Debates about the Law raged throughout Christianity in the 1 st century, but Paul was very clear that works of Law were useless, and when the "Older Men and Apostles in Jerusalem were called upon to answer the debate about the Law, they came back with a very clear decision, as recorded at Acts 15:28,29.
As I''ve pointed out numerous times on many threads, this "Very clear decision" is contested as a later interpolation by many scholars. Also, it seems in Acts 21 (which verse 25 was considered an interpolation by many scholars in the 19th century and their arguments were simply brushed aside, never answered for), it seems Jewish Christians are still obligated to hold the Law. Even FF Bruce agrees there's a problem with the contradiction between the Council of Jerusalem and Paul's account in Galatians 2.
This decision makes it clear that as Paul later said, the law was affixed to the stake with Christ. Though as Jesus said, He came not to destroy the law, so the principles in it are still valid, but to fulfil it, meaning that it is no longer a valid legal document. Hence the Apostles only carrying on those few points of the Law.
No, the decision if anything, if it's authentic, merely means that for gentiles the Law is just to obey those 4, and many view it as a "Starting point". That Law doesn't forbid marrying your sister or your goat for starters. Neither does it forbid stealing. Or slapping your mom.
If the Law was done away with altogether and no longer a "valid legal document", neither Peter got this message, or the Female disciples who obeyed Sabbath after Jesus was dead, or James in Acts 21 when he accused Paul of a rumor of telling Jews to abandon Moses, or John (In 1 John and in Revelation, as the saints are those who obey the commandments of God), or Paul himself when he says "As the Law says" in reference to women being submissive.
Did he mean some other law? Yes indeed. Those who follow Christ are no longer under law but under principle, which is contained, as Jesus pointed out in the two greatest commandments. However it is also called "the law of love".
And the "law of Love" is defined as SUMMARIZING the entirety of the commandments. All the commandments "Hang" on those 2 laws. Hence, not spitting on your mom is love of God and neighbor. Not disobeying Sabbath is love of God. Not marrying your goat is love of God.
Being under principle rather than Law does put a much greater load of responsibility on followers of Christ, in making sure that their decisions are correct and in line with biblical principle.
Jesus if anything was clarifying the original Law to explain how people had the wrong interpretations and hypocritical actions regarding it to its true definition. How is it a far greater load exactly if one can disobey practically all of it? What of the social commandments in the Mosaic Law were less of a load?
Paul is misunderstood about many things by most, but then so is the bible.
I most certainly agree.
The bible, as the word of God can only be a harmonious "whole" from Genesis to Revelation, so any apparent contradictions mean that we are not understanding things properly.
Indeed, especially when Revelation says that the Saints are those who obey the Commandments of God. And those commandments don't change.
From Genesis to Revelation? Yes, of course. It is important to remember that both Jesus, as a faithful and practising Jew, and the Apostles who came out of Apostate Judaism to follow the true path. The only scripture they had to teach from, and teach from it they did, were the writings we now wrongly call the Old Testament.
Well at least you understand that it was "Apostate Judaism", as in, an incorrect, misinterpreted version of the Law, and not the Law itself.
Since the Law was no longer in force by that time what Paul taught could only have been obedience to the principles embedded in the Law.
Apparently the Law was considered to be in force, clearly so by James for Jewish Christians in Acts 21, as well as "As the Law says" Paul. It was considered to not be in force by anti-Judaizers well after that time however.
Remember that God said long ago that He would write His laws on people's hearts. In what sense? They would live by the principles embedded in it, not by the letter of it. That also explains Jesus comment to the Pharisees on the very subject of overly strict adherence to Law, "Did you never read this? I want mercy not sacrifice??
How can one live by the principle without the letter? Impossible. The "principle" depends on the letter. You cannot have principle without the clarified concept. In your own view, you still have a "written" principle of what Jesus says. What Jesus was preaching was how to obey the principle of the Written Law, not that the Written Law is no longer binding.
Jesus also said to the Jews that they are to listen to the Pharisees for they sit in Moses' seat.
When it is said "I want Mercy, not sacrifice", that does not mean "I do not want sacrifices at all", it means that they were being done without a general agreement with the intended heartset and mindset. Blind obedience to the Law is not enough. Love is required as well. But love is not a replacement.
What is 'love" Exactly?
