The LAW Paul vs. Jesus

[Athée]

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?

 

[brightlights]

Dog ear this. I'll come back later today.

 

[bcbsr]

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?

Both Paul and Jesus utilize the Law and arguably for the same reason. Paul clarifies the usefulness of the law in the following verses:

Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Gal 3:24,25 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Thus in his presentation of the gospel in Romans we note his utilization of the law in the first two and a half chapters of Romans to convict people of sin.

The idea is that people don't need a Savior if they can simply save themselves by not sinning.

Gal 3:21,22 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Likewise Jesus used the Law to convict people of sin so that they might abandon their reliance on the Law to justify them and opt for himself to be their Savior (and not merely a teacher)

Mark 10:
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good— except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’"

And yet he also said, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24

So both in the case of Paul and Jesus you'll hear these two seemingly contradictory messages in their presentation of the good news. The explanation is that they're utilizing the law to open people up to receiving the grace of God, the free gift of eternal life, though faith apart from works.

 

[Athée]

Both Paul and Jesus utilize the Law and arguably for the same reason. Paul clarifies the usefulness of the law in the following verses:

Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Gal 3:24,25 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Thus in his presentation of the gospel in Romans we note his utilization of the law in the first two and a half chapters of Romans to convict people of sin.

The idea is that people don't need a Savior if they can simply save themselves by not sinning.

Gal 3:21,22 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Likewise Jesus used the Law to convict people of sin so that they might abandon their reliance on the Law to justify them and opt for himself to be their Savior (and not merely a teacher)

Mark 10:
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good— except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’"

And yet he also said, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24

So both in the case of Paul and Jesus you'll hear these two seemingly contradictory messages in their presentation of the good news. The explanation is that they're utilizing the law to open people up to receiving the grace of God, the free gift of eternal life, though faith apart from works.

Thank you for your insights

It seems to me that your response is a useful sidestep of the central question in that I was asking if non Jews are required to continue to obey the other law (why or why not), whereas you are helpfully describing the purpose of the law. I think I agree that we can harmonize the two as you suggest, to the extent that in both cases the law serves as a standard that we fail to achieve pointing to a need for God. That said, harmonizing their views on one purpose for the law is not the same as taking a position on weather certain groups are obligated to obey it.
Thanks again

 

[Jane_Doe]

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 should follow the laws of the New Covenant (no division jew vs not). Not because this is what saves anyone, but because we love our Lord and Savior and "If you love me, keep my commandments". We do love Him and hence keep His commandments. And these commandments are good for us: improving our happiness/walk with Christ here on Earth and in the hereafter. When a commandment is broken, we are then commanded to repent of it.

 

[Athée]

All believers should follow the laws of the New Covenant (no division jew vs not). Not because this is what saves anyone, but because we love our Lord and Savior and "If you love me, keep my commandments". We do love Him and hence keep His commandments. And these commandments are good for us: improving our happiness/walk with Christ here on Earth and in the hereafter. When a commandment is broken, we are then commanded to repent of it.

OK. Do you believe that the injunction of the OT laws are part of how Jesus commands you to live today?... And why

 

[Jane_Doe]

OK. Do you believe that the injunction of the OT laws are part of how Jesus commands you to live today?... And why

Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant laws and brought the New Covenant. Hence today we do not live the Old Covenant laws, but are required to live the New Covenant. It is the higher law.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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).

This is probably going to sound a bit brusque, but fully understanding Christianity is dependent on being a Christian.

Somewhat like not having any knowledge or experience in being a machinist while declaring "They can't get those tiny measurements right!"

So it's not a particular surprise the atheist doesn't understand some things.

We were talking about how to harmonize Paul and Jesus and we got to talking about obeying the ot law.

The title of this thread is "Paul vs. Jesus". Paul was 'ordained' by Jesus to preach the gospel and write letters of instruction to various congregations of Christians. Frankly, how can that be un-harmonious?

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?

When Jesus speaks of the Mosaic Law, the conversation usually ends up with whoever is talking to Jesus realizing the Mosaic Law isn't really the answer.

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

In Matthew 19:16-22 is the story about one usually referred to as "The Rich Young Ruler". He comes to ask Jesus about eternal life. They talk about the 'commandments' a shorthand reference to the Mosaic Law and in verse 20 the young man says, "I do all that. What do I lack?" The young man KNEW there was more.

Various other places Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and Sadducees about points of the Mosaic Law. Without telling them to abandon the Law, Jesus tells them (essentially) their approach is wrong.

In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus tells the Pharisee group questioning Him, "All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments". Which I take to mean, by loving God and our fellow man (neighbor), we have fulfilled the law. All the detailed bits and bobs we can dismiss.

However, fulfilling the Law is not the main point. Jesus very clearly says '...believe in Me...' to gain eternal life.

In short, the Law was given to show mankind in general and every individual one could not 'earn' righteousness with God.

Paul said the same thing. Believe in Jesus and don't worry about the Law.

