I am familiar with Matthew 17-20, where Jesus says that he is not suggesting that The Law no longer applies. I am also familiar with Galatians, where Paul argues that The Law is no longer relevant. In Ephesians 2:15 (Ephesians is pseudo-Pauline, a forgery)The Law is said to be abolished.
What about the other books of the New Testament? What does Acts say about The Law? How about 2 Peter? How about James?
I am going to start researching this myself, but I wonder if anyone has already done this work for me? Is there a good book on this subject?
I notice that many Christians say that Christians are supposed to follow the ethical parts of The Law but not the ritual parts. But when I asked where in the Bible this distinction is given, I get no satisfactory answer.
What about the other books of the New Testament? What does Acts say about The Law? How about 2 Peter? How about James?
Before looking at the other books of the New Testament, please consider looking at what the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh / Old Testament) have to say on the subject. The New Testament is heavily influenced by Greek thought, and the Law / Commandments were birthed in Hebraic thought. Many Christians have only a cursory familiarity with Jewish Laws and therefore become the victims of their misunderstandings about the Law.
If I might suggest a book, “Judaism and Christianity: A Contrast”, by Rabbi Stuart Federow. On page 24, he lists some common misconceptions (I will list the first four of his 9)
“1. That Jewish Laws are only about rituals.
2. That Jews added more and more laws to the Bible that are unnecessary and are not divine.
3. That he purpose of Jewish Law is to condemn those who don’t obey them
4. That Jews keep Jewish Law in order to be justified, their guilt removed, so that they can go to heaven.”
I have found that what Paul and the Pauline epistles condemn regarding the Law fall into line with many of the misconceptions about the Law.
Jesus and Paul only condemned being over-dependent on the Law, not the Law itself. And I think in principle many religious Jews would have agreed with that, but within the Judaism of that time, it was still a controversial position, as it would be today among many believing Jews.
If you need words on a piece of paper to know what is right and wrong, you are not going to enter the Kingdom. The Law merely recognizes that right and wrong behaviors exist, and that it is our duty to seek the former and avoid the latter.
The Law will no longer be operative in the Kingdom, since it was handed down by God to serve as a guide for people living in a sinful world, where temptations are many. Since only good people will enter the Kingdom, and temptations will no longer exist, there will be no further need of it then.
But Paul would not have condemned following the Law, since the Kingdom had not come, and therefore it was still valid for those who had been part of God’s earlier covenant. They were still obligated to keep faith with God. But gentiles who had converted were only obligated to follow the new covenant, which certainly was derived in part from the Law, but was less constricting about things like diet.
Don’t be a petty legalist about it, is all they’re saying. And recognize that some of its requirements matter far more than others. Don’t lose the forest in the trees.
Unfortunately many readers of Paul, perhaps especially many Christians, do not understand…
An important point. This is where the Ephesian and Colossian forgeries have done much damage. Paul’s actual views have been much obscured.
Rather worth hoping for an afterlife so that one can be present at Paul’s initial interviews with his interpreters.
“Have you ever read the gospels?”
That’s about as petty as they come, and it wasn’t directed at me.
If you can’t stand up to a mild bit of teasing, maybe you’re not cut out for an unmoderated discussion forum. But I keep forgetting you and Stephen are humor-deficient. My bad.
You are not qualified to be lecturing anyone–on early Christianity or manners.
This can be the end of it. If you choose.
I object to ‘veiled’. You really are humor-deficient. But I’m not the least bit passive aggressive. It’s not one of my many flaws.
There’s no need for you to act like you’re the editor of a scholarly journal and this is the letters page. That’s not what this is, and if it was, you still wouldn’t be the editor. You’re just another unqualified kibitzer, as is Stephen, as am I. You’re more qualified than Steefen, but Steefen doesn’t care, and you still waste endless hours debating him, because apparently you can’t help yourself. Ask yourself why you have more of a problem with me than with any of the people who come here to peddle crackpot theories. Because I’m the one you are having problems with. The others boost your ego, and I’m deflating it.
If you can accept you’re just another poster here, looking to share insights, there’s no hostility, and no problem. I’ll accept my portion of blame for the sad deterioration of our discussions here, which started out okay. Not yours. If you can’t see any problem with the way you conduct yourself here, that is itself a problem. Maybe the best answer is for you to avoid responding to me, and I can do the same. But please note, if you interject yourself into discussions I’m having with others, I can do the same, and it’s going to get messy.
Your call. If I get no more flak from you, you’ll get no more from me. Same goes for Stephen. Later.
Robert said, “Unfortunately many readers of Paul, perhaps especially many Christians, do not understand that Paul never really condemned the law.”
I am sorry, but I have to reply. For as many verses that can be pulled out that seem to show that Paul said something positive about the law, there are just as many that show him trivializing it and casting it into poor light.
Paul takes a very dim view of the law, calling it a curse, and even stating it has been abolished. Colossians 2:13-14. “…he forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code and regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross”. Paul trivializes the law, making irrelevant and dead.
Paul calls the covenant of the Torah, flawed.
Hebrews 8:7 “For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second.”
Paul says the first covenant is decaying and passing away. Hebrews 8:13 “He hath made the first [covenant] old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.””
And there are, of course, more quotes attributed to Paul that show a total disregard for the law.
The Tanakh’s view of the law is that it is perfect, can be kept, and is eternal and irrevocable. Paul teaches the opposite.
I’ll defer to Robert for a fuller reply but since I just happened to be wandering by…
Paul probably didn’t write Colossians. In fact its view of the Law is one of the reasons scholars doubt Paul’s authorship.
And Paul certainly didn’t write Hebrews. Why do you think he did?
Stephen said, “And Paul certainly didn’t write Hebrews. Why do you think he did?”
You are correct, Paul did not write Hebrews. The original thread was about the New Testament view of the Law. The majority of the New Testament (excluding the Gospels), is Pualine in nature. It is either authored by Paul or was attributed to Paul for many centuries. I did not make the distinction, but should have.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert