Understanding Paul

[ToBeLoved]

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:

Please do not put words in my mouth. I was very clear about what I said. I said that viewing all that Paul wrote through a lens of validating David is not reading what Paul wrote without using a lens.

If you are trying to patronize me by adding to what I said and misconsruing it when I tried to make it so clear, than there is nothing to say at all.

i don't appreciate it.

Maybe you missed what I was saying and that is fine. Just do not change the conversation mid-point and start getting all philosophical. Stay in the conversation or let's not have it. Not to be rude but this is getting ridiculously off point.

 

[1John2:4]

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?

I think the problem is that it's a concept of being justified by the law. It is not the law that forgives our transgressions. The law shows us what sin is but it can't pardon our sins. The law is a tutor that brings us to Messiah. The law shows us what sin is so that we can repent then we are covered by the blood of the lamb and our garments are made clean. It is not the law that is negative it is our sin, we find out what our sin is by the law then we are lead to repentace. I hope this made sense

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think the problem is that it's a concept of being justified by the law. It is not the law that forgives our transgressions. The law shows us what sin is but it can't pardon our sins. The law is a tutor that brings us to Messiah. The law shows us what sin is so that we can repent then we are covered by the blood of the lamb and our garments are made clean. It is not the law that is negative it is our sin, we find out what our sin is by the law then we are lead to repentace. I hope this made sense

Perfect sense. Thank you.

 

[danny ski]

I think the problem is that it's a concept of being justified by the law. It is not the law that forgives our transgressions. The law shows us what sin is but it can't pardon our sins. The law is a tutor that brings us to Messiah. The law shows us what sin is so that we can repent then we are covered by the blood of the lamb and our garments are made clean. It is not the law that is negative it is our sin, we find out what our sin is by the law then we are lead to repentace. I hope this made sense

Where in the "law" does it say one is justified by it? Where in the "law" does it say that it can forgive transgressions? The 'law" shows what is a sin, sure. But, above all, the "law" is a guide to the righteous life. We're no justified by the "law"-whatever that means. We're right with Gd by upholding His commandments.

 

[Soyeong]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I was very clear about what I said. I said that viewing all that Paul wrote through a lens of validating David is not reading what Paul wrote without using a lens.

If you are trying to patronize me by adding to what I said and misconsruing it when I tried to make it so clear, than there is nothing to say at all.

i don't appreciate it.

Maybe you missed what I was saying and that is fine. Just do not change the conversation mid-point and start getting all philosophical. Stay in the conversation or let's not have it. Not to be rude but this is getting ridiculously off point.

I'm not sure what I have done to put words in your mouth or to go off topic, but I apologize. I'm not out to validate David and I don't think he needs to be validated. As Christians we should consider everything written in Scripture to be true. You cannot read the Psalms and get out of it that David thought that the Law was a heavy legalistic burden, but just the opposite, that he loved the law, that he walked about in freedom because of the law, that he delighted in the law, and that he meditated on it day and night. Both views can not be true, so either your interpretation of Scripture is wrong Scripture is false.

 

[Soyeong]

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 recommend this study on Galatians:

Galatians- Messianic Jewish audio teachings by Stan Farr

Lesson 21 is a bit of review, but 22 deals with Galatians 4:21-31, but the whole study is pretty good.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Where in the "law" does it say one is justified by it? Where in the "law" does it say that it can forgive transgressions? The 'law" shows what is a sin, sure. But, above all, the "law" is a guide to the righteous life. We're no justified by the "law"-whatever that means. We're right with Gd by upholding His commandments.

This was a response to my post, not a stand-alone point. The content of post the person replied to does matter.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'm not sure what I have done to put words in your mouth or to go off topic, but I apologize. I'm not out to validate David and I don't think he needs to be validated. As Christians we should consider everything written in Scripture to be true. You cannot read the Psalms and get out of it that David thought that the Law was a heavy legalistic burden, but just the opposite, that he loved the law, that he walked about in freedom because of the law, that he delighted in the law, and that he meditated on it day and night. Both views can not be true, so either your interpretation of Scripture is wrong Scripture is false.

You said that you viewed Paul in the lens of what David said, not I. All I was doing was saying that as long as scripture is read through a lens like that then it is much higher a probability (note not an accusation) that one may not get the author's intention.

Let's just let it go. It was a very simple point that now has a life of it's own and have not the time, nor desire to keep discussing such a simple point in such a complicated way. I think once I put David and Paul in the same post I should have expected a problem. Seems to be a pattern. There seems to be a totem pole to glory with Bible people. Point noted, I'll keep that in the other forums. I knew I was going to be attacked for it. Saw it coming. David = Awesome, Paul = not all that awesome, maybe really disliked.

 

[Soyeong]

You said that you viewed Paul in the lens of what David said, not I. All I was doing was saying that as long as scripture is read through a lens like that then it is much higher a probability (note not an accusation) that one may not get the author's intention.

Let's just let it go. It was a very simple point that now has a life of it's own and have not the time, nor desire to keep discussing such a simple point in such a complicated way. I think once I put David and Paul in the same post I should have expected a problem. Seems to be a pattern. There seems to be a totem pole to glory with Bible people. Point noted, I'll keep that in the other forums. I knew I was going to be attacked for it. Saw it coming. David = Awesome, Paul = not all that awesome, maybe really disliked.

Indeed, I talked about using David's view of the law as a lens, but you have misunderstood what I meant by that, but I we can drop that if it is not helping. All I am saying is that the Psalms are Scripture, so Paul was either in agreement with David or he was in disagreement with Scripture, and whichever one we believe about Paul influences how we interpret him. I came to the realization that Jews had an extremely positive view of God's Law and when people interpret them as speaking negatively about the Law, they are imposing their view on them rather than letting them inform their view. Do you agree with this verse?:

Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!

The Law cannot be both a blessing and a heavy legalistic burden that no one can bear, so either this verse is false or the interpretation of the Law being a heavy burden is false. I believe that this verse is true and that the Jews were in agreement with Psalms, so that led me to realize that the way that I had been taught of the law being a heavy burden was not correct, which I found gave the Bible much more clarity and continuity.

 

[1John2:4]

I recommend this study on Galatians:

Galatians- Messianic Jewish audio teachings by Stan Farr

Lesson 21 is a bit of review, but 22 deals with Galatians 4:21-31, but the whole study is pretty good.

Thanks !!

 

[1John2:4]

Where in the "law" does it say one is justified by it? Where in the "law" does it say that it can forgive transgressions? The 'law" shows what is a sin, sure. But, above all, the "law" is a guide to the righteous life. We're no justified by the "law"-whatever that means. We're right with Gd by upholding His commandments.

We are not justified by the law we are justified (made clean) by the Suffering Servant. Read Isaiah 52:13-53 and Psalms 22.

 

[BukiRob]

You said that you viewed Paul in the lens of what David said, not I. All I was doing was saying that as long as scripture is read through a lens like that then it is much higher a probability (note not an accusation) that one may not get the author's intention.

Let's just let it go. It was a very simple point that now has a life of it's own and have not the time, nor desire to keep discussing such a simple point in such a complicated way. I think once I put David and Paul in the same post I should have expected a problem. Seems to be a pattern. There seems to be a totem pole to glory with Bible people. Point noted, I'll keep that in the other forums. I knew I was going to be attacked for it. Saw it coming. David = Awesome, Paul = not all that awesome, maybe really disliked.

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?

The problem is that most Gentiles DO NOT UNDERSTAND PAUL AT ALL.

You can accept what scripture says or you can reject it..... Peter WARNS US about Pauls writings.

Paul is an Academic. Paul was taught by Gamaliel who is considered the great rabbinical thinker of his day and the grandson of Hillel. Were the Jews to have a Mt Rushmore of Biblical Sages Hillel would be on it. Its IMPOSSIBLE to understand Paul without understanding the man's background and how he approached the Torah.

I grew up in the charismatic movement of the late 1960's and 1970's so I am very well versed in how the western church views Paul. The problem is, that the very people preaching and teaching from his writings are doing so without any understanding of where Paul is coming from.

About 40% of the time I speak to Christians who are gentiles they actually believe Paul is a gentile! It is completely IMPOSSIBLE to understand fully what Paul is teaching if you DO NOT have an understanding indeed a FOUNDATION in understanding the Torah.

Please do explain why if Paul is anti-Torah why then Paul would do as instructed by James in Acts 21 : 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many [d]thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to [e]walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who [f]are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and [g]pay their expenses so that they may shave their [h]heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

So you who claim Paul teaches free from the Torah have a Major, MAJOR problem. Either Paul is openly, willingly and actively engaging in a complete fraud and as such NOTHING he says can be trusted.... OR Paul is NOT anti Torah and what the church has been teaching concerning Paul is a distortion of what Paul is actually saying.

I think it is clear it is the second

 

[BukiRob]

We are not justified by the law we are justified (made clean) by the Suffering Servant. Read Isaiah 52:13-53 and Psalms 22.

Amen!

Walking in the light of the Torah is an ACT OF OBEDIENCE. It is what Paul calls "Having your mind renewed by the washing of the word (TORAH!)"

 

[ToBeLoved]

Indeed, I talked about using David's view of the law as a lens, but you have misunderstood what I meant by that, but I we can drop that if it is not helping. All I am saying is that the Psalms are Scripture, so Paul was either in agreement with David or he was in disagreement with Scripture, and whichever one we believe about Paul influences how we interpret him. I came to the realization that Jews had an extremely positive view of God's Law and when people interpret them as speaking negatively about the Law, they are imposing their view on them rather than letting them inform their view. Do you agree with this verse?:

Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!

The Law cannot be both a blessing and a heavy legalistic burden that no one can bear, so either this verse is false or the interpretation of the Law being a heavy burden is false. I believe that this verse is true and that the Jews were in agreement with Psalms, so that led me to realize that the way that I had been taught of the law being a heavy burden was not correct, which I found gave the Bible much more clarity and continuity.

