Amen. And there seems to be a huge understanding of this. Events in the OT were defined by a different covenant, which praise the Lord, we are no longer under.PabloSerna said:
Paul says it better in Rom 6:14, " For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace"
So, prior to Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, but after the resurrection and ascension of Christ during his persecution of the Church (or The Way), was Paul of the faith?Zobel said:
St Paul never converted to Christianity.
St Paul - and all the other Apostles - never ceased following the Torah. He never stopped being a Judaean, never stopped celebrating the religious customs he practiced. He continued to worship in the Temple, continued to go to the Synagogue. He continued being a Pharisee. He perhaps did give up his zealotry or it at least was baptized into more productive efforts than violence.
St Paul says he continued being a Pharisee, and continued in the faith of his fathers. In his most detailed account in Acts 26 he says lived strictly as a Pharisee and preaches nothing more than the promise made by God to his fathers, "saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass."
What happened on the road to Damascus was a few things:
1) St Paul correctly understood that the Messiah he was waiting for had already come, and was Jesus of Nazareth.
2) St Paul's timeline shifted accordingly: no longer was he waiting in expectation for the Messiah, or trying to cleans the land through his Pharisaic zeal to bring about the Messiah's coming... but instead he realized he was in the Messianic age!
But the law did change for Jews. Particularly Levitical ceremonials.Zobel said:
As a gentile the Torah had limited applicability to you. The council of Jerusalem in Acts is a very close and literal application of what Leviticus says to those not of Israel - no idolatry, no blood, no sexual immorality. They did not negate the Torah, they applied it strictly.
They never changed what the Torah required of Jews, which is why St Paul had St Timothy circumcised.
St Paul's message in Galatians is similar to that in Ephesians and Romans - following the Torah in and of itself, while it will make you Jewish, will not save you. You need to be faithful to the Messiah to inherit the promises, because He inherits them all as the unique seed of Abraham. And, when you follow the Spirit, not only will you be faithful to the Messiah, and pleasing to God, but you will naturally do the things the Torah requires - love God, love your neighbor. The way you live will fulfill the Torah to overflowing, and "against such things there is no Law."
This absolutely does not denigrate or lower the Torah, or in any way revoke or cancel it! It upholds it. These are St Paul's words!
St Paul's gospel was not grace over against the Torah. He says several times what his gospel is: that the Jewish Messiah will return to judge all, and that He is the savior of both non-Jews and Jews.
What you're describing borders on Marcionism. The Torah was unchanged. It was given by God, and God never changes. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
I think that is not what that means. What St Paul is saying is that the Torah and the priesthood are linked. He says before that the Torah established the Levitical priesthood. The change in the law or Torah there is not an incremental change like a to a' but a change from one to the other. I say this because the difference between the comparison he is making is between the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Melchizedek. The Melchizedek priesthood is not a modification or alteration of the Levitical priesthood - it precedes it, and is different altogether. That point is reiterated when he says a moment after that the former is set aside and a better hope is introduced.Quote:
But the law did change for Jews. Particularly Levitical ceremonials.
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12
The Torah does not make this distinction. This is nowhere in the scriptures. This is truly a tradition of man.Quote:
The distinction between ceremonial and moral is made because some laws are universal (do not kill) and some are specific to the levitical priesthood.
This makes St Paul a liar. I do not agree.Quote:
Paul's circumcision of Timothy and the nazarite vow were accommodations to the Jews (1 Cor. 9:22). The law of Moses was "old" and had been fulfilled in Christ.
Yes, because God said that the sons of Israel should keep the Passover forever. St Paul cannot change the commandments of God.10andBOUNCE said:
Would you speculate that Paul endorsed that Jews continue to offer the annual lamb at Passover even though the Lamb had already made the final atonement?
Quote:
This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast...Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever...You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever...This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.
Paul is fairly clear in his own words he was not of the faith.Zobel said:
I'm not sure. I think it depends on how you are creating your categories.
For example, when St Andrew as a follower of St John the Forerunner, but had not met Jesus, was he of the faith? Or St Peter, before he was called?
I think on some level we can say yes, but on another level we can say no.
There is always a faithful remnant to the God of Israel. These are the people who recognized Jesus as the Messiah when they saw Him. But even those who were around Jesus and heard Him teach struggled with really understanding who He was.
I think St Paul was faithful to Yahweh, and was zealous for God and the Torah. Here I think we can say yes. But he was wrong about the only thing that mattered, which is who Jesus is. He was ignorant, and needed to repent. Which he did!
And I think all of the examples above, even faithful, we not complete in their faith until their receipt of the Holy Spirit. That is a material change in the life of a believer and is the mark of faithfulness to Jesus. On that level we can say no.
That isn't the point I'm making at all! The point I'm making is what I started off with - St Paul never converted to Christianity. He never changed religions, because there was no religion to change to....because his belief and understanding about God didn't change in general. Because his Pharisaism and Judaism wasn't in error. His error was the denial that Jesus was the Messiah he was faithfully waiting for.Quote:
In a lot of ways I agree with everything you're saying about faith and its continuity in the Bible, but I'm not understanding this point you're making specifically about Paul's conversion. Reconciliation with God is ultimately the same throughout the Scriptures, but Paul was definitely converted and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ after the Damascus road experience. The point you're ultimately trying to make is that Paul was already justified by faith like Abraham before his experience on the Damascus road which I really don't think can made biblically.
Zobel said:
Im not sure that contradicts anything I said. Jesus judged that he was faithful, but he was ignorant, and needed to repent. His blasphemy and persecution and insolence were because he did not know that Jesus was the Yahweh he was trying to be faithful to - which was ignorance.
I don't know what "a believer" means, I guess? His unbelief wasn't general - he believed in Yahweh, and was trying to please God through strictly following the Torah as a Pharisee. But he did not know that Jesus was Yahweh, so what he was doing did not make him righteous or pleasing to God.That isn't the point I'm making at all! The point I'm making is what I started off with - St Paul never converted to Christianity. He never changed religions, because there was no religion to change to....because his belief and understanding about God didn't change in general. Because his Pharisaism and Judaism wasn't in error. His error was the denial that Jesus was the Messiah he was faithfully waiting for.Quote:
In a lot of ways I agree with everything you're saying about faith and its continuity in the Bible, but I'm not understanding this point you're making specifically about Paul's conversion. Reconciliation with God is ultimately the same throughout the Scriptures, but Paul was definitely converted and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ after the Damascus road experience. The point you're ultimately trying to make is that Paul was already justified by faith like Abraham before his experience on the Damascus road which I really don't think can made biblically.
Abraham's faith, what made him righteous or right with God, was his faithfulness to Yahweh. That faithfulness is borne out by what he did, as St Paul teaches - "by faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going."
St Paul is clear on how faithfulness works. It is faithfulness to the heir of the promises which matters. There isnan unbroken line of inheritance of the promises of Abraham, and it is faithfulness to that line that counts. That is why the northern kingdom of Israel was cut off - faithlessness to God's chosen king and heir. That is why even though Esau was reconciled to Jacob (the heir) and therefore inherited to become a nation, that nation of Edom ultimately was cut off - because of faithlessness to Judah. The unique seed and unique Son of both Abraham and God the Father is Jesus, who therefore inherits the promises of Abraham and everything.
You cannot be faithful to God, or righteous or pleasing to God, if you are not faithful to the Messiah. That is what makes you righteous. This is why he says "we know that a person is not made righteous by works of the Torah but by faith in Jesus Christ" and in another place "not having my own righteousness which is of the Torah, but that which is through faith from Christ."
So by his own example, I would say that he was absolutely not righteous before God when he was persecuting Jesus. But he didn't change religions, because his religion wasn't what was in need of changing!
Two problems. One, he didn't say "Jesus is Lord". Asking who someone is isn't the same thing. And the second problem is the scripture says when he received the Holy Spirit, and it wasn't then - it was when Ananias laid hands on him: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit"Quote:
The event on the road to Damascus was not just God appointing him to his calling, but he was given faith. "No man can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit". What is the first thing Paul says? "Who are you, Lord?".
