"de-legalization" of Christian Law?

[JChesney]

Being a good Protestant I can never suggest the Law of Moses remains valid for Jews who convert to Christianity. The theology of the New Covenant applies equally to Jews and non-Jews, to all ethnicities. What matters is that we derive our righteousness, spiritually, from Christ. The Law was based on the record of sinful men, no matter how righteous they were.

To return to the Law is a return to the record of sinful men, thus barring us from the tree of life. We must enter the gates of heaven through Christ, whose record was spotless and whose Deity enabled him to transfer his righteousness to us spiritually.

Apostles did not immediately come to understand the role of the Jewish law for salvation, but even when they came to this understanding (that it does not matter for salvation), they continued to observe the law for the sake of unbelieving Jews, so as not to tempt them. Of course, the tithe is only a part of the Old Testament law, it was for given to the Levites, to the temple, to the beggars. Apostles or community leaders of the ancient church never collected tithes because the law of tithing does not for given of tithe to them. In the Jerusalem community during the existence of the Temple, most likely members of the community gave tithes for the temple, as required by law.
But the attitude to the law of Jerusalem apostles were careful. in Gal. 2: 11-16 Paul talks about the hypocrisy of Peter (following Peter, other apostles also dissembled according to him). The behavior of apostle Peter can be explained not by hypocrisy (as Paul understood), but by his desire to avoid temptation in the eyes of Jerusalem's Judeo-Christians, condescension to their "weak faith" (in the language of the apostle Paul, see Romans 14: 1-2), especially if we consider that this event occurred before the Apostolic Council.
Most likely, Apostle of the Gentiles sharply opposed the claims of the zealots of the law (Acts 15: 1-2) and expected that they seeing Peter's cordial attitude towards the Gentiles would also recognize them as their full-fledged coreligionists. But Peter began to behave in a different way. Paul described the behavior of Peter as "hypocrisy", and attacked him with denunciation. But Paul's sharp speech against the zealots of the law in the eyes of Peter could look like a manifestation of extreme unceremoniousness toward converted Jews. Apostle Peter, unlike Paul, was, apparently, a supporter of the sensitive settlement of disputes of this kind. Most likely, he thought that his fellow believers from the Jerusalem community were not yet mature enough to recognize a fraternal union with converted uncircumcised coreligionists. That's why Peter did not here to support Paul, and this caused irritation of Paul.

[randyk]

Apostles did not immediately come to understand the role of the Jewish law for salvation, but even when they came to this understanding (that it does not matter for salvation), they continued to observe the law for the sake of unbelieving Jews, so as not to tempt them. Of course, the tithe is only a part of the Old Testament law, it was for given to the Levites, to the temple, to the beggars. Apostles or community leaders of the ancient church never collected tithes because the law of tithing does not for given of tithe to them. In the Jerusalem community during the existence of the Temple, most likely members of the community gave tithes for the temple, as required by law.
But the attitude to the law of Jerusalem apostles were careful. in Gal. 2: 11-16 Paul talks about the hypocrisy of Peter (following Peter, other apostles also dissembled according to him). The behavior of apostle Peter can be explained not by hypocrisy (as Paul understood), but by his desire to avoid temptation in the eyes of Jerusalem's Judeo-Christians, condescension to their "weak faith" (in the language of the apostle Paul, see Romans 14: 1-2), especially if we consider that this event occurred before the Apostolic Council.
Most likely, Apostle of the Gentiles sharply opposed the claims of the zealots of the law (Acts 15: 1-2) and expected that they seeing Peter's cordial attitude towards the Gentiles would also recognize them as their full-fledged coreligionists. But Peter began to behave in a different way. Paul described the behavior of Peter as "hypocrisy", and attacked him with denunciation. But Paul's sharp speech against the zealots of the law in the eyes of Peter could look like a manifestation of extreme unceremoniousness toward converted Jews. Apostle Peter, unlike Paul, was, apparently, a supporter of the sensitive settlement of disputes of this kind. Most likely, he thought that his fellow believers from the Jerusalem community were not yet mature enough to recognize a fraternal union with converted uncircumcised coreligionists. That's why Peter did not here to support Paul, and this caused irritation of Paul.

Sounds like you're trying to offer up your own version of the Bible? I could never do that. I could never say I know better than the Apostle Paul on a matter that the Holy Spirit allowed into the Scriptures. I take Paul's reasoning as the correct reasoning.

Paul never said it was wrong for Jewish believers to behave as Jews. He clearly said the Law had no value with respect to salvation, but he was not against cultural expressions that marked Jewish traditions. It would be like prohibiting the celebration of Christmas in a Christian country. It does no harm whatsoever.

What Paul was concerned about was Peter giving the false impression that the Law was legally in effect still, and thus dividing Jews and non-Jews. Since the Law did not sanctify Israel any longer, it was just a tool of evangelism for messianic Jews to their fellow Jews. But among the Gentiles this would be misconstrued as a continuing separation between Jews and non-Jews. Paul didn't want that.

[JChesney]

Sounds like you're trying to offer up your own version of the Bible? I could never do that. I could never say I know better than the Apostle Paul on a matter that the Holy Spirit allowed into the Scriptures. I take Paul's reasoning as the correct reasoning.

Paul never said it was wrong for Jewish believers to behave as Jews. He clearly said the Law had no value with respect to salvation, but he was not against cultural expressions that marked Jewish traditions. It would be like prohibiting the celebration of Christmas in a Christian country. It does no harm whatsoever.

What Paul was concerned about was Peter giving the false impression that the Law was legally in effect still, and thus dividing Jews and non-Jews. Since the Law did not sanctify Israel any longer, it was just a tool of evangelism for messianic Jews to their fellow Jews. But among the Gentiles this would be misconstrued as a continuing separation between Jews and non-Jews. Paul didn't want that.

Unfortunately about the incident between the apostles, we know only from the report of Paul, Peter's motives can only be reconstructed. I do not create my own version of the Bible, but I think there are prerequisites for reconstructing the reasons for Peter's behavior. I'm not sure that the apostle Paul was right in the conflict which was mentioned, and I am very interested in the position of the apostle Peter. I think Peter's position coincided with the position of other Jerusalem apostles because, as we know, there was actively cultivated observance of laws among members of the community. The New Covenant did not abolish the Jewish law for the Jews. Likewise the New Covenant did not introduce the observance of the Jewish law for the Gentiles. I.e., nothing has changed with regard to the Jewish law.
I think the New Covenant does not envisage that the Jews cease to be Jews or that the Gentiles turn into Jews. It is evident from Paul epistles and from Acts that the apostles were against this. As for observance of the Jewish law, how could the Gentiles keep it, if it does not concern them? The law applies only to Jews. For the Gentile only after circumcision and vow it makes sense to observe the law (like the Jewish proselyte). And the apostles did not endure and did not transferred the practice of Jewish proselytism on conversion of Gentiles.

[randyk]

Unfortunately about the incident between the apostles, we know only from the report of Paul, Peter's motives can only be reconstructed. I do not create my own version of the Bible, but I think there are prerequisites for reconstructing the reasons for Peter's behavior. I'm not sure that the apostle Paul was right in the conflict which was mentioned, and I am very interested in the position of the apostle Peter. I think Peter's position coincided with the position of other Jerusalem apostles because, as we know, there was actively cultivated observance of laws among members of the community. The New Covenant did not abolish the Jewish law for the Jews. Likewise the New Covenant did not introduce the observance of the Jewish law for the Gentiles. I.e., nothing has changed with regard to the Jewish law.
I think the New Covenant does not envisage that the Jews cease to be Jews or that the Gentiles turn into Jews. It is evident from Paul epistles and from Acts that the apostles were against this. As for observance of the Jewish law, how could the Gentiles keep it, if it does not concern them? The law applies only to Jews. For the Gentile only after circumcision and vow it makes sense to observe the law (like the Jewish proselyte). And the apostles did not endure and did not transferred the practice of Jewish proselytism on conversion of Gentiles.

