Understanding Paul

[mark kennedy]

James himself agreed that the Gentiles were to observe the Torah
21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since [k]he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

The phrase For Moses... those who preach him is the custom that on every Sabbath the Torah is read.

The Yoke is NOT the Torah.

For your assertion to be true Moses would have been lying when he said 11“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12“It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13“Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14“But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

The Yoke Peter speaks of is the Oral Traditions that had ADDED to the requirements of Torah, because the Torah and Yeshua himself said that "whatever the Pharisees tell you to do, you shall then do"

The dispute at Jerusalem is specifically over the Law of Moses, I think what you mean here is the Pentateuch:

The Torah , or in Christianity, the Pentateuch (/ˈpɛntəˌtuːk, -ˌtjuːk/; "five books"), is the central reference of the religious Judaic tradition. It has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books of the twenty-four books of the Tanakh, and it usually includes the rabbinic commentaries (perushim). The term "Torah" means instruction and offers a way of life for those who follow it; it can mean the continued narrative from Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh, and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture and practice.Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the foundational narrative of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha). (Torah, Wikipedia)
​

Clearly the Pharisees had designs on including a lot of extra-biblical observances that went well beyond the Pentateuch. That was the whole problem, even with keeping something as seemingly benign as a Sabbath rest. The early church simply said that justification is by grace through faith, a doctrine that did not start with the Protestant Reformation or even Paul. All the Apostles taught this, including Peter who is clearly defending it here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[AJTruth]

Hi everyone and Shabbat Shalom. I am at the point of my Bible reading where I read Paul. I was hoping one of you could help to understand circumcision in Galatians. The objection that I find is circumcision has nothing to do with the law that was given on Mount Sinai but everything to do with the Covenant issued to Abraham in Genisis 17: 9-14. I thought in Christ we are bought with a price and according to the everlasting covenant with Abraham we should be circumsised not according to the law given on Mount Sinai but the everlasting covenant given to Abraham. I am really interested in hearing your feedback on this because it is troubling me.

Hello 1 John2:4
I believe you'll find the answer to your question by reading through Romans chapter 4

I'll highlight a couple verses here:
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

NOTE: GOD DECLARED ABRAHAM RIGHTEOUS BY FAITH BEFORE HE WAS CIRCUMCISED

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Find more info on the subject in:

Galatians chapter 3

 

[BukiRob]

The dispute at Jerusalem is specifically over the Law of Moses, I think what you mean here is the Pentateuch:

The Torah , or in Christianity, the Pentateuch (/ˈpɛntəˌtuːk, -ˌtjuːk/; "five books"), is the central reference of the religious Judaic tradition. It has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books of the twenty-four books of the Tanakh, and it usually includes the rabbinic commentaries (perushim). The term "Torah" means instruction and offers a way of life for those who follow it; it can mean the continued narrative from Book of Genesis to the end of the Tanakh, and it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching, culture and practice.Common to all these meanings, Torah consists of the foundational narrative of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha). (Torah, Wikipedia)
​

Clearly the Pharisees had designs on including a lot of extra-biblical observances that went well beyond the Pentateuch. That was the whole problem, even with keeping something as seemingly benign as a Sabbath rest. The early church simply said that justification is by grace through faith, a doctrine that did not start with the Protestant Reformation or even Paul. All the Apostles taught this, including Peter who is clearly defending it here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mark,
Let me remind you that you are on a MESSIANIC forum.

As a messianic I think we can both agree that we know what the Torah is.

And NO the dispute is NOT about that as much as you try to force it to be.

I suggest we allow SCRIPTURE to tell us what the dispute is over.

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

We are told PLAINLY in verse 1 that the dispute is WHO CAN BE SAVED.

We in the west ROUTINELY make the mistake of attempting to interject our methodology of dispute and dispute resolution.

That is a FATAL flaw here.... EVERYONE involved in Acts 15 debate are JEWS. They would have used the mosaic model of resolving disputes WHICH IS WHAT WE SEE HERE.

Stop reading this from a gentiles perspective and read it from a JEWISH cultural perspective and it is very, very easy to see what is being debated.

We have FURTHER verification that this is what the dispute is about by the nature of the Testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas... Namely GENTILES WERE BEING SAVED!

 

[Soyeong]

Thanks so much, I guess I am wondering how it is likened to the law that was given on Mount Sinai as being bondage. I know Paul probably has a deeper connect in this passage I am just not putting the two together from the Torah, was hoping someone could help me to put it together

God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His Law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1) and it is for freedom that He gave the Israelites His Law (Psalms 119:45, James 1:25), while it is sin in transgression on His Law that puts us in bondage.

 

[ToBeLoved]

God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His Law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1) and it is for freedom that He gave the Israelites His Law (Psalms 119:45, James 1:25), while it is sin in transgression on His Law that puts us in bondage.

How does Gal 5:1 relate?

If sin puts us into bondage than what free's that bondage?

The New Covenant and the Old Covenant I do not see the reconciliation as you have described above. Who except Christ perfectly kept the law without transgression? And why would the law be called the schoolmaster to Messiah?

It has to all fit together, both Old and New Testaments. Do you agree with that statement?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,
Let me remind you that you are on a MESSIANIC forum.

As a messianic I think we can both agree that we know what the Torah is.

And NO the dispute is NOT about that as much as you try to force it to be.

I suggest we allow SCRIPTURE to tell us what the dispute is over.

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

We are told PLAINLY in verse 1 that the dispute is WHO CAN BE SAVED.

I don't know what kind of a dispute there is here but the fact is I was agreeing with you, at least in a round about way. Again the issue comes down to justification by faith which has it's roots deep in the faith of Abraham and others from the Old Testament. That is a point Paul makes often and Peter made at the Council of Jerusalem. You can call it the Law or you can call it the Torah as you please, I was just trying to make sense of your statement that it wasn't over the Torah but, 'the Oral Traditions that had ADDED to the requirements of Torah.' Like I said, I think the Pharisees had designs on Gentile believers, intending to make them some kind of proselytes to Judaism.

We in the west ROUTINELY make the mistake of attempting to interject our methodology of dispute and dispute resolution.

That is a FATAL flaw here.... EVERYONE involved in Acts 15 debate are JEWS. They would have used the mosaic model of resolving disputes WHICH IS WHAT WE SEE HERE.

Stop reading this from a gentiles perspective and read it from a JEWISH cultural perspective and it is very, very easy to see what is being debated.

We have FURTHER verification that this is what the dispute is about by the nature of the Testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas... Namely GENTILES WERE BEING SAVED!

The subject under consideration was specifically the Gentiles and circumcision as the gateway to the ordinances of the Mosaic Law. The effect had already started to set in:

But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain.…(Gal. 4:9-11)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Soyeong]

What commands? Those that he was given, those which he kept as it is written in the Torah. The essence of the story of Abraham is obedience. As is the essence the whole Torah. We call Abraham righteous because he kept the commandments, decrees and instructions. To say that Abraham was righteous because he had trust/faith in Gd is an incomplete and superficial reading of the Scripture.

Obedience to God has alway been about demonstrating that we trust Him about how we should live and about demonstrating that we love Him, and thereby growing in a relationship with Him based on faith and love. For example, when God instructed Abraham to offer Isaac, Abraham trusted God to keep His promise in regard to his offspring above everything else that the world told him, so he did not hesitate to obey what God had instructed him, but set out early the next morning. Abraham is the father of our faith, so we should also learn to hear God's voice and trust Him so much that we do not hesitate to follow His instructions. However, it was not his obedience itself that made Abraham righteous, as though his righteousness was something that he earned, but rather he was made righteous because he trusted God about how he should live. So the examples of Abraham's obedience to God's commandments, decrees, and instructions are also examples of Abraham's faith in God, and it is by that faith that he was declared righteous:

Genesis 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

 

[1John2:4]

Hello 1 John2:4
I believe you'll find the answer to your question by reading through Romans chapter 4

I'll highlight a couple verses here:
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

NOTE: GOD DECLARED ABRAHAM RIGHTEOUS BY FAITH BEFORE HE WAS CIRCUMCISED

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Find more info on the subject in:

Galatians chapter 3

Thanks

 

[danny ski]

Torah was written after Abraham. Moses existed after Abraham.

Interesting that you are tying to find and connect Abraham to Torah on this one.

That still does not change that Abraham was imputed righteousness that had nothing to do with the Torah. Seems your trying to connect them in lieu of Galatians is rather a thin attempt as it is all laid out in this book. And Torah has no part in what Abrahams promise is about.

The Torah says what it says, as demonstrated by the quote from Genesis I provided. The Goyim disagree with us on this issue, but it's a pretty common belief in Judaism that our forefathers kept the Torah before it was revealed. It's mentioned in the story of Noah and Abraham.

 

[Soyeong]

How does Gal 5:1 relate?

If sin puts us into bondage than what free's that bondage?

The New Covenant and the Old Covenant I do not see the reconciliation as you have described above. Who except Christ perfectly kept the law without transgression?

According to Galatians 5:1, it is for freedom that God sets us free, so God would not set the Israelites freedom in bondage to Egypt to put them back under bondage to His law, which means that it is a mistake to think of God's Law as bondage instead of as freedom. As Psalms 119:45, David walked about in liberty for he sought God's precepts, so he had the correct understanding of God's Law. Sinning in transgression of the Law puts us in bondage, so having the penalty of our sins paid and being made to live in obedience to the Law like Christ is what frees us from that bondage. While we can not live in perfect obedience to the Law through our own effort because of the law sin, with God nothing is impossible, and he who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete in on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

And why would the law be called the schoolmaster to Messiah?

When a student complete the 1st grade, they have no more need for a 1st-grade teacher, but they still have need for what the their 1st-grade teacher taught them because their 2nd-grade teacher is going to build off of everything that they were taught previously. If another student were to try to move on to algebra by forgetting to do everything they had been taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, then they would need to be sent back for a remedial education. The Law is a tutor because it teaches us how to be like Christ in doing what is holy, righteous, and good. Now what we have Christ's teachings, example, and the Spirit, we not have a superior teacher, but the subject is still about how to do what is holy, righteous, and good in accordance with God's character and with His Law. God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness are eternal and do not change, so their does the way to act according to God's character change.

It has to all fit together, both Old and New Testaments. Do you agree with that statement?

Indeed, the OT and NT fit together much better and have much more continuity when we believe what David said about the Law is true and interpret Paul as being in full agreement with David than when we interpret Paul as being against obeying the laws of the God that we serve.

 

[bling]

Paul talks a lot about justification, while just looking at the Old Testament you would think no one was justified before God so how did the Jews feel about justification before God?

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Torah says what it says, as demonstrated by the quote from Genesis I provided. The Goyim disagree with us on this issue, but it's a pretty common belief in Judaism that our forefathers kept the Torah before it was revealed. It's mentioned in the story of Noah and Abraham.

It is really fairly easy to know what Christians believe, if it is in the Bible good chance we believe it.

We are much less on traditions of men, scripture warns us about that as does our Lord. I came here because I thought I wanted to know more about Judaism, but I think our 2,500 year old book has us doing very well. Billions now. And there are a lot of outside influences oral and others, that us Goyim will never understand, but that's ok we have Messiah and there is something to be said about uncomplicated.

I am glad you are blessed by your beliefs.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Indeed, the OT and NT fit together much better and have much more continuity when we believe what David said about the Law is true and interpret Paul as being in full agreement with David than when we interpret Paul as being against obeying the laws of the God that we serve.

I think I just know the New Testament too well and in context to see these things as fitting back and forth. David does not set the context for Paul. As long as things are viewed through a lens, then it is never read on it's own without that lens.

I've just read it both ways and I don't see what you see. I thought the Holy Spirit was guiding Paul in truth, but maybe David was better who knows.

 

[gadar perets]

The complaint of the Pharisees was pretty clear:

“It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)
​

Circumcision was just the beginning, all the Law of Moses was to follow. The two groups that troubled the early church the most were the Judaizers and the Gnostics summed up as legalism and licentiousness (grace is a license to sin). Immorality would be a pretty serious issue in places like Corinth and Thyatira, Jude and Peter in 2 Peter both deal with these kind of issues early after the inclusion of the Gentiles. The first problem they encountered though was Judaizers putting them under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.

The Mosaic Law was not the yoke of Acts 15:10. Seeking to be saved by the Law (salvation by works) was the yoke (Acts 15:1, 11). Another yoke (justification by works) is found in Galatians 5:1-4. The Law is holy, just and good (Romans 7:12). That is the exact opposite of what you are saying the Mosaic Law is.

Also, it was not the Pharisees that said "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses", but "Pharisees which believed".

 

[Soyeong]

I think I just know the New Testament too well and in context to see these things as fitting back and forth. David does not set the context for Paul. As long as things are viewed through a lens, then it is never read on it's own without that lens.

I've just read it both ways and I don't see what you see. I thought the Holy Spirit was guiding Paul in truth, but maybe David was better who knows.

We all read the Bible through the lens of our own biases, so there is no such thing as reading it on our own with a lens. So the issue is not whether or not we should use a lens, but about which lens is correct, and I think that the Psalms are true, so I think that the view of the Law that is expressed in them is correct, and how most Jews, such as Paul, viewed the Law. David said multiple times that he delighted in God's law, which Paul also did (Roman 7:22), so I think it is reasonable to consider whether Paul was in agreement with Scripture. The Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13), the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142). The Law is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19, Psalms 119:1), the truth, and the life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20, Proverbs 3:18, Matthew 19:17), Messiah is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), the Law is God's Word, and Messiah is God's Word made flesh.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We all read the Bible through the lens of our own biases, so there is no such thing as reading it on our own with a lens.

I disagree in the fact that when some read it they are reading into it to validate something else. You yourself said a few posts ago that you understand Paul's writings through a lense of understanding and validating David.

That is definately beyond being non-biased. Way beyond.

That is accepting Paul when He agree's with what your theology already is. You 'add' Paul because you can see him as an addition to David. Paul by himself, probably not anyone special even though he is Messiah's chosen apostle.

I find something discontenting in that. Like God is less than who He is until someone can make sense of it through their lens.

I think if Jesus would have even thought of choosing a non-Jewish apostle that that would have never flown at all. Even Jesus doing it the way He did doesn't fly, barely.

I am appreciating my own theology more and more and what I have. It starts with God. Period. There is a real beauty in trusting God to be the beginning and the end.

 

[1John2:4]

God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His Law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1) and it is for freedom that He gave the Israelites His Law (Psalms 119:45, James 1:25), while it is sin in transgression on His Law that puts us in bondage.

Soyeong thanks so much for your reply. I truly understand that the law is not bondage I have a difficult time reconciling this passage from Paul expecially Galatians 4:21-31. Then 5 when it speaks of entangling again with a yoke of bondage,circumsision, which is not even the sign of he Mount Sinai Covenent but the Abrahamic Covenent. Thanks again for your help

 

[visionary]

It use to be, when scripture was written, that when they said "believe" it involved obedience. It was not a Greek philosophy where it was debatable.

 

[Soyeong]

I disagree in the fact that when some read it they are reading into it to validate something else. You yourself said a few posts ago that you understand Paul's writings through a lense of understanding and validating David.

That is definately beyond being non-biased. Way beyond.

That is accepting Paul when He agree's with what your theology already is. You 'add' Paul because you can see him as an addition to David. Paul by himself, probably not anyone special.

I hold the lens that the Psalms are Scripture and that we should read the Bible as though all Scripture is true. If you hold a different view of the Law than David did, then either you or Scripture is in error, and I hold Scripture to be without error. The reality is that Jews had an extremely high view of God's Law, but we were taught that the Law was something negative and that Jesus came to do away with it, so there are both positive and negative lens through which to view the Law, but which view is correct? For example:

Galatians 4:8-11 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

If you have a negative view of God's Law, then it is easy to read this verses as coming against observing the days that God commanded. However, Paul addressed these verses to those who formerly did not know God, so he was speaking to former pagans who were not formerly observing the days that God commanded, and thus could not be turning back again to them. With a high view of God's law, Paul would never have referred to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God as being weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, but rather that is how he referred to pagan teachings, so whatever is being referred to in verse 10 is in the context of paganism. So how we view God's Law changes how we interpret the NT, so again the issue is which view of the law we should use. I grew up with a negative view of the law, but I found the Bible made much more sense and had much more continuity when I viewed the NT as though all Scripture is true. If you call that being way beyond biased, then I can live with that, but I think it is important to view Scripture as a unified whole. If you think about it for a minute, you have actually been convinced that by men that you should not follow the laws the God that you serve.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Soyeong thanks so much for your reply. I truly understand that the law is not bondage I have a difficult time reconciling this passage from Paul expecially Galatians 4:21-31. Then 5 when it speaks of entangling again with a yoke of bondage,circumsision, which is not even the sign of he Mount Sinai Covenent but the Abrahamic Covenent. Thanks again for your help

I am becoming very confused about how some even view the law.

The law is part of the Old Covenant, IMHO. It is part of an agreement God made with the Israelite/Hebrew people. My understanding is that the yoke of the law is that if one part of the law is broken than one is guilty of breaking all of the law. How is that not a yoke of bondage if one either breaks ALL or keeps ALL? Since no one is justified through it?

All the Patriarch's were justified by faith as was Abraham. The yoke of bondage is that one is never justified or made righteous by it unless it is kept perfectly, which no one but Yeshua could do. That is why I believe that the law is called the school master to Christ. Showing us all that there is nothing that the law can do for us that saves or permenantly forgives and makes us once again right with God.

The yoke, IMHO is that it does not reconcile us back to God. Is that not the point of mankind, to once again be walking WITH God as was before the fall?

I'm not seeing why this is made so complicated. The law had and has a purpose. To show man kind we are all sinners and need a Savior.

I don't see how all these other things are not secondary to why the law was put into place and why there is a Messiah needed?