Tag: The Pauline Paradox

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 9

What about 1 Timothy 4:1-5? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am once again quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

The Spirit expressly states that in the acharit-hayamim some people will apostatize from the faith by paying attention to deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come from the hypocrisy of liars whose own consciences have been burned, as if with a red-hot branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to be eaten with thanksgiving by those who have come to trust and to know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing received with thanksgiving needs to be rejected, 5 because the word of God and prayer make it holy.

The acharit-hayamim is what you would likely recognize as something such as “The last days.”

This seems like a clear statement. We can eat most any food we want. Right? As long as we receive it with thanksgiving, it is holy. Right?

“Not so fast”, says 119 Ministries.

This means that the false teachers whom Paul gives his warning about are not people teaching obedience to God’s dietary laws. Think about it. If they were, then Messiah Yeshua would be a false teacher when he affirmed the validity of the dietary laws as part of the Torah and said that his followers will do and teach the least of the commandments (Matthew 5:17-20). Paul likewise would be a false teacher since he said, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). That indicates that Paul believes the dietary laws in Scripture are profitable for “training in righteousness.” So Paul cannot be saying those who teach obedience to God’s dietary laws are false teachers since he would be putting himself into the same category.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 116-117). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So what is the argument?

It reads as if they are saying, “Yes. If we read it as it is, it does seem to go against our position, but keep in mind that Paul holds that all Scripture is God-breathed and keep in mind what Jesus said about the Law.”

Which means there is no exegesis of the text itself. It is then circular reasoning. Their reasoning of the text must be correct because their reasoning of the other texts must be correct. As I have said earlier throughout this book, I find them lacking and again, I have one simple question about this if that is what they think.

“What about sacrifices?”

After all, the Law contained commands for animal sacrifices and Jesus’s statement in Matthew 5 doesn’t read, “Not one letter will disappear from the Law, except for that stuff about animal sacrifices because I am going to do away with them.”

Thus ends our look at this book. It is sad that in a book that is all about defending the Law, what we did not see at all was, well, a defense of the Law. We didn’t see exegesis of the Law. We didn’t get anything on animal sacrifices or anything of the sort.

Again, there’s a reason this stuff is not convincing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 6

What about Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians should be where many of the ideas of keeping the law for salvation come to die. Unfortunately, 119 Ministries is convinced otherwise. So what do they have to say? To start, let’s look at how they view the idea that the message of keeping the law was a gospel of men.

However, this is a flawed interpretation. Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9). He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12). Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men. This is a crucial point! Obviously, the Law of God didn’t come from men; it came from God. And if the false doctrine being pushed on the Galatians was a manmade doctrine, then the false doctrine in Galatians was not the doctrine that believers ought to obey God’s Law!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 78). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the Law did come from God, and Paul acknowledges that, but throughout the book he treats the Law as a stepping stone. Going back to the Law when you have faith in Christ is going backwards. That makes that version a gospel of men. If one wanted to observe the Law not for salvation reasons but for traditional reasons, I doubt Paul would have a complaint. His choice not to is for the freedom he has in Christ.

What about Paul challenging Peter in Galatians 2?

Nothing in this passage suggests Peter was breaking God’s dietary laws—that would be reading something into the text that isn’t there. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to rebuke Peter if all he was doing was attempting to get the Gentiles to take on obedience to God’s Law since, again, Paul himself taught observance of God’s Law to his Gentile readers. When Paul accuses Peter of forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews, he wasn’t accusing Peter of forcing them to keep God’s Law; he was rebuking Peter for appearing to side with the Circumcision Party in his refusal of table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter’s actions gave the impression that he agreed with the Circumcision Party that the Gentiles could not be included as part of God’s people unless they ritually converted.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 80-81). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

It is not known what was being ate, but Peter living like a Gentile could very well have been eating food that would be considered unclean to the Jewish community. When he backs away from that, then he is creating a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have never been obligated to live like Jews (i.e. Following the Law.) and Peter’s actions would be convincing them that they needed to.

It can also be asked that what difference does 119 Ministries see between ritual conversion and following the Law?

They later on look at Paul talking about the reason for adding the Law and quote James Dunn. (Credit where credit is due. At least he’s a legitimate scholar they would normally disagree with.)

Now In the case of 3.19a the issue centres on the meaning of χάριν [charin]. Here we need to recall that the word is the accusative form of χάρις [charis], ‘grace, favour’, and that its usual meaning as attested elsewhere in usage of the time is ‘for the sake of, on behalf of, on account of.’ This suggests a much more immediately gracious objective for the law than simply ‘to make conscious of transgressions,’ and certainly than ‘to provoke transgressions.’ It suggests, in fact, the purpose of the law as it was generally recognized within the (OT) scriptures and the Judaism of Paul’s time: that is, as a means of dealing with transgressions. In other words, what was probably in mind here was the whole sacrificial cult at whose centre was the provision of means for covering sin and removing guilt, means of atonement. [Emphasis added]2

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 87). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

What this has to do with the price of tea in China is unknown. If they agree with Dunn, then we have to ask why do they not offer up sacrifices? 119 Ministries wants to accuse Christians of not following the Law, but if they believe it should be followed and is eternal and doesn’t change, then why are they not offering up sacrifices?

The next point to look at is in Galatians 5 when it is said that if you allow yourself to be circumcised, you must follow the whole law.

If circumcision itself caused someone to fall away from Messiah, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3? The traditional interpretation just doesn’t fit when considering all the evidence.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 94). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why? Because Timothy was Jewish and if they were witnessing to Jews and the Jews thought Timothy wasn’t circumcised, that would mean that they would likely tune out anything Paul said. Let’s suppose hypothetically that that isn’t correct seeing as it is never spelled out. If it is at least plausible, then we already have an answer. Of course, I think it is correct. The point is that there are ways to interpret this that do fit considering the evidence and considering 119 Ministries doesn’t counter such a simple one, how much research are they doing?

So next time, we’ll look at 1 and 2 Corinthians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Chapter 3

What makes Paul hard to understand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

No Christian should say Paul is easy to understand. Our own Scripture in 2 Peter says that Paul writes many things that are hard to understand. It would be foolish to think we can do so easily. (Kind of like internet atheists do thinking they can just read the Bible and not bother studying it and know everything about it.)

119 Ministries at least agrees that Paul is hard to understand, but they think different things are hard to understand.

For instance, many Christians believe Paul taught that God’s Law has changed. However, it is impossible to come to that conclusion if you’ve read what the Old Testament says about the Law: “I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips” (Psalm 89:34). Surely God himself cannot be wrong, so that means the traditional understanding of Paul must be revisited. Many also believe that Paul called the Law of God bondage (Galatians 5:1). But the front of the book says that the Law of God brings liberty (Psalm 119:44-45).

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 29). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But as we say in an earlier post, the Law has changed. Note also that the Psalm never says the Law is unchanged. It says the covenant is, and yet even in Jeremiah and Hebrews we see talk of a new covenant. There is some degree of change going on.

As for Psalm 119, why should this be a problem? There is always freedom in following the path of God. Yet at the same time, when God gives the new path in Christ, one is to follow that path and not the old.

119 Ministries also goes on to talk about the tension that is often presented in Paul:

Are you feeling the tension between the traditional interpretation of Paul and what he actually lived and taught? There’s more: Paul says that he serves the Law of God (Romans 7:25). Why serve a Law that is supposedly ended or made void? Paul called the Law “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). He said he “delights” in the law of God (Romans 7:22). He taught that the Holy Spirit leads to obedience to God’s Law while the carnal nature of man is opposed to God’s Law (Romans 8:3-8). And this is only in Romans!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 31). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yet Romans 7 is a notoriously difficult passage to deal with and 119 Ministries gives no indication that they understand that. My contention is that Romans 7 is not Paul being autobiographical. We see no hint of him struggling in Philippians 3 to follow the law and no one doubts that is autobiographical. Also, Paul says that once he was alive apart from the Law, but when could an orthodox Jew like Paul say he was ever not only apart from the law, but apart from it and alive?

No. A better understanding is that this is speaking as Adam, who was referred to back in Romans 5. In this, once the law came to life for him, he was filled with a desire for coveting, which was seen as the sin in the garden, desiring wisdom for oneself apart from God. Had he kept the law, it would have meant life for him.

As for the verses from Romans 8, here they are in the Complete Jewish Bible.

For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.