As much as you deny it, you are trying to revise Scriptures. Scriptures take Paul's side of the issue--not Peter's. You want to retell the story, making Peter as if he had better intentions. Paul said he didn't. Paul said he was acting cowardly, out of fear of the Jews, who still thought Jews and Gentiles should be separated.

You make this issue into a question of whether Jewish Law can be applied to Gentiles. That was not the issue. Everybody knows Jewish Law never applied to Gentiles. Only a modicum of legal requirement was required of Gentile sojourners in Israel. Gentiles were not held to the Jewish part of Jewish laws.

No, the real issue here is as Paul described it, the necessity of maintaining unity in Christ between Jews and non-Jews. Most certainly the cross nullified the Law of Moses. It no longer applied to either Gentile or Jew. That covenant ended at the cross, with the death of Messiah. With the death of Messiah, all men, Jew and Gentile, died in their sin. That is what Jesus' death represented, the death that belongs to sin.

The New Covenant begins with the resurrection of Christ. It rests its righteousness solely in Christ, and not in the Law of Moses, which focused on the sins of men. There was no sin in Christ. Hence, his righteousness justifies men when they choose to participate in him and in his mercy.

To say the Law of Moses did not end with Christ's death is contrary to the NT Scriptures. It is another thing entirely to say that the Jews continued to observe the Law. They observed it even though it was a dead letter. And Paul did not discourage Jewish believers from continuing to show respect for the Law while they were among the Jews, so as to be a witness to them. It was not a witness to the efficacy of the Law, but rather, a bridge of witness to those who still believed in Jewish cultural values under the Law. After all, many sound moral laws were rooted in the Law.

Your agenda seems to be to promote the continuing efficacy of the Law. You are opposing Pauline Scriptures in doing this. It's no wonder you don't side with Paul in his disagreement with Peter!

[JChesney]

As much as you deny it, you are trying to revise Scriptures.

no it isn't. It's not about revising the Scriptures, but I think it's allowed to revise the usual interpretation of the Scriptures.

Scriptures take Paul's side of the issue--not Peter's.

I do not at all attempt the authority of the apostle Paul, and I am sure that his apostle's authority was recognized by the Jerusalem apostles.

You want to retell the story, making Peter as if he had better intentions.

Yes exactly. I think the Apostle Peter had his motives, but Paul did not understand him (more precisely, Paul misunderstood Peter).

You make this issue into a question of whether Jewish Law can be applied to Gentiles. That was not the issue. Everybody knows Jewish Law never applied to Gentiles. Only a modicum of legal requirement was required of Gentile sojourners in Israel. Gentiles were not held to the Jewish part of Jewish laws.

I agree with you. But you forgot about Jewish proselytism, and some members of Jerusalim comunity wanted to apply the practice of this institute to converted Gentiles, but the apostles were against it.

No, the real issue here is as Paul described it, the necessity of maintaining unity in Christ between Jews and non-Jews. Most certainly the cross nullified the Law of Moses. It no longer applied to either Gentile or Jew. That covenant ended at the cross, with the death of Messiah. With the death of Messiah, all men, Jew and Gentile, died in their sin. That is what Jesus' death represented, the death that belongs to sin.

Yes. But in order for the Jew to remain a Jew in this sense, he must observe the law. In this case, the Jewish law is needed not for salvation, but for the Jew to remain a Jew. And notice, in the New Testament, nowhere, including in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, is not spoken about the abolition of the Jewish law. I have never read anywhere in the New Testament that the Jew be instructed to leave the Jewish law, to cease the practice of circumcision and everything else.
With respect to the Gospel according to Matthew, it has long been known that this gospel was created in the Jewish environment and was addressed to the early Judeo-Christians. And in this Gospel it is said about the ineradicability of the law. It turns out that the compulsory observance of the law continues in the times of the New Covenant. And this is not against Paul, because Paul and many of his closest associates were Jews, respectively, they were one of the Judeo-Christians groups of primitive Christianity.