I find that pretty compelling.

 

[redleghunter]

Thank you for your insights

It seems to me that your response is a useful sidestep of the central question in that I was asking if non Jews are required to continue to obey the other law (why or why not), whereas you are helpfully describing the purpose of the law. I think I agree that we can harmonize the two as you suggest, to the extent that in both cases the law serves as a standard that we fail to achieve pointing to a need for God. That said, harmonizing their views on one purpose for the law is not the same as taking a position on weather certain groups are obligated to obey it.
Thanks again

Good questions and discussions.

Did your Bible study group discuss the standard Jesus stated was necessary to follow the Mosaic law?

Did they also discuss what portions of the Law were in effect prior to Sinai?

Also, did they discuss what the promise of following the Mosaic law would entail? Meaning did following the Mosaic covenant promise eternal life or peace and prosperity in the Promised land of Canaan?

 

[smithed64]

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Jewish people today are held under the law just like we gentiles are. Because of sin. They have the same command to call on the Lord for their salvation today under the new covenant with Christ. Once all of us repent of our sins and place our trust in Christ, we all would be Born Again.And no longer held under the law. But this doesn't say that the law goes away because it still should be obeyed. Because there is such a thing as the moral law given to us by a moral lawgiver.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.(emphasis mine)

If a Jewish person repents of His or Her sin, which we are shown from the law that we have sinned, and place their trust in Christ.

 

[Athée]

Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant laws and brought the New Covenant. Hence today we do not live the Old Covenant laws, but are required to live the New Covenant. It is the higher law.

I suspect you are getting that language of fulfillment from Matthews but in that passage it says I came to fulfill the law not abolish it. So whatever fulfilling means it can not be understood as meaning to do away with.
Thoughts?

 

[Athée]

This is probably going to sound a bit brusque, but fully understanding Christianity is dependent on being a Christian.

Somewhat like not having any knowledge or experience in being a machinist while declaring "They can't get those tiny measurements right!"

So it's not a particular surprise the atheist doesn't understand some things.

The title of this thread is "Paul vs. Jesus". Paul was 'ordained' by Jesus to preach the gospel and write letters of instruction to various congregations of Christians. Frankly, how can that be un-harmonious?

When Jesus speaks of the Mosaic Law, the conversation usually ends up with whoever is talking to Jesus realizing the Mosaic Law isn't really the answer.

In Matthew 19:16-22 is the story about one usually referred to as "The Rich Young Ruler". He comes to ask Jesus about eternal life. They talk about the 'commandments' a shorthand reference to the Mosaic Law and in verse 20 the young man says, "I do all that. What do I lack?" The young man KNEW there was more.

Various other places Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and Sadducees about points of the Mosaic Law. Without telling them to abandon the Law, Jesus tells them (essentially) their approach is wrong.

In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus tells the Pharisee group questioning Him, "All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments". Which I take to mean, by loving God and our fellow man (neighbor), we have fulfilled the law. All the detailed bits and bobs we can dismiss.

However, fulfilling the Law is not the main point. Jesus very clearly says '...believe in Me...' to gain eternal life.

In short, the Law was given to show mankind in general and every individual one could not 'earn' righteousness with God.

Paul said the same thing. Believe in Jesus and don't worry about the Law.

I find that pretty compelling.

You don't know me so fair enough, but my backstory is that I was an adult convert to Christian belief, called myself a born again and followed pretty conservative doctrine for several years.
To your post the main sticking point is that in Matthew, Jesus's says to his audience (Jews mostly although possibly some gentiles in the crowd - we don't know.) that he wants them to follow every single item of the law until heaven and earth pass away. He says it is not a salvation issue, you can still get into heaven, but he also makes it clear that he expects his audience to obey those OT laws.
Does this apply to you? Why or why not?

 

[redleghunter]

I suspect you are getting that language of fulfillment from Matthews but in that passage it says I came to fulfill the law not abolish it. So whatever fulfilling means it can not be understood as meaning to do away with.
Thoughts?

Using 'fulfill" in your Bible study discussions may lead to rabbit holes.

Instead ask the group "has anyone ever followed the Law perfectly?" The answer should be "Jesus Christ."

Then show them the last verse of Matthew 5. It says "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

That's the standard. Perfection.

We access His perfection by His righteousness :

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (1 Corinthians 1:30)

 

[Athée]

Good questions and discussions.

Did your Bible study group discuss the standard Jesus stated was necessary to follow the Mosaic law?

Did they also discuss what portions of the Law were in effect prior to Sinai?

Also, did they discuss what the promise of following the Mosaic law would entail? Meaning did following the Mosaic covenant promise eternal life or peace and prosperity in the Promised land of Canaan?