Why people cannot realize there are two covenants that are very different is beyond me.

I've never seen so much flipping back and forth between them. If someone doesn't realize that only one Covenant is active.

Combining covenants is the big confusion. You can't take some of the Old Covenant, some of the New Covenant and mash them together. Each Covenant is separate.

 

[1John2:4]

Why people cannot realize there are two covenants that are very different is beyond me.

I've never seen so much flipping back and forth between them. If someone doesn't realize that only one Covenant is active.

Combining covenants is the big confusion. You can't take some of the Old Covenant, some of the New Covenant and mash them together. Each Covenant is separate.

What in your opinion is the new Covenant, what does it include? Because when I read Jeremiah 31:31 it says He will write His laws on our hearts. What do you believe that entails? I am realky not trying to hurt your feelings, I'm just trying to understand your view point.

 

[gadar perets]

Why people cannot realize there are two covenants that are very different is beyond me.

I've never seen so much flipping back and forth between them. If someone doesn't realize that only one Covenant is active.

Combining covenants is the big confusion. You can't take some of the Old Covenant, some of the New Covenant and mash them together. Each Covenant is separate.

No one is "combining covenants", nor are they taking "some of the New Covenant". I, for example, believe in the entire New Covenant. The difference with my belief and the standard Christian belief is Torah. I believe "Torah" is written on the hearts of NC believers (Jeremiah 31:33), but Christians believe it is not. Of course, they cannot prove it is not the OC Torah written on the hearts of NC believers. The fact is, Christians pick and choose which OC laws they will allow in the NC (9 of the 10 commandments; tithing; etc.).

 

[Soyeong]

Why people cannot realize there are two covenants that are very different is beyond me.

I've never seen so much flipping back and forth between them. If someone doesn't realize that only one Covenant is active.

Combining covenants is the big confusion. You can't take some of the Old Covenant, some of the New Covenant and mash them together. Each Covenant is separate.

I completely agree that we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are still under the same God. God has always been righteous, so the way to do what is righteous has existence from the beginning and is not dependent on any covenant. So even if God had made no covenants with man, there would still exist a way to act according to God's righteousness. God revealed Moses how to act according to His righteousness, so anyone regardless of what covenant they are under, if any, can find out how to act according to God righteousness by reading the Mosaic Law, but as part of the New Covenant, we are told to act according to God's righteousness (1 John 3:10), so it should be no mystery where we should go to find out how to do that. The Mosaic Law was also given to reveal sin, so when we are told that we should avoid sinning as part of the New Covenant, then it again should be no mystery where we should go to find out how to avoid sin. Or we could simply look to Messiah's example of living righteously and avoiding sin in accordance with the Mosaic Law to figure out how we should live.

 

[BukiRob]

Why people cannot realize there are two covenants that are very different is beyond me.

I've never seen so much flipping back and forth between them. If someone doesn't realize that only one Covenant is active.

Combining covenants is the big confusion. You can't take some of the Old Covenant, some of the New Covenant and mash them together. Each Covenant is separate.

And just how many covenants do you think there are in the Tanakh?

On your thesis about "not mixing" I would STRONGLY disagree.

In fact, the entire OT Covenants (yes plural there are at least 5 major covenants) is a progressive revelation of what really amounts to as a SINGLE Covenant. This is in stark contrast to "dispensationalism"

The final OT Covenant is the revelation TO Israel of what you call the new covenant or, new testament covenant.

 

[MWood]

And just how many covenants do you think there are in the Tanakh?

On your thesis about "not mixing" I would STRONGLY disagree.

In fact, the entire OT Covenants (yes plural there are at least 5 major covenants) is a progressive revelation of what really amounts to as a SINGLE Covenant. This is in stark contrast to "dispensationalism"

The final OT Covenant is the revelation TO Israel of what you call the new covenant or, new testament covenant.

BukiRob, Explain, if you will, what you are talking about when you said 'new covenant or, new testament covenant.' I know the new covenant of Jer.31, and the 'blood of this cup is a new testament in Mat.26:28. I'm confused in what you are saying. Thanks.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No one is "combining covenants", nor are they taking "some of the New Covenant". I, for example, believe in the entire New Covenant. The difference with my belief and the standard Christian belief is Torah. I believe "Torah" is written on the hearts of NC believers (Jeremiah 31:33), but Christians believe it is not. Of course, they cannot prove it is not the OC Torah written on the hearts of NC believers. The fact is, Christians pick and choose which OC laws they will allow in the NC (9 of the 10 commandments; tithing; etc.).

That is not true.

The entire Word of God Old and New Testament is written on our hearts and minds. That doesn't mean we are under the Law. The Law was specific to the Old Covenant.

What we are under is the two commands Jesus left us with which are harder. It seems believing verse 40 is true is your real issue.

Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

This may help you What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?