Paul: Devout witness or opportunistic Messiah-maker?

[Polycarp]

Well, now!

First off, like Socrates, Jesus as we know him is an amalgam of pictures painted by several different men. For (Peter and?) Mark, he is (to borrow the Islamic phrase) “the seal of the prophets” – the Son of God who does miracles and is (shhh!) the promised Christ to those who believe. For Matthew he is the fulfillment of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, doing it his own way and not what they expected. For Luke, he is the compassionate Man of Sorrows, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. For John, he is the Word of God Incarnate, the man so identified with God as to be indistinguishable from him – yet very human, weeping at the death of a beloved friend and caring for those he encounters. For Paul, Jesus is the firstborn of God’s new creation and the one in whom all the demands of the law and the expectations of salvation find their fulness and completion, in whom the individual believers in him are subsumed into one mystical body of the Church. Sometimes one loses sight of the historical Jesus in Paul’s metaphysical Christ.

Now, to brass tacks: what did they expect? The historical Jesus seems to have taken a quite humanistic application of the traditional Jewish law, insofar as the reports seem to converge (and one gets some contradictory impressions, some questions of interpretation, and so on). Jesus was not consciously trying to replace the law, so far as the accounts show, but to indicate that it was not a legalistic, scorekeeping code of behavior but the product of a radical love of God and fellow man. One can adduce proofs of Jesus having said anything one wants, but this seems to be the gist of his message.

Paul appears to have focused on this. Like Luther and Wesley after him, he was tortured by his own guilt at his human inability to keep the Law to the full extent of its commands. In the fulfillment of the law in Christ, he saw himself as free from the law, bound rather to the will of Christ in whom he found his salvation. Yet a part of the old legalistic Pharisee he had been hung on, and he was fond of issuing ukases in his role as Apostle to the Gentiles on what people ought to do to behave properly as Christians. He is explicit that they are not bound by the law, yet he identifies specific behaviors they are to carry out or abstain from, missing the contradictoriness between his prime message and his strictures. In this he seems to me a great deal like our FriendofGod, motivated by the same love and missionary zeal but with legalism overshadowing the message he considers most important.

[tracer]

jmullaney wrote:

What I object to is modern day xtians quoting obscure passages of Leviticus to excuse their intolerances. (My folks raise goats so if I can get some more sacrifices going on, all the better.)

Just don’t go boiling any of those goats in their mother’s milk. That’s expressly forbidden by the Torah/Pentateuch. If you feel the need to boil a goat in goat’s milk, you’re just going to have to settle for milk you get from a goat other than the victim’s mother. Such are the personal sacrifices one must make to live by Yahweh’s law.

[jmullaney]

Oh, %$#@. Tracer – where were you last week dude??

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Actually tracer, you are wrong, you can’t do either by the Talmud, as you might get them mixed up.

[surel]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**Actually tracer, you are wrong, you can’t do either by the Talmud, as you might get them mixed up. **

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the “Word of God” only forbids boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, and the interpretations/commentaries say well… let’s be extra cautious. And thus Jews keep milk and meat separate and keep two sets of dishes etc. Talk about too legalistic…
Btw, the whole argument about having difficulty living up to the OT confuses me, since I never hear Jews complaining about how hard it is to keep all those laws, although of course most of them don’t apply these days since the holy temple was destroyed and thus they cannot be fulfilled. (Which is probably for the best, most people don’t want to see animal sacrafice reinstated.)

[DAVEW0071]

Surel, it’s not a question of level of difficulty in living up to the Old Testament laws. That puts it on a par with Olympic Diving Competition, where a better execution of a harder dive gets you more points.

The point Paul makes is that it’s not humanly possible for man to fulfill the Law. Not 100% of the laws 100% of the time. The law was given, not a means of salvation, but to point out that man is sinful, and cannot measure up to God’s standards. Adopting the OT laws as a way of life is really not tough. There are restrictions, of course, but as a lifestyle, there aren’t necessarily hardships (I say this as someone who does not follow these restrictions, so I’m not really qualified to say).

There’s a big distinction between following laws and making them part of your life and having reconciliation with God for our sins.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by DAVEW0071 *
**The point Paul makes is that it’s not humanly possible for man to fulfill the Law. Not 100% of the laws 100% of the time. The law was given, not a means of salvation, but to point out that man is sinful, and cannot measure up to God’s standards. …
There’s a big distinction between following laws and making them part of your life and having reconciliation with God for our sins. **

So are you saying Paul said xtians should not bother trying?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Hey, um, uh… Is Paul dead?

[lilah]

there were no christians at all before paul. (and in fact, no use of the word, if i remember correctly). jewish jewish jewish. jesus was jewish. the apostles were jewish. all of the first-generation followers were jewish.

arguably the greatest struggle in the formation of christianity is that between peter and paul. peter, like many of the early christians, believed that gentiles had to convert to judaism (and therefore follow the law)in order to follow jesus. makes sense–he was jewish. to be a follower of his religious teachings, the follower of jesus also had to be jewish. peter (and those who thought like them) saw jesus’ faith as a new brand of judaism, a better way. not a separate religion in itself

paul, on the other hand believed that the law had been fulfilled by jesus, so it did not have to be followed by his followers. the time after jesus was the time after the law. the law didn’t stop mattering, but it had run it’s course. paul believed that his time was that of jesus, not that of moses. moses’ law had done its job–and done it well, but it was time for the message of jesus to take over–and to be immediately followed by the second coming (there are those who believe that paul thought he was living in the new kingdom of jesus). in other words, he wanted people to worship jesus–not only the god that jesus was worshipping. this constitutes the true break from the judaism.

as we all know, peter lost this battle. christianity took on paul’s shape, although it changed as second and third century christians began to think that the end of the world wasn’t imminent, after all. then the formation of the church began, and the battle for control began anew.

(incidentally, the samaritans considered themselves to be jewish, and were probably indistinguishable from them in terms of rites and cutoms–the big complaint about them is that they had their own temple and held that it was the true one, rather than the one on the temple mount in jerusalem. the reason it was such a big deal that jesus made no distinction between the samaratin woman and himself is because the jews of that period were constantly trying to separate themselves from the samaratine–no easy task, since they seemed so similar to outsiders.)

[jmullaney]

lilah – you make some interesting points. But, could you include some references for those of us not familiar with Paul’s writings, I for one would appreciate it. I recommend bible.gospelcom.net as a good engine.

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by surel *
**

Are you sure? I was under the impression that the “Word of God” only forbids boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, and the interpretations/commentaries say well… let’s be extra cautious. And thus Jews keep milk and meat separate and keep two sets of dishes etc.
**
[/quote]

Well, no. I’m going to deliberately oversimplify here, but here it is:

(Orthodox) Jews believe that there is an oral tradition that was given together with the written text of the Torah at Sinai. This oral text explains and expands upon the written text. Eventually, this oral text became the Talmud.

It is also a belief that nothing in the Torah is extra or unnecessary. The prohibition of kid/mother’s milk is actually written three times. It is deduced from the fact that it is repeated three times that all meat/milk mixtures are forbidden.

**
Talk about too legalistic…
**

Well, we love you too…

**
Btw, the whole argument about having difficulty living up to the OT confuses me, since I never hear Jews complaining about how hard it is to keep all those laws, although of course most of them don’t apply these days since the holy temple was destroyed and thus they cannot be fulfilled. **

True, many of the mitzvos cannot be performed at this time. However, there are still quite a few and they do encompass a lot.

Zev Steinhardt

[lilah]

oops. sorry for the lack of references. i don’t have my library in front of me right now (i’m slacking off at work, see). the best things are of course, the letters of paul themselves. he outlines his agenda pretty well, and speaks often about his dispute with peter and the other disciples.(nb–not all are authentic. 9 are, 4 aren’t. i can’t remember off the top of my head which are which, except that both corinthians are authentic.)

also, any introduction to the new testament should be helpful, and would discuss this topic at length. two of hte best are those by bart d. ehrman and raymond brown. both are entitled introduction to the new testament.

[lilah]

sorry for the lack of references before. now that i’m home with my books, i can give a few more details:

of the 14 pauline letters, there are 7 with (essentially) undisputed authorship:

romans
1 & 2 corinithians
galatians (probably the most important for this discussion,
galatians discusses whether or not gentiles need to
become jews to become christians
phillipians
1 thessalonians
philemon

there are 4 with disputed authorship:

ephesians
colossians
2 thessalonians
hebrew

and there are 3 with really disputed authorship:

1 & 2 timothy
titus

[jb_farley]

so paul could just have been a particularly zealous Ed Zotti?

[Edlyn]

Tris - Your whisper of wisdom deafened the noise of chatter. Thank you.

[DAVEW0071]

jmulaney, no, I didn’t say Paul figured it wasn’t worth trying. In fact, Paul says that we are to uphold that law, since to not do so would be disrespectful of Christ, who fulfilled the law.

If I understand Paul correctly, what he is saying is that the law no longer condemns us, because Jesus has lived up to the law and pays the debt for mankind’s sin. Paul is very clear on the notion that deliberately sinning so that grace may abound is wrong. A Christian’s reaction to God’s grace should be striving to please God and not sin.

Whether this includes keeping the laws governing the Sabbath, diet, etc., is an individual matter. The law does not hold sway in light of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.

Again, Paul makes it clear what the law’s purpose is: “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we became conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20) Still, since the law was given by God, it does not change. But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus fulfilled the law and removes condemnation by the law from those who believe in him. That is (or should be, as I understand it) the Christian viewpoint.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by DAVEW0071 *
In fact, Paul says that we are to uphold that law, since to not do so would be disrespectful of Christ, who fulfilled the law.

But is he talking of the Torah law, or the new law from Christ? I don’t think he clearly makes this distinction, and this may lend creedence to him being an opportunist.

A Christian’s reaction to God’s grace should be striving to please God and not sin.

Ah, but the devil is in the details.

The law does not hold sway in light of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.

Now, these two statement seem to be in perfect conflict to me. Either the law (and again, is this the OT law or the fulfilled law presented in the Gospels?) holds sway or it does not. You can’t have it both ways.

Again, Paul makes it clear what the law’s purpose is: “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we became conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

This is where Paul completely looses me. Again, I would hope he is speaking of the OT law, not the fullfilled Law of Christ. Jesus specifically says “blessed are those who thirst for righteousness, for they shall be quenched” (or something akin to that). Yet here Paul is seeming to say that there can be no righteousness, unless you concede he is speaking puely on OT law. Not that this does not stop some xtian sects from quoting him as an excuse not to follow j.c.'s teachings.

Still, since the law was given by God, it does not change.

I think the law changed quite a bit

But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus fulfilled the law and removes condemnation by the law from those who believe in him.

Well, see. First you say it is wrong to sin. Now you say it doesn’t matter as there is no condemnation for it. Which is it?

[DAVEW0071]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**

*Originally posted by DAVEW0071 *
In fact, Paul says that we are to uphold that law, since to not do so would be disrespectful of Christ, who fulfilled the law.

But is he talking of the Torah law, or the new law from Christ? I don’t think he clearly makes this distinction, and this may lend creedence to him being an opportunist.

No, Paul does make a distinction. He is writing to the church in Rome, which included both Jewish converts and Gentiles. He is telling them that God’s law should still be respected in how we live our lives, so as to please him.

A Christian’s reaction to God’s grace should be striving to please God and not sin.

Ah, but the devil is in the details.
[/quote]

I don’t follow you here.

The law does not hold sway in light of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.

Now, these two statement seem to be in perfect conflict to me. Either the law (and again, is this the OT law or the fulfilled law presented in the Gospels?) holds sway or it does not. You can’t have it both ways.
[/quote]

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear on this point. Christ never meant to abolish the Old Testament law. He said he came to fulfill it. Paul points out that the law was never intended to make man righteous, but rather to point out how far removed from God’s righteousness man is. Because Christ paid the debt owed by mankind for being unrighteous, we are saved through his death and resurrection, rather than being condemned by the law. I didn’t mean to imply that the law was obsolete. Paul never makes the suggestion, either.

Again, Paul makes it clear what the law’s purpose is: “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we became conscious of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

This is where Paul completely looses me. Again, I would hope he is speaking of the OT law, not the fullfilled Law of Christ. Jesus specifically says “blessed are those who thirst for righteousness, for they shall be quenched” (or something akin to that). Yet here Paul is seeming to say that there can be no righteousness, unless you concede he is speaking puely on OT law. Not that this does not stop some xtian sects from quoting him as an excuse not to follow j.c.'s teachings.
[/quote]

Perhaps the verses following Romans 3:20 can shed light on it. Paul goes on to say, in vv 21-24: “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Paul is saying there is no righteousness to be found in following the Ten Commandments (because nobody can). But that there is righteousness through faith in Jesus. It is not what you do, but what you believe (or rather, who you believe in) that imparts righteousness in God’s eyes.

Not that our behavior isn’t important, of course, because what you believe will influence how you behave. But thinking that “being good” is good enough is putting the cart before the horse. I strive to behave well and not sin because I want to be obedient to God and please Him.

Still, since the law was given by God, it does not change.

I think the law changed quite a bit
[/quote]

Jesus never changed the law. Nor did Paul. Paul makes it clear that God’s law is to be respected and followed. He just makes a point of saying that doing so is not what reconciles you to God. Jesus took the Ten Commandments and encapsulated them into two: Love God. Love your neighbor. All of the commandments can be observed by observing these.

But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jesus fulfilled the law and removes condemnation by the law from those who believe in him.

Well, see. First you say it is wrong to sin. Now you say it doesn’t matter as there is no condemnation for it. Which is it?
**
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s still wrong to disobey God’s law. But Jesus’ sacrifice imparts righteousness to those who believe (see above quote of mine, and above quote from Romans). And Paul makes it very clear in more than one instance that this is not a license to keep on sinning so that grace will abound. We should strive to please God by our actions (obeying His law). But when we fail (cause we will), we know that we can ask forgiveness and not have it be counted against us. The law has not been abolished post-Christ. But the atonement for not keeping the law has been accomplished, not by our striving to keep the law, but by Christ presenting himself as a perfect sacrifice (fulfilling the law). God’s law still abides. And a faith that allows someone to have his penalty paid, then goes on comitting those same sins is a sham faith.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by DAVEW0071 *
Christ never meant to abolish the Old Testament law. He said he came to fulfill it.