Well, perhaps it would be more productive to ask instead of telling me what I am saying and then arguing with it. You may not think it is important that St Paul didn't change religions, but I do, because the idea that over here there was this thing called Judaism, and over there was this thing called Christianity, and St Paul stopped being a Jew to become a Christian is wrong - and a lot of people believe it. And that gives rise to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions.Quote:
I'm not sure the point of making this distinction about religion and conversion. The real point is that Paul's "religion" prior to conversion was in error and Jesus had rather strong words to say about that.
"Religion" as a category of thing didn't exist in the first century. There wasn't a secular / religious divide, there wasn't a cultural / religious divide, and there wasn't an ethnic / religious divide. All of those things were wrapped up into one. That's part of the point of the OP. Reading modern categories back is an error, and it makes people say things like the above which really don't make any sense in the context of the first century. Your "religion" can't help but change - no - your life and who you are? Yes.Quote:
I would also disagree that Paul's religion didn't change. Paul very much understood the "types and shadows" were now gone and there is no longer distinction, "Jew or Greek". So even though he may have carried on some practices (Nazarite Vow), he very much understood there were things he couldn't go back to, hence the scolding remarks he gives to the Galatians. You're religion can't help but change when you put on Christ.
Well I don't think he's a liar either.Zobel said:The Torah does not make this distinction. This is nowhere in the scriptures. This is truly a tradition of man.Quote:
The distinction between ceremonial and moral is made because some laws are universal (do not kill) and some are specific to the levitical priesthood.
For example, Leviticus 11 is said to all of the sons of Israel, and ends "You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." St Peter quotes this in 1 Pet 1:15 - this commandment does not go away. St Paul applies the Torah to non-Jews multiple times.
The difference is in the Torah itself. Some of the commandments are given to the sons of Israel - for example, dietary restrictions and circumcision. Some are given to everyone, "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them..." These are idolatry, sexual immorality, and eating blood. This is exactly the ruling of the council of Jerusalem - a strict application of the Torah. The commandments given to Israel remain in effect; the commandments given to Israel and to the people of the other nations also stay in effect. The commandments given to Israel do not get extended to the foreigners who are being grafted in - because then they would be Jewish.
"This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations."
"For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Torah until everything is accomplished."
"the Scripture cannot be broken"
"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever"
"Your word, O Lord, is everlasting; it is firmly fixed in the heavens."
"God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind."
Nobody can overturn the Law of God, because it is the Law of Christ. He does not abolish or change it.This makes St Paul a liar. I do not agree.Quote:
Paul's circumcision of Timothy and the nazarite vow were accommodations to the Jews (1 Cor. 9:22). The law of Moses was "old" and had been fulfilled in Christ.
1 Cor 9:22 was not about keeping the Torah. It was about interpretation of the Torah, that is to say, the application of the Torah with regard to cleanliness. You can see this in Philippians 3:5 when he says "as to the Torah, a Pharisee." His relationship to the Torah, the way he interprets it, is as a Pharisee. That makes particular sense in this passage because he is talking about eating. Put another way - when he is around Jewish people who interpret the Torah in a way that would affect their dietary restrictions over and above the Torah (i.e., other Pharisees) he does this not to offend them to win them over.
St Paul can no more put aside the Torah or change it than any other person. He says literally he does not break the Torah. He is a son of Israel - if he violates the Torah, he will have lied.
I understand this is taught this way in some evangelical circles, but it makes St Paul out to be actively deceptive - including deceiving St James and the other apostles - and an out-and-out liar. I don't think St Paul is a liar.
Did St Paul "condescend" to St James??Quote:
On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
Quote:
As you say above, Jesus is a high priest of an altogether different priesthood. The old has passed away. There is a new dispensation, a new testament established when Jesus, the testator, died (Heb. 9:16).
I don't know what NPP is. I'm an Orthodox Christian.Quote:
This seems like some flavor of NPP. Is it?