Notice that Paul says the Torah could not by itself bring righteousness. The idea in these passages goes along with the Law written on the heart in Romans 2. Because of the Spirit, we can keep the Law of God in the sense that we were meant to. Again, this is something 119 Ministries never addresses. Are we meant to offer sacrifices, for instance?

Unfortunately, 119 Ministries doesn’t really look at the best resources and ironically, in a chapter about misunderstanding Paul, demonstrate that they do indeed misunderstand Paul.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Opening

Should we be following the Law today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am taking a brief hiatus from the look at God changing His mind to deal with this book.

The Pauline Paradox is a book that is put forward by 119 Ministries trying to argue that Christians should follow the Torah. I decided to get it because there are a number of people on the Jehovah’s Witnesses debate group on Facebook that have bought into this and go on and on about the Law of God. Rarely will you ever see these people say anything about Jesus.

This book is looking at the question that many Christians have when they hear about an organization like this? Isn’t Paul the grand teacher of the idea that we don’t follow the Law because we’re under grace? Indeed, this has been Christian teaching for hundreds of years. Even nowadays, much of New Testament scholarship has abandoned any idea that Paul invented Christianity. I will not be dealing with that latter claim here anyway, but I will contend that Paul is certainly right in line with His master Jesus.

Before looking at the book and what it talks about, I want to mention what it doesn’t talk about that is quite surprising.

That is the Law itself.

Oh, sure. We have a lot of talk about what Paul said about the Law and what Jesus said about the Law. That’s fine. We do not have much said about what the Law itself is. What is its purpose? How is it to be followed today?

You’ll see that Jesus said that until Heaven and Earth disappear, not one bit of the Law will pass away. Unfortunately, you won’t see a lot of sustained exegesis on that passage. Consider what Craig Blomberg by contrast says about Matthew 5:18.

Verse 18 reaffirms the absolute authority of all of the Scriptures down to the smallest components of individual words. They will endure for all time but with the important qualification “until everything is accomplished.” With the coming of Christ, many aspects of the law are brought to complete fruition (e.g., the need for sacrifices, on which see Hebrews). In other instances certain requirements of the law endure until Christ’s coming again (e.g., classically, love of neighbor and God). In short, Christian application of the Old Testament must always take into account both the continuities and the discontinuities with the New Testament. Given this hermeneutic, correct teaching and practice of all “these commandments” (v. 19, almost certainly referring back to the Old Testament law just mentioned) are crucial. Jesus will give six illustrations of such correct interpretation shortly (vv. 21–48).

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 104–105.

What actually happens is that Jesus in His interpretation is giving us a law that is even harder. Consider that the Law says “Do not murder.” Okay. Well, let me take a brief life-review here and think back…..yep! I’m good! Haven’t murdered anyone! That’s one of the big ten! Doing good!

“But I say to you, do not hate your brother.”

“Oh.”

All of a sudden, I realize I have done that and that that can still be a struggle.

“You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ”

Let’s see. I am divorced now, but I saved sex for marriage and I don’t do pornography and I have remained celibate while being divorced. Hey! Look at that! I’m doing good again!

“But I say to you, do not lust after a woman in your heart.”

“Okay. Not doing so good.”

Also, if we are to follow the Law, do we not have to offer sacrifices? That was a big part of the Law after all. Consider how Matthew 5 also says this:

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

What is the gift but a sacrifice? If the Law is still in full effect, should we not offer sacrifices?

In Exodus 12, the people were commanded to eat the Passover in their own homes. In Deut. 16, it was in the place God chose for them. In Lev. 17, meat was to be brought to the tabernacle. In Deut. 12, this is done away with because some people would live far away from the tabernacle and not get to eat meat at all.

Also, if Moses was the final word, then what about what came after? What about the Prophets? What about celebrations like Purim? Jesus is in the temple area during the Feast of Dedication which celebrates the Maccabean revolt which certainly did not show up in the Law.

What about something like slavery? Are we allowed to have slaves again? These are systems that had their place in the times of the Bible, but not so today. This is not to say that Orthodox Jews, for instance, can’t follow any of the Law, but certainly not all of it is possible.

So before we even begin looking at the very first chapter, I have questions. It is quite surprising that a book all about how Christians should follow the Law, really says very little about the Law.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)