Lots of good questions there.
We talked about some of that, arguing that the states dark was not only the following of the letter of the law but also it's intent such that following the deeper intent you could not fail to also follow the letter of the law.
We asked what could it mean to be required to follow all the law in the absence of the temple.
We didn't talk about the mosaic angle but we did ask what the law is. Specifically if a Jewish person at the time of Moses had lived 100% perfectly according to the law given them, would he have been sinless and enter heaven (not that the Jews conceived of heaven the same way Christians do today necessarily). Likewise we wondered if someone today managed somehow to live perfectly by the law would they still need Jesus's (we all agreed this is not possible but explored it as a thought experiment).
Thanks for the questions.

 

[Athée]

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Jewish people today are held under the law just like we gentiles are. Because of sin. They have the same command to call on the Lord for their salvation today under the new covenant with Christ. Once all of us repent of our sins and place our trust in Christ, we all would be Born Again.And no longer held under the law. But this doesn't say that the law goes away because it still should be obeyed. Because there is such a thing as the moral law given to us by a moral lawgiver.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.(emphasis mine)

If a Jewish person repents of His or Her sin, which we are shown from the law that we have sinned, and place their trust in Christ.

So should believers follow the ot law today, ot for salvation but rather because it represents God's instruction on how to live a good life, pleasing to him?

 

[Athée]

Using 'fulfill" in your Bible study discussions may lead to rabbit holes.

Instead ask the group "has anyone ever followed the Law perfectly?" The answer should be "Jesus Christ."

Then show them the last verse of Matthew 5. It says "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

That's the standard. Perfection.

We access His perfection by His righteousness :

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (1 Corinthians 1:30)

Yes we agreed that no one other than Jesus (allegedly from my perspective but that is not at issue here) did this perfectly. But that isn't the question. In the verse about fulfilling the law Jesus said that it specifically didn't mean putting the law aside, he specifically said to that audience that they should follow all the ot laws and teach others to do likewise. Does his command on this subject apply to you today? Why or why not?

 

[inquiring mind]

Paul doesn't disagree with Jesus. Paul says in Romans 7 & 8 that as Christians we serve the law of God with our minds, but with our flesh, through Adam, we serve the law of sin. Therefore, although we sin, there is no condemnation for those in Christ who strive after the Spirit instead of the flesh.

 

[Athée]

Paul doesn't disagree with Jesus. Paul says in Romans 7 & 8 that as Christians we serve the law of God with our minds, but with our flesh, through Adam, we serve the law of sin. Therefore, although we sin, there is no condemnation for those in Christ who strive after the Spirit instead of the flesh.

OK so what does this mean for you in regards to weather or not Christians today should be trying to follow the OT laws, not as a matter of salvation, but as a matter of obedience and in the attempt (though bound to fall short) of living a life pleasing to God? Jesus said after the sermon on the mount that his audience was to follow all the ot laws and teach others to do the same. Does this apply to you today? Why or why not?

 

[redleghunter]

Lots of good questions there.
We talked about some of that, arguing that the states dark was not only the following of the letter of the law but also it's intent such that following the deeper intent you could not fail to also follow the letter of the law.
We asked what could it mean to be required to follow all the law in the absence of the temple.
We didn't talk about the mosaic angle but we did ask what the law is. Specifically if a Jewish person at the time of Moses had lived 100% perfectly according to the law given them, would he have been sinless and enter heaven (not that the Jews conceived of heaven the same way Christians do today necessarily). Likewise we wondered if someone today managed somehow to live perfectly by the law would they still need Jesus's (we all agreed this is not possible but explored it as a thought experiment).
Thanks for the questions.

Recommend asking the group what the stated reward was at Sinai for following the Law and all the statutes.

There was a knowledge of resurrection in the OT, which we can discuss if you want. However, there was no mention of eternal life for following the Mosiac law. The reward was earthly and tangible. A plot of land living in peace with no disease or miscarriage. There's more but it was all temporal.

I would argue the Big Ten, the Decalogue, Exodus 20 applied to all humans since Eden.

We know specially murder, adultery, theft, honoring mother and father and idolatry were all things indicated as wicked. All prior to Sinai. Other sins such as not taking care of the poor, widow or orphan were also emphasized.

Sounds like the Greatest commandment doesn't it?

 

[smithed64]

So should believers follow the OT law today, not for salvation but rather because it represents God's instruction on how to live a good life, pleasing to him?

No one is good. Even if you could live all 10 commandments, you'd still
not be good. There is only one good, that's God.
It's not just doing the breaking of these laws that are a sin.
but it's also our thoughts that can break these laws. If you look at a person with lust you've committed adultery in your heart already. If you hate your brother without cause, you're in danger of Hell fire. If you hate your brother you are a murder and have no eternal life in you at all.
God just doesn't see and know what you do. He knows what you intend or would like to do also.
The law is the schoolmaster that brings you to Christ.

First, you should repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ.
Once you do this then you will not want to sin. Your desires will change, from desiring to serve self to desiring to serve God. By reading His Word, prayer and telling others in some way in what He did for you and them.
All things become Old and he creates a new man out of you. He renews your mind through the Word and changes your life.
Believe me, it is a life changing experience to know God and to experience Him in your life.