Curse of the Law

Paul and the law seems to be a bit off topic for the Ephesians thread and worthy of a thread of its own. A new thread will give us more dancing room.Did Paul's authentic letters teach that Christ's death abolished God's Law (Written Torah) or Jewish laws (Oral Torah)?My contention is that Paul's authentic letters did not present the idea that Christ's death abolished any written or oral legal system or religious rules.Epistles considered authentic and the order in which they were possibly written: (Timelines differ)
Estimated dating is 50-60 CE.First Thessalonians
Galatians
First Corinthians
Romans
Second Corinthians
Philippians
PhilemonBible scholars are split on whether Ephesians is an authentic Pauline letter or not. I feel that Ephesians 2:14-16 is a good reason not to accept that Ephesians (80-100 CE) was written by Paul. Which brings us to the point of this thread.

​

In the epistles considered to be authentically Pauline, did Paul teach that Christ's death abolished the Mosaic or Jewish laws? Did he present that Christ's purpose was to reconcile Jews and Gentiles as it seems to claim in Ephesians?My contention is that he did not. Paul's claim is that Christ redeemed them from the curse of the law. So what is a curse?I feel that the contrast between divine empowerment and divine bondage is the basis for Paul's arguments. A curse prevents a person from living a life of freedom and abundance and comes as a result of sin against God. I feel that Paul's position in his letters is that those who believe in Jesus are saved from being rendered powerless by God for wrong behavior, not from any legal system itself or the consequences of wrong behavior per that legal system.He didn't claim that Christ's death abolished any portion of a written legal system or that God's Law was cursed. He considered God's Law to be holy and spiritual.Bible Study would be the appropriate place for this debate.

This is the point of this debate.In the epistles considered to be authentically Pauline, did Paul teach that Christ's death abolished the Mosaic or Jewish laws? Did he present that Christ's purpose was to reconcile Jews and Gentiles as it seems to claim in Ephesians?This debate is about what Paul actually wrote for his audience.In the Book of Romans Paul seems to switch between referring to any law at all to referring to the Torah. His point being that no law can justify.Even though no law is a means to salvation, that doesn't mean that mankind can do away with their legal systems. Law in the Book of Romans Part 2I don't think "under law" is singling out the Torah and in no way says it is abolished. No law is a source of justification or salvation. That doesn't mean we don't follow the laws per their respective culture or society for day to day life.Paul didn't abolish anything other than the belief that one could acquire justification or salvation through written laws.I don't feel Paul would have written Ephesians 2:14-15. It goes against his own arguments.I've made it clear that Paul clearly presented that no legal system or set of rules can justify one before God. So we don't need to keep rehashing that issue. It isn't the point of the debate.Rules and regulations whether written or unwritten are necessary when people interact. Christian churches have rules. Religions have rules. Communities have rules. Just because these rules are not a means of justification or salvation, doesn't mean they are abolished or can be ignored in daily life.Do you understand the point I'm making concerning Paul?
Paul didn't claim that Christ's death abolished any commandments or ordinances.
Paul claimed that Christ's death redeemed them from the Curse of the Torah, not the Torah.

Didn't miss it. The debate isn't about justification or salvation.Did Paul's authentic letters teach that Christ's death abolished God's Law (Written Torah) or Jewish laws (Oral Torah)?My contention is that Paul's authentic letters did not present the idea that Christ's death abolished any written or oral legal system or religious rules.

quote:

---

Paul speaks of his own personal experience here. In the realm of the resurrected, living and available Christ, Paul has "died to the law" .

---

The problem is that the word "the" isn't there. Paul switches between referring to the Torah and referring to law in general. IOW, he died to using law of any sort to gain justification. He didn't stop following the laws and ordinances. He changed his mind set as to their purpose.

quote:

---

Whether he says for him Christ has abolished the law in His crucifixion or that Paul has died to the law through Christ's crucifixion the teaching is virtually the same.

---

Very different issue to abolish the law or die to law. Paul still followed Torah.

quote:

---

What are the things which Paul or Peter have destroyed ?
The things destroyed are the binding Mosiac ordinances and probably the Oral Torah as well. In preaching the grace of Christ for salvation they "destroyed" the principle of justification through law keeping. Paul is saying that Peter's hypocrisy is building again those things which the Christian apostles "destroyed" .

---

They destroyed the principle, not the law. I think Peter's issue was political, not a return for purposes of justification.

quote:

---

The passage says that Christ is our peace - refering to Jewish and Gentile Christians - " For He Himself is our peace ..."

​

Christ was certainly the peace between Peter and his six accompanying brothers and the seekers in the house of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Christ HIMSELF is the peace as He as the resurrected man breathed the Holy Spirit into the disciples in John 20 and said Peace be to you (John 20:19,21)

​

"He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity .."

​

In Acts 10 didn't Christ break down the middle wall of partition between the Jewish believers and the seeking Gentile believers? Of course He did or Peter would not have entered the house to preach to them.

---

I don't think Paul saw overall peace between Jews and Greeks. In reading "A History Of The Jews" by Paul Johnson, I don't find that the wall came down between Greeks and Jews after Christ's death. It actually got worse. The whole sentence doesn't reflect Paul's time or writings.

quote:

---

This vision recorded in Acts 10:9-16. Please read those 8 verses. Obviously God was showing Peter the breaking down of the partition between Jews and Gentiles, symbolically portrayed by clean animals to eat verses unclean animals to eat.

---

I'm looking at Paul's writings and their consistency, not really other writings. Acts is supposedly a later writing about 80-100AD. The same time frame as Ephesians.

quote:

---

So you believe that Paul died to the Code of Hammurabi through the Code of Hammurabi.

​

But though Paul has died to the Code of Hammurabi Paul is still following the Torah.

​

Does that make sense ?

​

In Galatians 2:19 it makes far more sense that law THROUGH which Paul died is the same law TO which Paul died.
That has to be the law of Moses.

---

Paul's argument is that no law has the ability to bring about justification. He isn't addressing any law's ability to regulate behavior. Two different issues.He isn't trying to present that only the Torah is not a means to justification, but any law or rule whether Roman, Hammurabi, Christian, Catholic, etc. That doesn't mean that these laws or rules are not necessary to regulate a group's behavior. Galatians - Part 6Through in this sense is used to indicate exposure to a specified set of conditions.While in an environment in which law was the governing principle (through law), Paul realized that he had to renounce (die to) law as the ground upon which he would be justified by God.Paul did not claim that any laws were nullified as a means to regulate a group's behavior. He rejected the principle of law as a basis upon which to be justified in the sight of God. Paul was supposedly also a Roman citizen.

quote:

---

The issue in the house of Cornelius seems a matter of religion.

---

There are politics in the work place, the church, etc. It was probably more about staying in good with the visiting group than justification before God. Appearances.

quote:

---

In another post I demonstrated that Paul was accmodating toward "weaker" brethren who still clung to some of the dietary ordinances.

---

Romans 14 isn't about abolishing anything. Not sure how it supports anything contrary to what I've presented.

quote:

---

Justification by law keeping was made obsolete through the redemption of Christ.

---

Exactly! But Christ's death did not remove any law's ability to regulate a group's behavior.IOW, anyone who wants to take on the full mantle of Judaism (or variations thereof) and want to follow all the rules and traditions of the group can do so because those rules still exist. They weren't abolished.Same goes for Christianity. Christianity developed its own rules of order and worship.Show me that the author of Ephesians (2:15) is referring to justification only when he speaks of abolishing commandments and ordinances. Commentaries don't present that idea.

quote:

---

It is a shame that you discard as suspicious certain letters of Paul because those very letters could be effectivly used to establish your own point.

---

I set parameters for the debate. Bible scholars have had their debates on the issue of authorship. There are those that are considered authentic, those that are disputed, and those where the scholars are split. Bible scholars have determined a range of dates for the books of the NT. If you are unable to debate within the parameters, then don't join the debate. The debate takes into account the estimated dates of the writings in the NT. The issue being that the later writings show a change.We aren't talking about the spirit either. The issue is about whether Paul wrote in the letters considered authentic, that the Torah or Jewish Law had been abolished by the death of Christ.I don't see that the author of Ephesians made the distinction that it was only abolished as a means to justification.

quote:

---

Do you understand ? Christ made the moral law more penetrating, more subjective, more radical piercing beyond just the act and touching the inclination.

---

But you aren't showing me that that is what Paul taught. I'm interested in Paul's theology, not yours.The Torah and Jewish Laws were not abolished by the death of Christ. Again, still not talking about these laws as a means of justification.In "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, we see that Jewish reformers were already trying to change Jewish Law. I don't see the change as a result of Christ's death and resurrection. I see it as a result of progress and Paul's efforts.Still not talking about justification.

quote:

---

Richh's post on the Wuest word study of "abolished" addressed that issue very well.

---

Richh's Message 312 and Message 347 from the Ephesians thread.Except that it doesn't. It just says the same thing I've been saying. Paul's point is that no law or rule is a means of justification. Law is only inoperative as a means to justification. Law is still operative as a means to regulate behavior. Ephesians 2:15 doesn't seem to make that distinction.When Paul starts the marriage illustration he is speaking to Jews. He is speaking to men who know law. So they probably understand the illustration a lot better than we do today.Tim Hegg in his book "The Letter Writer: Paul's Background and Torah Perspective" presents this idea concerning Paul's contrast between letter and spirit. IOW, the "letter" people were just going through the motions. (To do something because you are expected to do it and not because you want to) The "spirit" people aren't just going through the motions. That the difference between serving the new way over the old way. (Romans 7:6)None of this means the Torah or Jewish Law was rendered inoperative as a means to regulate behavior. It was still in effect after Christ's death and the apostles and Paul still participated.Ephesians 2:15 (Young's Literal Translation) My contention is that in the letters considered authentic, Paul claimed that Christ redeemed them from the curse of the law. (Galatians 3:13)He did not claim that Christ's death rendered the law or commands inoperative in regulating behavior. Show me that the letters considered to be authentic support the statement in Ephesians 2:15 or show me that Ephesians 2:15 is speaking of justification and not regulating behavior.

My post addresses the arguments in those posts.I understand the spirit issue and addressed that, but that isn't what Ephesians 2:15 is talking about.If you're not taking the opposing stance or trying to show that Ephesians is in line with Paul's authentic letters, what's your point other than walking in the spirit?OP: My contention is that Paul's authentic letters did not present the idea that Christ's death abolished any written or oral legal system or religious rules.

Romans 7 and I said predominantly Gentile in the other thread.

quote:

---

Explain to your audience why Paul did not participate in having Titus circumcised.

---

I'm glad you changed Timothy to Titus. I was a bit confused.The difference between Timothy and Titus is really the answer to your question.Acts was supposedly written about 80-100 CE. The unknown author is supposedly another source of information on Paul. Acts 16 tells us why Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy's mother was Jewish and a believer. His mother hadn't bothered with the process, but Paul had him circumcised because of the Jews in the area. Not for justification or salvation purposes.Titus on the other hand was a Greek. Galatians 2:3 As Kofh2u showed in his link, the Greeks weren't automatically required by the Jews to be circumcised if they believed in the God of Abraham. Now this doesn't mean there weren't groups within Judaism who felt otherwise.The Apostles made the decision. Christ's death didn't change the fact that Greeks weren't required to take on the full mantle of Judaism.That's why I say that Christ's death did not make any laws inoperative and his death didn't bring down any dividing walls. I don't feel that Paul taught that vein of thought. As I pointed out in Message 10 and Message 17, Jews were already trying to adjust the rules.As for your last bunch of questions, you tell me. Make your argument for what Paul means and how that supports your position or counters mine.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE: YellowEdited by purpledawn, : ABE: Yellow

I don't think you understand what I'm saying and I'm sorry I'm not able to make my position clearer.I've said that Christ's death did not render any laws or the fence inoperative. I don't feel that Paul taught that that was the purpose of Christ's death or Christ's mission. As I pointed out in Message 10 and Message 17, Jews were already trying to adjust the rules of the religion.Paul and believers made the changes in the rules and traditions for Christians, not Christ's death. Circumstances contributed to the changes in the rules and traditions, not Christ's death.

quote:

---

But circumcision was a major pillar of the Mosiac law.

---

I have pointed out and provided excerpts concerning history, that the Greco-Roman world was going through changes. Male circumcision in the Greco-Roman worldRules for Greek converts was not new. That there were groups that thought converts should be circumcised, was not new. These battles were going on before Jesus was born and after he died. Paul was Torah Observant

quote:

---

Paul was strongly persuaded by James to revert back to Judiastic ritual in order to appease the thousands of Jewish followers of Jesus believers not clear about the transition from the old covenent to the new.

---

Unfortunately that understanding puts Paul in a bad light.It paints Paul as a hypocrite, which is worse since he confronted Peter about being a hypocrite.If the account is accurate, Paul complies to show that he is not teaching Jews to turn away from Torah. There is no record of Paul disagreeing in his own writings or that he performed the acts under duress or that they "leaned" on him.As I showed earlier, Paul had no problem having Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) since he was Jewish.Paul had no problem cutting off his hair due to a vow he had taken. (Acts 18:18)As you keep pointing out, there are no laws prohibiting Christian Jews from observing Torah. So when Paul is Torah observant, that isn't a mistake to be rectified or grown out of unless he is doing so for justification before God and I don't see that he is.Paul's authentic writings do not present the rituals as abominable in God's eyes.

quote:

---

I submit that this was an ill advized scheme from James to pour the new wine of the new covenant into old wineskins of the Mosiac law.

---

Many people do, but that isn't what that parable is addressing. It addresses why Jesus' disciples (pupils) didn't fast when the disciples of John and the Pharisees did. Also Jesus said they would fast after he was taken away. (Luke 5:33-39) Notice the next line after what you quoted really messes up your theory. Gentiles aren't part of this equation. IMO, we need to look at the parable from a Jewish perspective. Identifying the Garments and Wineskins in LukeI think Acts still shows that Paul was Torah observant and not contrary to what he was teaching the Gentiles.

quote:

---

The same man wrote that Christ on the cross abolished the law of commandments in ordinances in order to create in Himself one new man so making peace.

