From: aj@hoqas2.att.com (Ahmad M Jrad)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Paul, Could he be wrong?
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:49:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Aug.12.03.26.13.1992.25469@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
= Article 13673 of soc.religion.christian:
= In article <Aug.10.00.39.49.1992.5874@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
= clh writes: 
= 
= >[I don't disagree with anything you have said, but there are some
= >other issues as well.  Paul's primary concern was with a problem Jesus
= >didn't have to deal with -- people who wanted to force non-Jews to
= >accept the Law.  For himself, Paul obeyed the Law, according to one of
= >his letters.  He was primarily defending Gentile Christians from
= >having to accept it.  Paul's focus on Gentile Christians gives his
= >letters a very different context from Jesus, who said he was primarily
= >sent to Jews.  While Paul agreed that the Law is holy, it isn't
= >binding for his Gentile readers, and for no one (Jewish or Gentile)
= >did it bring justification.
= >
= 
= First, one might ask in what way were the Gentiles being asked to accept
= the Law.  It is my understanding that they were being asked to become Jews
= in order to be saved.  The Jerusalem Council and Paul point to them being
= able to be saved as Gentiles.  The vehicle for salvation was not being
= Jewish, but accept God's grace through faith.  Second, I believe those
= facets of the Law which apply to Jews and Gentiles both are things to
= which a Gentile should obey through faith.  In this category are those
= regulations outlined by the Jerusalem Council, those alluded to by these
= regulations (i.e. the dietary laws), and the Ten Commandments. 
= 
= "Malachi" Ian Robertson Brown

As far as I know, these laws were picked more or less arbitrarily by
people attending the council of Jerusalem. And they were not divinely
inspired or else through a vision by Jesus or the like. As such, these
laws, designed to make the life of the gentiles easier, could be
inadequate.

Acts 15:29  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This redefinition of the law, which is done by people, and not
by a prophet seems to me to be in direct violation of the quote
from Matthew that I mentioned. Here it is again from the NIV.

5:17  Do not think that I am come to abolish the law, and the prophets:
I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them.
5:18  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means 
disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.
5:19  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches
others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
whoever practices, and teaches these commands will be called great in the
kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:20  For I tell you, That unless your righteousness surpasses
that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not
enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus did not specify the Jews here. He said "anyone who teaches others"
that would seem to include non-jews also.

God Bless,
Ahmad


[I think not.  The Law of Moses were part of a covenant between God
and the Jews.  Jews now and many Jews in the 1st Cent. do not expect
the whole world to become Jewish and accept the Laws of Moses.
Traditional Jewish exegesis says that non-Jews are bound by the
covenant that God made with Noah when they got out of the ark.  This
passage was expanded by Jewish commentators to 7 laws that non-Jews
were expected to follow.  Many commentators see a great similarity
between the rules in Acts 15 and those laws.  Note that in his
discussion of the Law Paul points to Abraham as someone who was saved
outside the Law.  (Obviously, Abraham was before Moses, and thus
before the convenant with Moses.)  In Rom. Paul seems to use Abraham
as a model for people who are justified by faith, outside the Law.

Jesus did not deal explicitly with the question of non-Jews, so we
can't tell exactly what theoretical approach he would take.  However
there's no reason to think he would expect non-Jews to convert to
Judaism or to accept the Law of Moses.  I can recall two cases where
he dealt with non-Jews: the Centurion and the woman at the well.  The
Centurion (Luke 7) seems to have been an example of what the Jews
called a "God-fearer".  That is, he is someone who respects Judaism,
and in this case has given money to a congregation.  But the way he is
referred to by the elders doesn't make it sound like he is a Jew
himself.  Similarly Jesus' statement "not even in Israel have I found
such faith" makes it clear that he is not a Jew.  This Centurion is
exactly what would be expected of a "righteous Gentile".  Jesus
accepts the elders' recommendation that he should help the Centurion.
He does not suggest to the man that he needs to become a Jew.  Indeed
his faith is held up as a model.  Similarly with the woman at the
well.  She is a Samaritan.  While the Samaritans also have the Law,
it's quite a different version, and Jesus seems not to consider her a
Jew.  (John 4:22) Again, Jesus does not suggest that she should become
a Jew.  While he says "salvation is from the Jews", the next verse
(4:23) seems to imply a major change in which salvation is available
to everyone as a gift from the Spirit.

Neither Jesus nor Paul wanted to abolish the Law.  They both
considered it a holy thing.  But neither expected Gentiles to obey it.

I certainly see differences in emphasis between Jesus and Paul.  It
can be instructive to look at these when trying to understand them.
But trying to turn Jesus against Paul or Paul against Jesus does not
seem to do justice to either.  Are you seriously suggesting that
Christians should obey all the kosher laws, or are you simply trying
to discredit Jesus or Paul?

--clh]