Does Paul demand obedience to the Commandments?

[Shermana]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:

Romans6:
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

 

[fallingblood]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:



Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?


Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

I think he taught obedience to the Law to Jews.

However, he did make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and said that Gentiles don't have to follow the Law.

 

[Shermana]

I think he taught obedience to the Law to Jews.

However, he did make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and said that Gentiles don't have to follow the Law.

Feel free to show where he made the distinction that non-Jews need not follow the Law and that Jews must. I'm assuming this is something you garner by the outside "context" rather than the context of the text itself, right? If that's the case, feel free to show the basis for believing the Epistles were meant with that context in mind of 2 separate sets of obedience.

 

[jtartar]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:



Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?


Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

Shermana,
You seem to have the right attitude, and Paul would have commended you for questioning him.
You know, of course, that Paul wrote over half of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul seemed to have received his knowledge directly from Jesus, Gal 1:10,11, 15-17. Paul seemed to know ten times more than all the other apostles combined. Paul was probably the closest to Jesus than any other man that ever lived.
Paul had more of the powers of the Holy Spirit than anyone else, Paul spoke in more tongues, had more revelations than anyone, 1Cor 14:18, 2Cor 12:6,7.
If you read the Act, you will see that Jesus seemed to be with Paul in his travels.
Much of the problem that people have is that they do not understand that Paul was many times talking about the Mosaic Law Covenant, and then he was talking about a greater LAW, the Law of Faith, Rom 3:27,28.
Jesus was born a natural Jew, so he was under the Mosaic Law, Gal 4:4. After the death of the Mosaic Law was ended, Col 2:13,14, Rom 7:6, 8:1-3. According to Gal 3:10-14, anyone under the Mosaic Law Covenant was cursed, that is why Jesus came to end the Mosaic Law and to estabolish the NEW COVENANT, which he did on the night before his death, during the Last Supper, Luke 22:19,20. The Bible explains that this covenant is much better than the Mosaic Covenant, because it is based on the blood of Jesus, nthe Old Covenant on the blood of animals, Heb 9:11,2. Heb 8:6-13, goes into detail about the superiority of the New Covenant.
Paul taught about the New Covenant, because it freed men from the law of sin and death, Rom 6:23, 2Cor 3:6,7. It is kind of comical how Paul tried to reason with the Galatians 3:1-6. Notice how Paul chastised them for going back to the Mosaic Law, Gal 4:4-11. Paul even said that if a person go circumcised, thinking that he was required to do it, he had parted from Christ, Gal 5:1-5.
Paul showed that no Christian was ever under the Mosaic Law Covenant, Rom 6:14,15. Paul was a Jew, but he was not under the Mosaic Law Covenant, 1Cor 9:20, because the Mosaic Law ended with the death of Jesus.
If a person wanted by the Old Law, he was required to obey the whole law, if he broke one law he had broken the whole law covenant, Gal 5:3. 3:11,12, James 2:10.
The problem with trying to live by the Law Covenant was that no one could obey it perfectly, Acts 15:10.
It was not against any law to obey the things in the Mosaic Law Covenant, so Paul did obey some of the things in order not to stumble some Jews, who thought they were still under the Law, 1Cor 9:19-23.

 

[Shermana]

That's a nice discourse Jtartar, but it ultimately avoids what Paul says and the point of the OP, your interpretation basically involves ignoring what Paul says about obeying the Law and not sinning, perhaps you simply don't understand Paul as I implied is quite often the case? Would you like to try going over what Paul specifically says in the verses in the OP? The "Lawlessness" in 1 John is indisputably referring to going against the OT Commandments. When Paul says that you are to no longer sin, and if sin is Lawlessness, what does that tell you? What do you think Romans 2:13 means? He was clearly referring to the same Mosaic Law there that the Roman Jews were familiar with. Do you think the definition of sin changed by Paul's time?

and then he was talking about a greater LAW, the Law of Faith, Rom 3:27,28.

There's no reason to believe that Paul is referring to the Law of Christ when he says "The Law", because he's talking to Jews who would not be familiar with it. That's why he specifically says "Law of Christ" to distinguish when he's referring to the Law of Christ. Romans 3:31 and 2:13 for example are clearly about the Mosaic Law.

 

[Rocky S]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:



Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?

The Decalogue,
more specifically the 10 commandments. Paul explains this further in that same chapter in versus 21-24, also in other epistles.

Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

Obedience to the Decalogue is taught by Paul, and all the other writers of the New Testament and early church fathers. But they never taught circumcision, sabbath keeping, or dietary laws. There were a christian sect that did, the ones who Paul constantly refutes in his letters. He spoke about those trying to mix Judaism with grace, or trying to mix the dispensation of law with this dispensation of grace. What I mean by that is, the law, sabbath keeping, circumcision etc were part of another dispensation in the bible, and was meant as a schoolmaster until the promised Messiah would come. But the apostles decided in the book of acts in chapter 15 not to have gentile Christians conform Judaism or the levitical law or the ceremonial law especially circumcision, or any other christian regardless of race or background. As it says in verse 15 of that same chapter "That ye abstain meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well'. But this sect kept trying to creep in, hence the reason for Paul writing Galatians, Romans, Ephesian etc. And on a side not, as for myself. I believe the bible teaches justification by faith for initial salvation. But I also believe in order to stay saved and in his grace one must obey the conditions of the gospel. The bible does not teach faith alone for the christian. Faith and works cannot be separated for the christian. And I am sure you and I define works very differently though....

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so Rocky, about the actual verses in the OP, what does Paul mean when he says to not sin, if sin is lawlessness? Did Paul have a different meaning of sin than 1 John? Because 1 John is clearly referring to Mosaic Law. So does Paul contradict himself or are people simply misunderstanding Paul? Acts 15 is disputed by the way beyond just its authenticity and its meaning. Some say the Jerusalem Council was made to give a "starting point". If you think you only have to obey those 4 laws, then that means you can murder, steal, and bear false witness. Do you think you are allowed to eat blood and that you don't even have to follow that prohibition even? Many Christians do it seems.

Let's see if we can get some responses that actually address what Paul says instead of using other verses alone without addressing what Paul meant in the OP verses.

 

[Rocky S]

shermana,I did in my previous post, sorry if I did not give the response you were looking for. But were did I not address your scriptures?

 

[Shermana]

You did not prove any where that the Law refers only to the Decalogue, you merely asserted it. Even then, this would have Paul exorting you to obey Sabbath, so be prepared for that snag. How can you possibly say that the Sabbath is part of another dispensation when it's part of the same Decalogue you refer to?

When Paul says about women being subservient to their husbands "Is it not written in your law", obviously the Law means more than just the 10 commandments. So the meaning of "law" doesn't change. It refers to the entire law. Not just the 10. There's no reason whatsoever to assume it means just the 10, and even if you do, I doubt you believe in obeying Sabbath. So did you mean the 9?

What I mean by that is, the law, sabbath keeping, circumcision etc were part of another dispensation in the bible,

Please prove that Sabbath keeping is part of "another dispensation" since it shows up in each of the original 10 commandments. Consistency, it helps. When Jesus said "Every iota" he apparently meant of the "subdivision of laws and commandments that future preachers will make that have no actual scriptural basis and is totally arbitrary".

If you're going to say things like the Sabbath is not part of the Law in question, and then say the Law is part of the Decalogue, well, I'll leave it at that and see how you handle that.

 

[KillerPriest3]

To think that he is referring to the ten commandments is laughable and rudimentary. Paul is clear over and over that he is referring to the LAW the WHOLE LAW OF MOSES. Which was never done away with. Paul and what he says is often a stumbling block to most people who read his epistles because he was so deep and said things that go clear over people who don't know any betters heads.

 

[Swordcutsharply2012]

2pt3:16 rom7:22 acts 24:14 Paul also said follow me as I follow Christ. So was Paul a hypocrite???

 

[Shermana]

To think that he is referring to the ten commandments is laughable and rudimentary. Paul is clear over and over that he is referring to the LAW the WHOLE LAW OF MOSES. Which was never done away with. Paul and what he says is often a stumbling block to most people who read his epistles because he was so deep and said things that go clear over people who don't know any betters heads.

Welcome to RF, Killerpriest, I'm always glad to meet someone who gets it. Such a rarity.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Was Paul uncircumcised or did he not follow all of the commandments himself?

 

[KillerPriest3]

Was Paul uncircumcised or did he not follow all of the commandments himself?

Acts 24:14

 

[KillerPriest3]

Welcome to RF, Killerpriest, I'm always glad to meet someone who gets it. Such a rarity.

Thanx for the welcome brother, and likewise Im glad someone here knows a little something.

 

[Reverend Richard]

While I may argue about his theology regarding the importance of the Law and what "Grace" is, he does say this:



Now we know that "Sin" according to 1 John 3:4 is "transgression of the Law", as the definition of Sin probably didn't change between Paul's time and John's. Is Paul nonetheless exorting Christians to continue to refrain from "sin" (Lawlessness ,breaking the Law and the commandments)? DId he mean some other "Law"? What does he mean in Romans 2:13?


Is Paul simply misunderstood about the Law by most? Did he actually teach obedience to it regardless of what he said about its importance?

If you read Galations (allegedly written by Paul), here's what Paul said about the Law in Galations 3:23-25:

23 - Before the coming of this faith,we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 - So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 - Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Addendum - My Jewish brothers and sisters can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe there are traditionally 613 Mitzvot in Jewish law. However, the original question in the header of this post referred to the "Commandments".
Are you referring specifically to the 10 Commandments? Or was your intent more general?
The 10 Commandments are still held sacred by Christians, so in spite of Pauls writings in Galations I don't believe he intended to imply that faith in Christ negated adherence to the 10 Commandments.

 

[Swordcutsharply2012]

If you read Galations (allegedly written by Paul), here's what Paul said about the Law in Galations 3:23-25:

23 - Before the coming of this faith,we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 - So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 - Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Addendum - My Jewish brothers and sisters can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe there are traditionally 613 Mitzvot in Jewish law. However, the original question in the header of this post referred to the "Commandments".
Are you referring specifically to the 10 Commandments? Or was your intent more general?
The 10 Commandments are still held sacred by Christians, so in spite of Pauls writings in Galations I don't believe he intended to imply that faith in Christ negated adherence to the 10 Commandments.

James 2:11. The commandments and the law are the same. Paul simple saying we are not under the law but we still have to follow the law Romans 6:15 1john 3:4

 

[Shermana]

If you read Galations (allegedly written by Paul), here's what Paul said about the Law in Galations 3:23-25:

23 - Before the coming of this faith,we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 - So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 - Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Addendum - My Jewish brothers and sisters can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe there are traditionally 613 Mitzvot in Jewish law. However, the original question in the header of this post referred to the "Commandments".
Are you referring specifically to the 10 Commandments? Or was your intent more general?
The 10 Commandments are still held sacred by Christians, so in spite of Pauls writings in Galations I don't believe he intended to imply that faith in Christ negated adherence to the 10 Commandments.

It is a very common myth that there's a difference between the Law and the commandments. When Jesus mentions the "Commandments' to the Rich man he includes "Do not steal" (one of the 10) and "Do not defraud" (One of the "613") in the same sentence, indicitating that the 613 and the "10" are not in different categories. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this distinction. Or to divide the Law into "Moral" and "Ceremonial". The commandments and the Law have no categorization.

 

[Pegg]

It is a very common myth that there's a difference between the Law and the commandments. When Jesus mentions the "Commandments' to the Rich man he includes "Do not steal" (one of the 10) and "Do not defraud" (One of the "613") in the same sentence, indicitating that the 613 and the "10" are not in different categories. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for this distinction. Or to divide the Law into "Moral" and "Ceremonial". The commandments and the Law have no categorization.

the entire law included the administration of 'eye for eye' justice and the sacrifices... do you observe those laws?

 

[Shermana]

the entire law included the administration of 'eye for eye' justice and the sacrifices... do you observe those laws?

Without any legally autonomous judges to bring anyone to, I can't perform that. Are you aware that King Saul was punished for making unauthorized sacrifices? They will commence when there is a legal Sanhedrin and priesthood, which is required. Otherwise, how were the Babylonian exiles supposed to obey them? Or the Assyrian exiles?

The Sacrifices will recommence in the end days, as is clearly defined in Zechariah 14. Even Gotquestions.org of all sites agrees. The Messianic Age will indeed involve sacrifices and obedience to the laws and some of the holidays, even for gentiles. If the Egyptians don't go up to obey Succoth, they will be struck with plague and drought.

Regardless, the point being, there is absolutely NO Biblical distinction between the commandments and the Law, regardless of your objection.