---

Well we come full circle back to the beginning and you've gone off script. Thanks for the jaunt.

quote:

---

It puts Paul in not much worse light then the Scripture put Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or Peter or John and James. They too were men of God but human and prone to human error.

---

There's a difference between the author's presenting the error's of their heros and someone today interpreting the writing that makes the hero look in error.

quote:

---

And as I said before, Paul did not establish anti- Moses laws. The flexibility of the Apostle Paul seems to elude you.

---

You say that, but you function as though there are.

quote:

---

In the case with Titus, he was firm.
In the case of Timothy, he evidently did what he thought expedient for the furtherance of his gospel preaching in that area.

---

One was a Jew and one was Greek.

quote:

---

I keep pointing it out because some people seem to have a myopic view of the matter.

​

Paul wrote "be renewed in the spirit of your mind". Should we assume that he himself did not go through any process of renewing ?

---

Not myopic. but more balanced with reality.

quote:

---

I have mentioned Paul quite a lot in these threads. But we Christians do not worship Paul. We worship the Son of God as the perfect Man.

---

That's why it surprises me that there is opposition to the idea that some of the books are not authentic or that Paul was Torah observant. Shouldn't make any difference in the current religion.There's too much effort to keep Paul in line with current dogma and tradition, than an effort to view him in his time.Jews have rules about behavior and Christians have rules about how or what to believe.Faith is in God; not in the books, the authors, or the rules. Just God.Enjoyed the dialogue.

quote:

---

So we speak of reality now.

​

Is Christ risen from the dead part of your reality ?

​

Is Christ being God incarnate, died, and resurrected from the dead reality ?

​

A Yes or a No will let me know where you stand in your take on what is "reality".

---

The debate is about Paul and what he wrote, not my belief system. This is the Bible Study forum and the debate is engaging in Biblical Criticism.

quote:

---

There is opposition from me because your preference list seems to be elaborately tailored to present some very dubious views what the apostles present.

---

The texts deemed authentic were not done so by me. The Bible Scholars I have referenced in this thread are Christians. The articles I have referenced are from Christians.

quote:

---

The gymnatistic you present on these two verses to try to insist the mind behind them is different from the mind behind Romans, First Corinthians, and Galatians is not convincing to this Bible reader.

---

The religion is different, IMO. That's fine if it doesn't convince you. This is a debate forum. I present an argument and you present a counter argument. You should be able to present a counter argument that doesn't include implying that your opposition's belief isn't good enough or correct. My references have been from within Christianity.

quote:

---

If Christ is not God incarnate, died for our redemption, and resurrected there is no church. Some teachers seem to be constantly hijacking the New Testament to present their "dead and gone" unavailable Jesus of their Humanism.

---

My arguments did not say that Christ was not God incarnate or that he didn't die for our redemption. My whole point has been that Paul taught that Christ died to redeem us from the curse of the law. That is redemption. He did not teach that Christ died to bring down the law, walls, or make it easier for Gentiles to join the club. I'm speaking of the purpose of Christ's death.And reading the history of Christianity (Kenneth Scott Latourette) and the history of the Jews (Paul Johnson) also shows me that Christ's death did not bring down the barriers. Both books were written by Christians. I have not argued that Ephesians is worthless or that it should be ignored. On the contrary, it shows us the progression of the religion. My point is that it probably wasn't a progression that was around in Paul's time. Bible scholars are split on its authenticity.

quote:

---

Sounds good. But I don't accept the decoded underlying intent of "Just take as much of the New Testament as is handy to establish another Jesus. And don't trust the rest."

---

I haven't argued not to trust the rest. The writings of the Bible are the foundation of Christianity.

quote:

---

I have heard you deny being "made alive" and pretty much cast doubts upon being born of the Spirit (born anew). It is only natural that accompanying these errors would be an attempt to believe large portions of the New Testament should be treated as apochryphal.

---

No you haven't. You've made an assumption because I won't answer your questions that don't deal with the topic. You're questioning your opponents belief system instead of addressing the arguments made. The implication being that if one believed correctly they wouldn't question your argument or current dogma. You're falling into the same trap Paul taught against, except that Christians do it concerning thoughts.If you had enough faith...
If you truly believed...That's the way cults and bad preachers suck people in, doubt. I prefer to understand the Bible warts and all.It only takes faith in God. Whether one's faith is weak or strong, it is still faith and it counts according to Paul.Stop making assumptions about my belief system and just stick to the arguments being made, which we've come full circle so there isn't really anything else to say. I don't really want to waste time repeating myself.