[randyk]

no it isn't. It's not about revising the Scriptures, but I think it's allowed to revise the usual interpretation of the Scriptures.

I do not at all attempt the authority of the apostle Paul, and I am sure that his apostle's authority was recognized by the Jerusalem apostles.

Yes exactly. I think the Apostle Peter had his motives, but Paul did not understand him (more precisely, Paul misunderstood Peter).

I agree with you. But you forgot about Jewish proselytism, and some members of Jerusalim comunity wanted to apply the practice of this institute to converted Gentiles, but the apostles were against it.

I don't think the issue involves proselytization of Gentiles, but rather, the forced observance of Jewish Law by Gentile Christians. In other words, it was not the attempt to force Gentile Christian to *become Jews,* but rather, the attempt to make Gentile Christians act as Jews under Law, that concerned Paul.

Yes. But in order for the Jew to remain a Jew in this sense, he must observe the law. In this case, the Jewish law is needed not for salvation, but for the Jew to remain a Jew. And notice, in the New Testament, nowhere, including in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, is not spoken about the abolition of the Jewish law. I have never read anywhere in the New Testament that the Jew be instructed to leave the Jewish law, to cease the practice of circumcision and everything else.

To remain Jewish one need only remain within the cultural group that calls itself "Jewish." And that's why the Jewish collective never becomes Christian, because Christian converts are always expelled from the group.

However, at the same time Jewish converts to Christianity are still considered "Jews." The conversion of the nation will require a radical judgment against a system that excludes Christianity among their own. Or, democratization in Israel will tolerate Christianity among its population, which it currently does. In this case, there is no need for the Jewish believer to adopt Jewish practices if Christian groups grow up consisting of former Jews. In a real sense they remain Jews!

With respect to the Gospel according to Matthew, it has long been known that this gospel was created in the Jewish environment and was addressed to the early Judeo-Christians. And in this Gospel it is said about the ineradicability of the law. It turns out that the compulsory observance of the law continues in the times of the New Covenant. And this is not against Paul, because Paul and many of his closest associates were Jews, respectively, they were one of the Judeo-Christians groups of primitive Christianity.

Paul was not against Jewish believers acting in accordance with Jewish customs. He was against any *legal requirement* that Jews observe Christian law *as law,* including the practice of Jews free of the law in Gentile circles.

Matthew records a time when Jesus was still under the Law, and the Law, as it currently stood, was held up as an eternal reality. And so, even in the NT the Law of God is an eternal reality, even though it no longer exists as it did while the Law of Moses remained in effect.

[JChesney]

I don't think the issue involves proselytization of Gentiles, but rather, the forced observance of Jewish Law by Gentile Christians. In other words, it was not the attempt to force Gentile Christian to *become Jews,* but rather, the attempt to make Gentile Christians act as Jews under Law, that concerned Paul.

In Act 15:1 we read: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved". Circumcision is the most significant stage on the way of Gentile in the ranks of the Jews (on the rights of proselyte). It is known that at that time the Jewish synagogue attracted Gentiles, "worshiping God" ("devout persons" σεβόμενοι, see Acts 17:4, 17 , also see "whosoever feareth God" in 13:16, 26) and this category of Gentiles was prepared for further adherence to the "society of Israel" through circumcision. Apostles did not accept this practice in conversion of the Gentiles. Neither the apostle Paul nor the Jerusalem apostles fought for the Jews to cease to be Jews. On the contrary, Jews were supposed to remain Jews, and Gentiles were supposed to remain Gentiles. Firsts with circumcision, others without circumcision. Firsts abide by the law (as well as before the New Testament), others are free from the observance of the Law (as it was before the New Testament). Both are saved through Jesus Christ, the firsts circumcised and with the law, and others uncircumcised and without the law.

[randyk]

In Act 15:1 we read: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved".

This is the rhetoric of the Judaizers that Paul opposed! Paul sharply rejected the idea that salvation required circumcision. It never could save, and was never given for that purpose.

