deliberately celebrate the 'wrong' day. (James 4:17) The OT actually singles out the Sabbath, yet not to make it lesser than the other Ten, but by underlining its solemn importance with an everlasting oath! (Ex 31:16-17) From this it is clearly unfair to just slam the Adventists for viewing the Sabbath as greatest of the Ten Commandments.

The Problem with Paul

Unfortunately for everyone, such a solution can't solve the Paul problem. It actually comes to a crisis with the Sabbath. Paul never separates the Ten Commandments from the other laws in his discussions, except to underline them as a symbol of the Old Covenant. (2.Cor 3) If this distinction is so important, why is it not clearly made? He also deliberately singles out the Sabbath and the Food Laws as optional, and flatly rejects circumcision entirely. (Col 2:16-17, Gal 5:2) There's a problem with this grouping too, since these laws are neither overtly ceremonial or sacrificial. In fact the common thread seems to be that these are the laws which distinguish Israelites or Jews from other nations.

We can now see why protestants reject the 'Sabbath Keeper' position in search of something that can better harmonize and blend Paul with the rest of the Bible. But is this ancient Protestant solution the best we can do?

 

[Nazaroo]

Paul's various meanings for 'the Law'

Paul uses the word 'law' with several different meanings. Whenever Paul uses the term 'the law' we must carefully identify what he is talking about, because it is not always readily obvious. While a lawyer might have no difficulty following Paul as he switches meanings four times in a single sentence, he often leaves ordinary readers bewildered as they try to pick up the thread of his arguments.

'For I delight in the Law of God according to the inner person,
yet I see another law among my parts, fighting against the law of my mind,
and bringing me captive into the law of sin, which is among my parts.' (Rom.7:22-23)

'...the law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ has
made me free from the law of sin and death.' (Rom.8:2)

We need to pause now and assess what we have here. These five laws of Paul are not subdivisions of the Law of God, i.e., the Ten Commandments, or moral vs. ceremonial. That is not relevant here. Paul is going in an entirely different direction. He is speaking of additional laws outside of and beyond the Torah. These 'laws' were never overtly spoken of before, yet according to Paul they are integral to salvation and essential to his explanation of it. Let's look at them again:

(1) The Law of God: This is the covenant of Moses, including and consisting of all the commandments. This law is good, holy and spiritual (Rom.7:12,14). One could in theory live by the law, (Rom.10:5) yet this law only exposes and arouses sin, and cannot save, but instead finds us all guilty. (Rom 3:20, 7:9-10, 8:3, 3:19) Its true purpose is to act as our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. (Gal 3:24)

(2) The Law of the Mind: This law is the light in all people (John1:9), enabling us to recognize and delight in the Law of God even without a written law. (Rom.2:14,7:22) Paul may also have been inspired here by Jesus adding the word 'mind' to one of the great commandments. (Luke 10:27)

(3) The Law of the Flesh: This law is independent of the mind. It is a 'law' in the sense of a motivating force, and identified with fleshly desire. (Rom 7:23) When we surrender to this power, and break the commandments, we serve and come under bondage to the Law of Sin. (Rom.7:25,6:6,16)

(4) The Law of Sin: This law has power over those who break the Law of God. In the OT this could be identified or associated with the 'curses' of the Law, or the punishments for lawbreaking, as opposed to the Commandments as such. Being under the law of sin means being under a death sentence. (Rom 6:21)

(5) The Law of the Spirit of Life: This law supersedes the Old Covenant, redeeming us from the curse of the law, and places us under grace. (Gal 3:13, Rom.6:14) We are assured that when led by the Spirit, we are keeping the Law of God. (Rom.8:4)



Sorting out Paul's Laws

Which of Paul's laws refer to the written commandments of the OT? Well, the laws of the flesh and mind are obviously not the written law. The law of the Spirit of Life, refers to the New Covenant and NT gift of the Spirit, and in the OT it is only a future promise. (Jer.31:31-33,Joel.2:28-32,Ezek.11:19) This leaves us with 1 and 4.

But Paul does not divide the Law into 'moral' and 'ceremonial':

The Law of God for Paul is the entire Torah. It includes commandments for all mankind (Rom.3:9) as well as punishments for lawbreaking (Rom 7:10), and it also includes the covenant with Israel along with promises and curses regarding national disobedience, i.e., covenant-breaking. (Rom.2:17,3:19) But the Law of God itself is not a curse, just because it contains punishments for sin. It is a delight. (Rom.7:22) .

The Law of Sin is that part of the law which only becomes active and has authority when the commandments and covenants are broken. These are the written punishments criminals receive, and also the curse Israel has fallen under. (Lev.26:14-45,Deut.28:15-68).

A Covenant with Death

The Law of God is by no means bondage, but once serious commandments are broken, the written punishments and curses become a bondage into death. The law can't save lawbreakers - it sends them into exile or it kills them! To fall under the curse is simple, but the Law itself provides no means to get back from curse to blessing. The law gives what must be done, (Deut.30:1-3) but not the power to do it. (Rom.8:3)

Paul on Christian Bondage and Freedom

We must take careful note of Paul's talk about bondage and freedom from law, covenant and sin. The reader can be excused for getting the false impression that we are no longer 'bound' by the law in the sense that we have to obey it. Yet Paul clearly thinks we are 'bound' to control our moral behaviour, (Gal 5:19-21) and we are even expected to bring 'every thought into captivity'! (2 Cor 10:5)

When Paul speaks of 'bondage' in a negative sense, he doesn't mean our obligation to keep the law, but bondage to sin. (Rom.6:16-18) Yet for Paul the metaphors of bondage are as useful as those of freedom in describing Christian status. (Rom.6:15-18)

Given this complex background, it is at best misleading to talk of Christians not being 'bound' by the moral law, or that somehow the Law of God is not 'binding' for us today.

 

[Nazaroo]

Along with this the modern reader naturally expects 'Law' to mean the actual laws and commands found in the OT, not some abstract philosophical or theological concept or metaphor. Yet in Paul this is not necessarily the case either.

The modern meaning of 'Under the Law'

Nowadays, when we say 'under the law', we mean obligated to obey it. For instance, when driving a car, we are under the traffic laws, and are expected to obey them. This is clearly what a modern person means when he says, 'We are not under the Mosaic legislation as a binding covenant.' and this is what modern readers understand by that expression.

But this is not the Biblical meaning of 'under the law' ! There is an equivalent expression for this concept, 'subject to the law' (Rom.8:7) Yet the underlying Greek is totally different for these two phrases.

Paul's meaning for 'Under the Law'

Remarkably, the phrase 'under the law' does not occur at all in the entire Old Testament! Nor is it found in any of the gospels, or Acts, or Revelation, or the Letters of Peter, John and James. It only appears in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and Galatians. That is, it is an idiom unique to Paul, possibly originating from his Pharisee background. Since it is a technical term invented or coined by him, we must look to Paul to explain the meaning for us. Thankfully, Paul provides the definition for us in Galatians:

'...the fruit of the Spirit is love, patience, loyalty, self-control...
If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law....
...because against these things there is no law.' (Galatians 5:18-23)

Paul clearly says we are not under the Law, because we are no longer breaking it, since the Spirit has led us out of what the Law condemns, and into what the Law approves! Paul's whole argument here would be pointless if the Law were actually canceled or simply no longer applied to Christians. In that case, he would have just said, 'you are not under the law, because the law is no longer valid.' The converse in this passage is equally clear: We are 'under the law' in Paul's sense, when we are under the Law of Sin, having done the works of the flesh, and having committed sin.

This is entirely different than the modern English phrase 'under the law'. The idea that we need not obey the commandments finds no support from Paul here. We certainly cannot arrive at Paul's meaning by applying modern idioms which are completely foreign to the text. We'll need Paul's own definition again to interpret other places where he uses the same expression. (ie.,Rom.6:14-15, 1Cor.9:20-21, Gal.3:23, 4:4-5, 21, 5:18) In Romans 3:19, 'under the law' may be okay, since the Greek actually says 'to those in the Law'. (en to nomon)

The Law? or just 'a law' ?

Romans 6:14-15 should read 'under a law'; (hupo nomon) the original Greek lacks 'the'. This probably means a law such as the one Paul is about to explain, the Law of Sin. 1st Corinthians 9:20-21 also seems to suffer from misunderstanding or translational bias. Here again 'the' is missing from the Greek in all three cases. Paul clearly distinguishes three kinds of people: (1). law abiding Jews, (2). those under a law (criminals), and (3). those without law (barbarians). While causing some commentators grief, this makes perfect sense given Paul's definition of 'under law' .


Confusing the Law with the Covenant

Paul adds to the confusion when he uses Jewish idioms to speak to gentiles in the first place, as in using the Greek word 'nomon', translated 'law'. In Paul's letters this should really be rendered 'Torah'. In any case Paul does not intend either the ancient Greek meaning or the modern civil one. For Paul 'nomon' can be the covenant, the commandments, the history of Israel, or any combination of these depending upon the emphasis or context. This idea is best covered by the Jewish word, "Torah".

Even though he uses 'law' everywhere, Paul obviously knows the difference between the covenant with the Jews, and the commandments which are for everyone. How else could he have waived the Sabbath, the circumcision, and the food laws for his gentile church and kept the others? These and these only are the unique marks of the covenant.

Yet these three laws alone are not the covenant either. A covenant is a consenting agreement or contract between parties. Expressions like The Law, The Testimony, The Ten Words, the Stone Tablets, and Mt. Sinai, are all freely used to symbolize the Covenant with Israel. This is precisely what Paul does in (2 Cor.3). The Tablets represent the covenant but they are not themselves the covenant. The covenant itself is the complete verbal agreement between God and Israel, mediated by Moses.

Some Christians try to equate the Covenant with the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments with 'the law' of Paul, in an attempt to show that the Sabbath has been 'nailed to the cross' and wiped out. (pg 174) The other commandments then somehow bounce back by the authority of being restated in the NT, because they are true-for-all-time' principles, which are self-evident. The Sabbath falls through the cracks because it is merely revelatory, ceremonial and arbitrary. But this explanation is completely artificial, and has the appearance of a cheap card trick.

In reality the commandments remain because they were never crossed out. There is no secret shuffle. Paul has been misunderstood by Luther, Calvin and some Protestants, and there is no hint of such magical thinking in the rest of the NT.

 

[nobdysfool]

The Law was fulfilled in Christ and by Christ. As we are positionally in Him by faith, joined to Him in Spirit, we are viewed by God as having kept the Law the same as He did. Christ fulfilled the law, He did not do away with it, or destroy it. He satisfied the requirements of the law, both for life, and for sin, having taken the penalty of the Law for sin on Himself in our stead, and rising from the dead since death could not hold Him, so that we might live in Christ beyond the reach of the Law, having died with Christ. Once the penalty is satisfied, there remains no more penalty, for those who are in Christ.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Law was fulfilled in Christ and by Christ. As we are positionally in Him by faith, joined to Him in Spirit, we are viewed by God as having kept the Law the same as He did. Christ fulfilled the law, He did not do away with it, or destroy it. He satisfied the requirements of the law, both for life, and for sin, having taken the penalty of the Law for sin on Himself in our stead, and rising from the dead since death could not hold Him, so that we might live in Christ beyond the reach of the Law, having died with Christ. Once the penalty is satisfied, there remains no more penalty, for those who are in Christ.

I have no disagreement with more of Paul's theology in its place and in the proper perspective, which is against the light of the rest of the NT and OT teachings and scriptures.

My only objection is the unrealistic teaching that Christians can now or could possibly break clear moral laws and commandments, and remain in the Spirit, and claim to be acting in the Spirit of God.

What Paul was doing was providing a way that apostate Jews of the diaspora could come out from the curse of the Old Covenant which they broke, and restore their connection to God. This is done in the NT by the offer of an AMNESTY, which necessarily implies stopping their current apostate activities, and returning to obeying the moral Law with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[nobdysfool]

I have no disagreement with more of Paul's theology in its place and in the proper perspective, which is against the light of the rest of the NT and OT teachings and scriptures.

My only objection is the unrealistic teaching that Christians can now or could possibly break clear moral laws and commandments, and remain in the Spirit, and claim to be acting in the Spirit of God.