True… And he gave us a fulfulled law, among which all the “but I say to you…” laws.

Paul points out that the law was never intended to make man righteous, but rather to point out how far removed from God’s righteousness man is.

Which law? The old one or the new one?

Because Christ paid the debt owed by mankind for being unrighteous, we are saved through his death and resurrection, rather than being condemned by the law.

Right. All sins, except sins against the Holy Spirit, can be forgiven.

Paul goes on to say, in vv 21-24: “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

But again here, Paul seems to be setting up a false idol in Christ Jesus, rather than his teachings and having faith in God. Does he make it clear that Jesus is an aspect of God? There are many xtians who proclaim with their mouths that they have faith but have none in their heart and show none through their deeds – and Paul seems to be saying this is OK – “there is no difference” between those who obey Christ and those who do not, as long as you claim to have faith in him.

Paul is saying there is no righteousness to be found in following the Ten Commandments (because nobody can).

So this is OT law he is talking about then? It isn’t hard to keep the Ten Commandments – although I’m sure I’ve broken a dozen of them. Keeping Jesus’s law is difficult, of course, but even this is not impossible with Faith. Why does Paul, in a mere period of time after Christ’s death, already say that following his teachings is impossible?

It is not what you do, but what you believe (or rather, who you believe in) that imparts righteousness in God’s eyes. Not that our behavior isn’t important, of course, because what you believe will influence how you behave.

Once again, this is a contradiction. First, it is not what you do. Then it is what you do. If you believe in the teaching of Christ, you will do what is right. So it is indeed what you do, for if you do not, it shows you believe not.

But thinking that “being good” is good enough is putting the cart before the horse. I strive to behave well and not sin because I want to be obedient to God and please Him.

Xtianity is not about being good – there is none good but God. Christians should follow Christ’s teachings.

Jesus took the Ten Commandments and encapsulated them into two: Love God. Love your neighbor. All of the commandments can be observed by observing these.

This is a fine summary of Jesus’s teachings, but those are hardly a mere “encapsulation” of the old Ten Commandments – to truly love requires observance of all of his teachings, which go far beyond the law of the OT.

We should strive to please God by our actions (obeying His law).

The new one, right?

But the atonement for not keeping the law has been accomplished, not by our striving to keep the law, but by Christ presenting himself as a perfect sacrifice (fulfilling the law). God’s law still abides.

Christ’s death was not the “fulfullment of the law.” His teachings are the fulfillment of the law. Why does Paul want so badly to gloss over this?

And a faith that allows someone to have his penalty paid, then goes on comitting those same sins is a sham faith.

True, true. But Paul is still confusing.

“I BRING to YE these FIFTEEN…” (Moses drops a tablet) “er, oops. Um, these TEN! TEN COMMANDMENTS!!” – History of the World, Part I

[DAVEW0071]

jmullaney, I’m afraid I’m not adept enough with my understanding of either Scripture or the point of confusion you have with it to try to come up with more explanations of what Paul is saying regarding the law vs. faith in Christ.

I’ve re-read my posts and your replies, and my answers to your replies, and while I think I’m being clear, it seems that I’m not being clear to you. The difference between faith and works, as I understand Paul, is that works will not reconcile a man to God. We are sinful by nature, and breaking even one commandment, even once, separates us from God’s righteousness and perfect nature. Therefore, the atonement, in the form of Jesus, pays the debt. It removes a believer’s sins in the eyes of God; something “being a good person” cannot achieve.

That being said, Paul goes on to say that this does not give a Christian license to sin. You can’t go around stealing, cheating and murdering people, then kneel down at the end of the day, ask forgiveness, and have a clean slate for the next day’s skulduggery. Christians should obey God’s laws (I still don’t know what you mean by “old” laws and “new” laws) because, since they have recognized and accepted Jesus as Lord of all, their lives should be guided by the Holy Spirit, and they would seek to live as God would have them live. But failing to do so (not on a habitual basis, but the inevitable sins that all flesh is heir to) does not compromise a person’s redemption. I sin every day, because I am human. I am prone to anger, harsh words, telling untruths. But I don’t do it because I have liberty to. And I don’t feel my salvation is compromised by it, either.

Faith without works is dead, because by our fruits men shall know us. But works as a means of redemption is a dead end street. According to Scripture, you can’t earn heavenly brownie points and get to heaven.

I agree with you, Paul is sometimes very hard to understand. But perhaps if you studied (not just read, but studied) the Book of Romans with a commentary, you might find some answers to your questions, and have some of these seeming contradictions cleared up.