I wrote in response to dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe):


Was Paul a God too? Is an interpretation of the words of Paul of higher
priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
yourself as one who is weak in the faith?


Yes, but what does the Bible have to say? What did Jesus say? Paul
closes Romans 14 with, "On the other hand, the person with doubts about
something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on his
faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin." Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2
Have you read the Ten Commandments which are a portion of the Law? Have
you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?


Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
clear, are they not?


Matt5:14-19 doesn't answer your question?


Breaking bread - roughly synonymous with eating.


How do you unite this concept of yours with the Ten Commandments and
Jesus's word in Matt5:14-19?


Or, they assumed that the Ten Commandments and Jesus' word in
Matt5:14-19 actually stood for something? Perhaps they were "strong in
the faith?"

---------------------------

[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.  However Paul was
writing for a largely Gentile audience.  The Law was regarded by Jews
at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There
are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
laws), but they are quite minimal.  The issue that the Church had to
face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it
didn't apply to Gentiles.  Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.
As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they
continued to obey the Law.  The issue was (and is) with Gentile
Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
ceremonial aspects of it).

Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that
Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.  He did interact with
Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.  He was commended by
Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
that Gentiles need not accept the Law.

However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I
read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
certain sense superceded.  Again, this issue isn't one of the
abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an
impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.
Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
agrees with my reading.  But the interesting thing to notice is that
even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
important that it not be relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not
the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.

While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.

The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.

It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values.