The Judaizers may have been proselytizing Gentile Christians to actually make them "Jews." Some of them may have been simply trying to get them to act like Jews, without becoming part of the Jewish community--I'm not sure.

I believe this because Peter continued to act with the notion that a separation continued to exist between Jews and Gentile Christians. That would be true only if the Law remained in effect for both Christians and Jews, separating them into two different camps.

Paul was strongly opposed to this. He fully understood that if the Law continued, then there would be no unity between Christians among the Jews and Christians among the Gentiles. The Law would separate them.

Paul was strongly opposed to the idea that circumcision remained in effect. He argued that the true basis for salvation lay within the reality that circumcision only symbolized. It was the laying aside of the carnal man to choose to live exclusively by the spiritual man.

Rom 2.29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.
Gal 5.11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

Paul rightly understood that salvation is a reliance upon Christ alone for righteousness. External works without Christ are worthless with respect to salvation.

Circumcision is the most significant stage on the way of Gentile in the ranks of the Jews (on the rights of proselyte). It is known that at that time the Jewish synagogue attracted Gentiles, "worshiping God" ("devout persons" σεβόμενοι, see Acts 17:4, 17 , also see "whosoever feareth God" in 13:16, 26) and this category of Gentiles was prepared for further adherence to the "society of Israel" through circumcision. Apostles did not accept this practice in conversion of the Gentiles. Neither the apostle Paul nor the Jerusalem apostles fought for the Jews to cease to be Jews. On the contrary, Jews were supposed to remain Jews, and Gentiles were supposed to remain Gentiles. Firsts with circumcision, others without circumcision. Firsts abide by the law (as well as before the New Testament), others are free from the observance of the Law (as it was before the New Testament). Both are saved through Jesus Christ, the firsts circumcised and with the law, and others uncircumcised and without the law.

Again, I have no problem with Jewish believers continuing to observe Jewish customs, as long as they know it is not actual Christian law. It is a tool of outreach to the Jewish community.

[Protective Angel]

I've had this interesting discussion on the degree to which Christianity is a religion of law. Obviously, we all agree that Christ had commandments for us to keep. But since the Law of Moses went away, how much left of "law" is there remaining in Christianity?

I would argue that we still have everything that was in the Law, stripped of everything connecting it to the previous covenant, the Covenant of Moses' Law. Once we're rid of things such as 613 burdensome laws, the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices, we sitll have the nature of God, good human charactor, neighborliness, love for all, etc. There is still the need for a relationship between God's word and our obedience, and the need for a spiritual connection between God and ourselves based on our obedience. There is still the need for holiness, keeping us from being contaminated with things that separate us from God and His word.

So we are still a religion of law. But to what degree is law *essential* in Christian salvation? I would argue that it is inseparable from salvation itself. It is only "earning salvation" that is impossible. Salvation comes to us as a gift from God. He has the virtues. We are the willing recipients.

But practicing law is an essential feature in accepting grace and virtue from God, in my opinion. How can you ask for, and receive, God's virtues if we don't intend or begin to practice them? My argument is that contained in the principle of law is the expressed willingness to obtain a gift, including the desire to be saved. Law does not save, but it opens the door for salvation. And without opening the door, salvation is impossible. All opinions welcomed...

Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Then, as today, too much lawlessness runs.

[JChesney]

This is the rhetoric of the Judaizers that Paul opposed! Paul sharply rejected the idea that salvation required circumcision. It never could save, and was never given for that purpose.

The Judaizers may have been proselytizing Gentile Christians to actually make them "Jews." Some of them may have been simply trying to get them to act like Jews, without becoming part of the Jewish community--I'm not sure.

The Judaizers wished that converted Gentiles would first become Jews, and then (at the second degree) become members of the apostles community. They had such a concept. This concept was not supported by the Jerusalem apostles and by Paul.
I almost completely agree with you. Especially with regard to the uselessness of the law for salvation. But for Jews, no one has repealed theirs obligation to keep the law of Moses. Such is their destiny, and such is God's will for them (even if it is difficult for us to understand).
It's like women should wear women's clothes, because she is a women. Men should wear men's clothes because he is a men (despite Gal 3:28). Similarly, a Jew must to keep the law, because he is a Jew, and a non-Jew does not have to keep the law, because he is not a Jew.