Perhaps there are some that do such things, but they are wrong, as I think we both agree. Understanding that Christ took our place and is the fulfillment of the law in its entirety for us, should not be viewed as a license to sin. No one here would advocate such a position, that I know of. The great comfort that comes from knowing that we are beyond the penalty of the Law for sin, our sins having been covered by the Blood of Christ, is cause for thanksgiving and praise to the Father, that we have been freed to walk in Christ, and proceed from faith to faith, growing in Him unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

What Paul was doing was providing a way that apostate Jews of the diaspora could come out from the curse of the Old Covenant which they broke, and restore their connection to God. This is done in the NT by the offer of an AMNESTY, which necessarily implies stopping their current apostate activities, and returning to obeying the moral Law with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I'm unclear as to what you are saying here. Are you advocating keeping the commandments of the Law, such as holy days, foods, circumcision, etc? If so, I must disagree. It was decided in Jerusalem that no requirements would be put on Gentile believers other than to abstain from idols, fornication, and from things strangled and from eating blood. (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29).

 

[ghs1994]

The Law was fulfilled in Christ and by Christ. As we are positionally in Him by faith, joined to Him in Spirit, we are viewed by God as having kept the Law the same as He did. Christ fulfilled the law, He did not do away with it, or destroy it. He satisfied the requirements of the law, both for life, and for sin, having taken the penalty of the Law for sin on Himself in our stead, and rising from the dead since death could not hold Him, so that we might live in Christ beyond the reach of the Law, having died with Christ. Once the penalty is satisfied, there remains no more penalty, for those who are in Christ.

Great explanation in a nutshell. Why make the grace of God more difficult than it is in it's simplicity.

 

[mlqurgw]

Paul clearly tells us the purpose of the law, Gal. 3:19-25 and what the lawful use of the law is, 1Tim. 1:8-11. Believers need no outward set of rules to live by, they are written on their hearts.

 

[Sentry]

The Law was a covenant. That covenant was fulfilled and established and finished. There is no more use for it. We are partakers of a new covenant and our morality code is not set by letters on stone but by the Spirit in our hearts which leads us.

People are confused because if Christians do not murder or steal or commit adultery it is supposed they are then following the law. That is quite incorrect. A Swede who does not steal is not following the American law that prohibits stealing. He is following another morality code altogether. The same is true of the Law and the Spirit. When Christians follow the Spirit they do not murder or steal. This does not mean they are following or abiding by the Mosaic Law in any sense whatsoever. It means they are following the Spirit.

 

[nobdysfool]

The Law was a covenant. That covenant was fulfilled and established and finished. There is no more use for it. We are partakers of a new covenant and our morality code is not set by letters on stone but by the Spirit in our hearts which leads us.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:17-18)

 

[Nazaroo]

The great comfort that comes from knowing that we are beyond the penalty of the Law for sin, our sins having been covered by the Blood of Christ, is cause for thanksgiving and praise to the Father, that we have been freed to walk in Christ

For some reason my internet connection was acting incredibly slow, and this message was not completed. I wanted to comment on this verse but others have since continued the thread. I will continue discussion further down.

 

[Sentry]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:17-18)

That's right.

There is no more need for the covenant of the Law.

Do you not understand and require further clarification?

 

[nobdysfool]

That's right.

There is no more need for the covenant of the Law.

Do you not understand and require further clarification?

The Law is not done away. It has not passed away, but your argument says that it has. I think it's you who needs the clarification.

The law still stands, but we are not bound to it if we are in Christ, who fulfilled the requirements for us. In Him, we have fulfilled the Law. All of it. It will be the judge of all who are not in Christ.

 

[Nazaroo]

Understanding that Christ took our place and is the fulfillment of the law in its entirety for us, should not be viewed as a license to sin. ...The great comfort that comes from knowing that we are beyond the penalty of the Law for sin...

Agreed. And note your own words here: We are beyond the penalty of the Law (if we abide in Christ and obey HIS commandments now), NOT the Law itself, which still stands,since Christ's commandments are complete and new 'wineskins' for the Law in its original Spirit. (i.e., Love the Lord...& Love your Neighbour).

I'm unclear as to what you are saying here. Are you advocating keeping the commandments of the Law, such as holy days, foods, circumcision, etc? If so, I must disagree. It was decided in Jerusalem that no requirements would be put on Gentile believers other than to abstain from idols, fornication, and from things strangled and from eating blood. (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29).

A fair question that deserves more clarification:

(1) Unbelievers (non Christians) remain under the Law. ...as you mention in another post. They have no access to the special priviledge of truly regenerate and faithful Christians. Only those who 'received Him were given the authority to become the children of God' (John 1:1f)

(2) The 2nd group still under the Old Covenant are non-Christian Jews (and since they broke the Covenant remain under the Curse of the Law) . They awaited the salvation from the curse, which came in Christ, but only some accepted the New Covenant. Even those who accepted the New Covenant under the Messiah were NOT instructed to no longer keep the Law. They remained Jews and those who were not apostate (the loyal remnant God reserved) remained entitled to the full benefits of the Old Covenant also. James and the Jewish church represent this group.

(3) As you mention in the above quote, Gentiles did not have to become Jews or enter the Old Covenant to have access to the New Covenant. They went straight past Go, but Gentiles are however still required to keep a simplified form of the food laws and idolatry laws under James' authority in order to have fellowship with Jewish Christians. This is by your own admission.

These observations clearly show that the Law is alive and well for many people.

As Paul would say, the Law was NOT nailed to the cross. Only the CURSE of the Law was nailed to the cross, FOR CHRISTIANS.

Paul clearly tells us the purpose of the law, Gal. 3:19-25 and what the lawful use of the law is, 1Tim. 1:8-11. Believers need no outward set of rules to live by, they are written on their hearts.

Your two statements here are unrelated, and the 2nd statement is false.
Let's see why:

(1) of course we have permission to use the Law lawfully.

(2) The Law still has a purpose. And its full purpose could fill a commentary.

(3) Believers are to be a Light to the World. We cannot even be recognized as a Light to the World without a previously existant and recognized independant standard, namely, the Ten Commandments.

(4) The ancient pedigree and universal application of the Ten Commandments is the only possible standard that could even be considered to measure Christian behaviour against. Only this list will be accepted by Christian, Jew, and even Muslim as an objective test of righteousness.

(5) And only righteousness, and the plain appearance of righteousness will ever be accepted as legitimate evidence of Christian claims to Jew and Gentile alike.

No Muslim will accept idolatry or polytheism,
no Jew can accept desecration of the Sabbath,
no parent will approve of their dishonour,
no husband or wife will tolerate adultery,
no worker or owner can cheer theft,
no peaceful person will welcome murder,
no one anywhere can trust a covetous person.

By these standards a Christian will be judged by others, whether his own doctrine submits to it or not. And no useful Christian witness can hope to reach or evangelize anyone while committing these crimes.

And so we find Gentiles, Jews, and Christians all still under the Law in the most practical and powerful way. Christians may convince each other they aren't 'under the Law' but that will have to remain a family secret. It is not a doctrine anyone else can interpret as anything but foolishness.

 

[cygnusx1]

I have dewlt on this subject for many years , just recently it has come to my mind that there have always been two ways of living , symbolised by two trees in Eden.


The tree of the knowledge of good and evil : THE LAW

The tree of Eternal Life : GRACE


These two 'trees' exist for every person and the unwise still want to eat from the first tree .

The Law endures to the end , but not for the Children of God ........... they have no need to pay taxes to their Father , their standing is different.

 

[vincejohn]

As Paul said '' If by MY LIE the gospel is preached why do people talk against me '' paraphrase .The great lie he is talking about was his contact with God. In one testimony he says that the people with him heard the voice and then in another part he says the people with him heard no voice. Is this scripture of God or of the man Paul.
'' To enter life keep the commandments'' NT
'' And the dragon pursued the church who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus'' REV
Pauls teachings are not perfect and they are not of God. He is a confused man that left the 12 true Apostles. He is not even an Apostle. His teachings fight against the 12 true Apostles. Paul established corrupt organised religion once again with evil disasterous consequences, the inquisition, persecutions, the grace of God turned into lawlessness. No wonder the 12 Apostles abandoned him to his own devices. Dont tell me he died for his beliefs.Terrorists are dieing for theirs also. A muslim once told me on the net that he didnt become a follower of Jesus because of the tossed as a wave teachings of Paul, the great hypocryte, teaching not to circumcise then next minute doing it to Timothy. Paul the false Apostle and cameleion.

 

[mlqurgw]

As Paul said '' If by MY LIE the gospel is preached why do people talk against me '' paraphrase .The great lie he is talking about was his contact with God. In one testimony he says that the people with him heard the voice and then in another part he says the people with him heard no voice. Is this scripture of God or of the man Paul.
'' To enter life keep the commandments'' NT
'' And the dragon pursued the church who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus'' REV
Pauls teachings are not perfect and they are not of God. He is a confused man that left the 12 true Apostles. He is not even an Apostle. His teachings fight against the 12 true Apostles. Paul established corrupt organised religion once again with evil disasterous consequences, the inquisition, persecutions, the grace of God turned into lawlessness. No wonder the 12 Apostles abandoned him to his own devices. Dont tell me he died for his beliefs.Terrorists are dieing for theirs also. A muslim once told me on the net that he didnt become a follower of Jesus because of the tossed as a wave teachings of Paul, the great hypocryte, teaching not to circumcise then next minute doing it to Timothy. Paul the false Apostle and cameleion.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Nazaroo]

Pauls teachings are not perfect and they are not of God.

I beg your pardon. Paul never promised you a rose garden!
Paul didn't claim to be perfect: one of his doctrines was that nobody's perfect.

Do Paul's teachings have to be perfect, or even complete, for them to be 'of God'?
No. I don't think this thesis can be maintained. The story of Jesus is not perfect, i.e., complete, according to the gospel of John. (John 21:25)
Paul admitted his own understanding, knowledge and teaching was incomplete.
But so did Peter and John. No qualitative difference in inspiration has been shown by you, and I doubt any qualitative difference can be maintained.

He is a confused man that left the 12 true Apostles. He is not even an Apostle. His teachings fight against the 12 true Apostles. Paul established corrupt organised religion once again with evil disasterous consequences, the inquisition, persecutions, the grace of God turned into lawlessness. No wonder the 12 Apostles abandoned him to his own devices.

If the contest is between Paul and the other 12 apostles, well you are completely out of luck.

There is no plausible evidence that any of the 12 apostles wrote a gospel (complete or incomplete), or even a series of letters approximately the size of Paul's collected writings. Only James wrote one letter, and Peter apparently one or two short letters. There just isn't enough material to even do a proper comparison of doctrine. James letter is just a list of proverbs on ethics. The only doctrine he touches upon is that good faith produces works. Peter provides some domestic advice.

What body of literature or oral tradition are you going to draw from,
in order to demonstrate what the other apostles thought and taught?

... A muslim once told me on the net that he didnt become a follower of Jesus because of the tossed as a wave teachings of Paul, the great hypocryte, teaching not to circumcise then next minute doing it to Timothy. Paul the false Apostle and cameleion.

For your information, Paul recommended non-Jews not be circumcised.
Timothy was a Jew by birth. The confusion is your own.

Wow. An outsider committed to another major religion (and its stand against Judaism and Christianity) told you he refused to convert to Christianity because Paul was confusing.

That would be like refusing to immigrate to England, because I didn't get the jokes in Shakespeare's 'Taming of the Shrew'.

I think you are that 'muslim'. Why not come clean?

 

[Nazaroo]

Part of the reason people like the previous poster think Paul is some kind of evil saboteur who hijacked Christianity, is that people present Paul as a lawless teacher.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The Law is not done away. It has not passed away, but your argument says that it has. I think it's you who needs the clarification.

The law still stands, but we are not bound to it if we are in Christ, who fulfilled the requirements for us. In Him, we have fulfilled the Law. All of it. It will be the judge of all who are not in Christ.

Right-O

Romans 3:19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


The Law is still in effect for those who are under the Law, which Paul says later in Romans, "makes sin exceedingly sinful".

The Law condemns all as guilty. Christ's keeping the Law in our stead, and applying His Righeousness to our account makes us not-guilty in the eyes of God.