Paul’s View of the Law: A Freedom from (or End to) Jewish Law?
David Rudolph continues exploring the debate about Paul's view of the law and if he was championing a new freedom from—or end to—Jewish law.
feedproxy.google.com
- Hi David, nice article. As a non-expert, I just wonder if taking what we know of the Scriptures in a diachronic way gives yet another alternative: Jesus did warn religious authorities that the Kingdom was going to be taken away and given to someone else. Jesus warned that the Temple (Holy place) was going to be destroyed. Jesus gave stricter standards with respect to the law (sermon on the mount). With the above in mind, the conclusions on Law applying to Christians holds until the destruction of the Temple. That unimaginable event (in the minds of the authorities before the fact) was from a diachronic point of view a clear signal that something changed. New Covenant brought about by the Atonement now manifested in a historic time milestone. Seems that the Old covenant and its requirements were changed to the "New an improved" one. It does make sense since new High Priest is Jesus Christ Himself, in line with Melchizedek type priesthood. New Temple, new SOP so to speak. Paul probably did not actually get to see the change (marked by the destruction of the Temple), if he died before such event, but foresaw such possibility when writing Galatians, where he understood New Testament was about the Holy Spirit indwelling in believers, and having the Law written in the heart, and not works oriented emphasis as had been before. Under New Covenant, circumcision yes, but of the heart, law yes, but written in the heart that changed from stone to flesh can now uphold it better through the help and presence of the Holy Spirit, etc. So diachronically we can see that such change is plausible, as there are instances in the Bible where even the Sabbath is explained to be supplanted by Jesus' rest when being baptized into His body by the Holy Spirit, etc. So to me the article states fact relevant to the contextual moment Paul had to face where there was no physical evidence that a change to a New covenant was happening (in this case the destruction of the Temple), but that once that happened, the old way was no longer binding, as the new one had taken over. Just a different angle for further research, reflection and constructive comment.
- Interesting but argument seems to fall flat against scripture: 1 Cor 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some". And Gal 2: "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
- Late reply, hi David. I was wondering your thoughts concerning the law as it applies to gentiles. One thing I don’t think I could understand is if law requirements were different for different people, unless this did not affect salvation. I’ll also say that I never really understood how we could believe that Christians (Jews and Gentiles alike) would be “free from the law” considering we are warned by Jesus to not commit a multitude of sins. Thanks.