[Ceegen]

If the "law of Moses" is done away with, then no one here can say what a sin is or isn't, and this whole discussion is pointless.

[randyk]

The Judaizers wished that converted Gentiles would first become Jews, and then (at the second degree) become members of the apostles community. They had such a concept. This concept was not supported by the Jerusalem apostles and by Paul.
I almost completely agree with you. Especially with regard to the uselessness of the law for salvation. But for Jews, no one has repealed theirs obligation to keep the law of Moses. Such is their destiny, and such is God's will for them (even if it is difficult for us to understand).
It's like women should wear women's clothes, because she is a women. Men should wear men's clothes because he is a men (despite Gal 3:28). Similarly, a Jew must to keep the law, because he is a Jew, and a non-Jew does not have to keep the law, because he is not a Jew.

No, we don't agree on this. I have no problem at all with Jewish believers fitting in with Jewish culture in their communities or in Israel. But any feature that is viewed as *law* is not part of Christian doctrine. The only law in Christianity is the need to believe in Christ's righteousness, and not our own. Jewish righteousness was illustrated under the Law of Moses, and as such, it fell far short of what was needed for salvation.

It doesn't make sense to me that Jews should have to, by law, fulfill certain legal requirements that have nothing to do with salvation? Sure, wear Jewish hats, and eat Jewish food. Maybe even observe Jewish holidays and Sabbaths. But to pursue justification under Jewish Law we agree is wrong. Why then feel obligated to observe Jewish laws that do nothing for our salvation? Why would God even want us to do them unless it is just external dressing for fitting in with the Jewish community? As such, it would not be "law."

[randyk]

If the "law of Moses" is done away with, then no one here can say what a sin is or isn't, and this whole discussion is pointless.

I understand what you mean, but I don't believe it is "sin" any longer to not observe temple law, go to priests, and offer sacrifices to God. Sin is no longer defined by the Law of Moses.

However, I do think the Law did serve to show what sin was beyond the Law of Moses. And this concerned the law of our need to walk in the image of God, and practice living according to His likeness. This is eternal law, which existed from the beginning, and also in the Law of Moses.

Surely you believe some things changed from the Law of Moses until now, in the NT? But we would agree that *some things* in the Law of Moses represented sin in a universal, eternal sense. I'm with you on that!

[Ceegen]

Surely you believe some things changed from the Law of Moses until now, in the NT?

As I understand it, the only thing that changed was how the laws are enforced.

If you put a sinless man to death for a crime he didn't commit, then that nullifies "the law" in the sense that no human can enforce God's laws. When you put God to death for (rightfully) claiming to be God, that's a problem.

Take for instance the argument the apostle Peter made against circumcision:
"Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts ch11 v17)

Peter didn't argue that God abolished circumcision. God didn't abolish circumcision, but gave gifts to the uncircumcised to prove that it doesn't make you righteous or special or anything. God never said he changed or abolished any laws though. But if God does nullify his own laws, then can God enforce something that doesn't exist? Why would we need Jesus for remission of sins, if there isn't any law which tells us that we're sinners? It's a self-defeating argument. You can't de-legalize anything, only God can, and it does not appear that he has.

[Brother Mark]

Peter didn't argue that God abolished circumcision. God didn't abolish circumcision, but gave gifts to the uncircumcised to prove that it doesn't make you righteous or special or anything. God never said he changed or abolished any laws though. But if God does nullify his own laws, then can God enforce something that doesn't exist? Why would we need Jesus for remission of sins, if there isn't any law which tells us that we're sinners? It's a self-defeating argument. You can't de-legalize anything, only God can, and it does not appear that he has.

Hebrews stated that the law changed. Otherwise, Jesus could not be a high priest. He (and we) are priest after the order of Melchizadech. The Law of Moses only allowed for Levites to be priests and Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi.