Magdlyn

Gawen, are you quoting something without attribution? Are you not a mod and I would imagine, an atheist?

Toto

You might want to read Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. (Here's the Amazon link but Barns & Noble has a better deal on remaindered copies, or if you google the title, you can find some excepts on the web - eg here). Maccoby claims that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels was very Pharisaic, and that the Pharisees would have seen him as a compatible teacher; that Gamaliel as portrayed in Acts was a more accurate portrait of a Pharisee than the evil villains in the gpspels. You may not accept all of his theory, but you probably need to know about it to discuss the question.

Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion by E.P. Sanders - the Amazon reviews may be helpful to you.

Toto

We had a long discussion on the question of Jesus using the term Abba in this thread. There was at least one Jewish group that prayed to G-d using the term Abba.

Gawen

Not really. I've read a bunch of articles (and skimmed many more) trying to come to some sort of conclusion, but I simply can't find anything definitive. So I wrote up the above long post hoping it would generate some sort of discussion. And bad me, I can't remember who's articles I read. I've read way to many in the last 3 days. Everything seems so...wishy-washy...not even a consenus either way.
And yes, I'm a Mod and an atheist. And I admit that sometimes my skeptism and logic fall short. I'm no scholar by any means.

Toto, thanks for the links and book suggestion.

Chili, thanks again.

Really, the question is quite simple and straight-forward and fundamental in nature. I realise now the answer is not. And I think I've just been wasting my time.

Atheos

I labored under the belief that Jesus did, indeed, do away with the law of Moses. Passages such as Matthew 5:18 have been used (even in this thread) to make an argument for "The Law"'s permanence, but note that even that passage includes the caveat, "Till all be fulfilled". It was my belief that Jesus came to FULFILL the law (Matthew 5:17), making it no longer necessary. In fact if you take those two verses together, Jesus is claiming that he came to fulfill the law and that not one jot or tittle shall pass from it until it is fulfilled. But the implication is that once he has completed his mission (to fulfill the law) then it will be taken away.

Moving forward to the next several verses in the alleged "sermon on the mount" you see the famous "ego de lego" verses (greek for "But I say"). Each one contrasts a teaching form the "Old Law" with "But I say", indicating that Jesus was bringing forth teachings about a new law that would include many of the teachings from the old law but which gave God the right to condemn folks not just for their actions but for the thoughts of their heart.

Fast forward to Acts 10. Peter brings the gospel of Jesus to the gentiles. It takes a great deal of convincing before the Jews can accept the idea that gentiles are able to receive the gift of salvation. The christian religion does away with the need for animal sacrifices or even a priesthood, let alone many of the other trappings of the levitical law, a significant portion of the law of Moses. The Gentiles could not have participated in any of these things, yet they are awarded an equal part in the religious goings-on as the book of Acts continues.

In Acts 15, certain Judiazing teachers want to restore portions of the law of Moses and begin teaching that the new gentile converts must be circumcized. This is where Peter suggests that the Old Testament law should not be used to judge the gentiles as the Jews had not been able to bear it either.

Interestingly enough the elders at Jerusalem pick out four things they want to enforce from the Old Testament and send a letter to the gentiles to that effect. The four things are:

• Meats offered to idols
• Blood
• Things strangled
• Fornication

Interestingly enough Paul later writes his first letter to the Corinthians (which is actually his second letter to them) in which he says that meats offered to idols are not really polluted and can be eaten, but that "weaker bretheren" might see you do that and be offended, so rather than offend the weaker bretheren he'd just as soon not eat meat offered to idols. I Cor 8, and I Cor 10. There is no evidence why things strangled cannot be eaten by christians, but they were used to that being part of the OT law, as was the "blood". With the exception of fornication all of the others are eventually allowed either explicitely or implicitely by christian dogma. I'd just as soon they kept the other three and let loose with Fornication myself. Much more fun.

Later Paul would write:
This would indiate that he is saying that many of the hallmarks of the Old Testament (the various festivals or "holy days", the sabbath days and others, as well as clean vs unclean meats had been done away with.

Later he would write:
The summation of the book of Galatians was to show that the OT Law did not govern followers of Christ, but rather the law of Christ.

There are many other passages from scripture that could be used, but I've got better things to do with my time than whip up sermons nowadays. I hope this helps with your understanding of the original proposition.

-Atheos

CJD

Warning! Theological ruminations follow:

Possibly alluded to by both Sumner and Atheos re: the Law and Jesus. The most succint answer to the OP that I can think of is this: Jesus, as an Israelite (indeed, as THE Israelite), did not 'do away' with Torah. He did, however, challenge then-popular 'traditions' and interpretations of it. Some may also say that he re-defined some of it to 'show' how it finds its telos (or goal) in him.

Key to understanding the gospel-narrative and (esp.) Paul's writings on the subject is the 'Jew/Gentile' distinction. For Jews, whose entire lives would have been enveloped in Torah, there was no need to drop it, for it never was intended to proffer salvation (just prosperity in the Promised Land); this the (pre-Jesus) Jews knew. However, if any Jesus-following Jews required Gentiles to take part in the outward marks of Torah-following, this, so Paul, conflicted with the gospel (for the inheritance was not a sliver of land in the Middle East but a new heavens and earth) — see the Colossians passage cited above to get idea. The 'law of Christ', which was the sum-and-essense of the Mosaic Law (literally: 'love the lord your god with all your heart, mind, soul and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself), was all that was required of the Jesus-people. Faith, not circumcision, etc., was the outward mark of the new covenant. By this (and this alone, so Paul) people were set right with God and his law and thus declared members of God's covenant (i.e., "justified"). Torah observance was unable to affect this rightness because it had only Adam-people to work with. In the new covenant (again, so Paul), the Law (conceived of in terms of sum-and-essence; or the 'law of Christ') now has the right stuff to work with, namely, the Jesus-people (including both Jews and Gentiles) empowered by the Spirit.

In sum, then, Jesus' own view on this is hard to get at (if anything, it leans heavily on the side of Torah-observance). According to the NT letters, though, it seems clear that the early Xians deemed the actual Mosaic Law to be rendered obsolete when its purpose ended. It can still be followed (it's neither here nor there), but what matters (and always did, for that matter) is attending to its sum-and-essence.

Regards,

CJD

moorezw

How does one "fulfill" a law? A law is a rule, a set of regulations for people to follow- there is nothing to complete. Either you follow the law, or you don't- there is nothing to fulfill.

Toto

The only way fulfilling the law makes sense to me is if it is regarded as part of a contract with YHWH. Jesus would then be regarded as fulfilling the terms of the contract so it is no longer in force, as if you were paying off a mortgage.

But I don't know if this is how Christians view it.

CJD

"Fulfill" talk in theology means simply this: that Jesus never broke the Law, and having a mission to accomplish (namely, keeping the Law perfectly), he "fulfilled" it.

I think this all-right systematic theology, but it's not easily deduced from the biblical texts.

The early Xian way to put it is this: Jesus, as an Israelite, naturally follows Torah. It turns out that after causing a ruckus he is killed; but then he is raised by the Father, thus showing or proving or declaring his status as Son of God. His law-keeping is therefore seen as the telos or goal or end of the Mosaic Law itself. Its purpose has been exposed, namely, to (as a few posters mentioned previously) magnify the Adam-problem (sin and death) and thus drive people to that which will rectify the problem, namely, hearts of flesh (instead of hearts of stone). The makeup of God's people is subsequently blown wide open, no longer containing Torah-observers; rather, it is made up of all kinds, whose only outward mark of covenental faithfulness is faith itself (manifested tangibly in the 'law of Christ').

Rick Sumner

It seems to me that Galatians is doing nothing of the sort. There are two separate issues here that you're conflating. The first is how one becomes Christian (how one is justified), which Paul is explicitly addressing. The second is how one stays Christian, which you are inserting into Paul's argument. The question Paul is dealing with springs from the prophesied turn of the Gentiles to YHWH in the Messianic age: How do Gentiles who convert at that time become a part of the the people of Israel?

Paul does not argue, for example, that Abraham was always righteous by faith, he argues that Abraham was made righteous by faith. The gist of his argument, to steal a title from one of Sanders' headings, is that the Law is not an entrance requirement. The entire thing is purest Rabbinic prooftexting. Gentiles are righteoused by Abraham (Gen.18.18), who was made righteous by faith (Gen.15.6), and people made righteous by faith shall live (Hab.2.4).

Yet does Paul think no one stays righteous through the Law? That works are unnecessary? That seems rather silly in the light of the plentiful instructions he gives everyone. He clearly does not advocate following the whole Law (though does he only exempt Gentiles from it? Or Jews as well?), yet he clearly isn't about to do away with it all either. Faith gets you in, but works keep you in.

See Sanders, _Paul, the Law and the Jewish People_, p.17-21 for a more thorough discussion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner