Doing the Law

[roger1440]

Jewish law defines Judaism. If a Jew throws the law out the window, he ain’t a Jew anymore. That pretty much sums it up. Did I leave anything out? Sounds pretty simple to me.

 

[Shermana]

And it also defines what it means to be a "Nazarene". A "Christian" who throws out the Law isn't actually obeying what Jesus taught and is going by some artificially contrived convenience doctrine, whether historically mainstream or not. Pretty simple as well.

 

[dantech]

Jewish law defines Judaism. If a Jew throws the law out the window, he ain’t a Jew anymore. That pretty much sums it up. Did I leave anything out? Sounds pretty simple to me.

According to Judaism, a Jew cannot renounce Judaism. If he throws the law out the window , then he's just a Jew who didn't practice the law. But he's still Jewish regardless of what he believes.

So according to Judaism, a Jew who believes he is no longer Jewish will get judged when he passes as a Jew who had to abide to the whole law, just like any other Jew.

 

[Shermana]

According to Judaism, a Jew cannot renounce Judaism. If he throws the law out the window , then he's just a Jew who didn't practice the law. But he's still Jewish regardless of what he believes.

So according to Judaism, a Jew who believes he is no longer Jewish will get judged when he passes as a Jew who had to abide to the whole law, just like any other Jew.

Yet, if a Jew believes someone was Messiah who the Rabbis reject, suddenly he's not a Jew anymore? A Jew who eats pork on Yom Kippur and curses and renounces God as well as rejects all the prophets, still a Jew. An ethnically born Jew who believes the Law is forever binding but believes Jesus was the Messiah, not a Jew. Fascinating.

 

[metis]

One must separate the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" because they ain't one and the same. Yes, if one converts to Judaism as a gentile, they do become a member of "the family", thus a "Jew"-- at least according to our tradition. However, once a Jew always a Jew, much like my Italian wife cannot switch her nationality to become Scottish.

BTW, Italian tradition works much the same way, whereas when this non-Italian married my wife, I was repeatedly told that I am family.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All of my statements apply only to what Paul thought.

Ok then, how does Pauls justify these two statements? " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified..." Romans 2:20 KJV and "...For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:13 KJV

If deeds will not justify man and doing will then deeds and doing do not mean the same thing.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Gentiles may have a choice, but Torah and Tanakh make it abundantly clear that we don't. BTW, what makes you believe Abraham didn't have rules to follow given by God? If the binding of Isaac means anything, it's that Abraham was willing to put faith into action.

Paul says that Abraham was justified by his faith without the Law.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What part about the "Judgments, statutes, and ordinances" that Abraham obeyed had to do with this "law of Faith" exactly? Jack nothing?

Yet Paul states that, "for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." Romans 4:9 KJV and "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham..." Romans 4:16 KJV

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Anytime I read a message of this sort, I hurridly turn to the book of Deut.4:2 to refresh myself with the WORD. From there I reread of the incidence that caused Moses to become an obedient servant of the Creator, to wit: "Moses, yea Lord. Take one of your hands and place it in your bosom". Not knowing what to expect, Moses obeyed and placed his right hand in his bosom. "Now remove it", says the Lord.When Moses removed his hand, and held both hands in front of his face, he saw that the one he'd placed in His bosom, it was as white as snow, as if it was Leperous. Now, replace it in your bosom and take it out again, saith the Lord".[EX.4:6] When this was done the hand had returned to it's original color.What was the original color of Moses hands if there was such a stark contrast between them when one had been turned white?

I'm not sure what this means in this context.

 

[dantech]

Yet, if a Jew believes someone was Messiah who the Rabbis reject, suddenly he's not a Jew anymore? A Jew who eats pork on Yom Kippur and curses and renounces God as well as rejects all the prophets, still a Jew. An ethnically born Jew who believes the Law is forever binding but believes Jesus was the Messiah, not a Jew. Fascinating.

No, these people are all Jews. Regardless of who they thought the messiah is, if their mother is Jewish.

 

[metis]

Paul says that Abraham was justified by his faith without the Law.

But the Noachide Laws had been given prior to Abraham, which he was accountable for as well since they were given to all peoples back then. Abraham was not accountable to follow the Mosaiic Law since they weren't given until much later.

Paul is an interesting figure, who is quite bright in that he does come up with some rather imaginative theological constructs, some of which cannot be taken too literally if one's an observant Jew. This is not unusual both then and now within Jewish circles, as our commentary system, which Jesus not only knew but used, allows for quite a bit of flexibility when it comes to interpretation and application. Those here who are Jewish well know what I'm referring to, but my experience is that most gentiles don't.

Besides his belief in Jesus, one big driving force behind what Paul was saying comes from two major problems that he's trying to face: 1) "the Way" being kicked out of synagogues and also being harassed in the Temple area and 2) Paul's desire to take two very different elements, one Jewish and under the Law, with those "God-fearers" (gentiles) that aren't.

Imagine Paul's problem, namely how to make and keep "one body" with two groups operating under different rules? I think Paul realizes that this split could tear apart the early church, so one of these groups has to change its practice. Therefore, to Paul, this can only be done by a gradual walking away from the necessity of the Jewish segment following the entire Law, using belief in Jesus as being a "fulfillment" of the Law, whereas Jesus becomes the "final sacrifice" and the "fulfillment of the Law". We see this showing up in Paul's conversation with Peter in Acts whereas he convinces Peter that circumcision shouldn't be a requirement to join the fledgling church, which really has major implications if one stops and thinks about that.

Obviously there's a problem with that for one who is an observant Jew, which probably led to the breaking away of the Ebionites, which later were decimated by the Roman crackdown, the destruction of the Temple, and the Bar Kochba Revolt.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok then, how does Pauls justify these two statements? " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified..."

Your ellipses don't separate a complete thought but result in a fragment:
διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας/"For no body will be justified before him from the works of the law, for knowledge of sin comes through the law."

vv19-20 are bound. 20 serves to stop any possible counter to 19. The line is similar to Ps. 143:2b. Everybody is accountable to God. Although by no means an contentious reading, I think the only way to resolve the fact that Paul expressly says that doers of the law are justified and his reference to the works of the law (a phrase found elsewhere- cf. Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16) is to understand that nobody is capable of avoiding sin. This is supported from the second part of the verse. Justification from the works of the law would be possible but nobody can do it. This is vital for Paul, whose theology requires Jesus' sacrifice for the resurrection and salvation of the church/those in Christ. If the works of the law were all it took to be justified before God, there would be no need for Jesus' sacrifice. If the works of the law didn't matter at all, then there would be no need to behave or do anything moral or to follow even the spirit of the law. Paul retains the importance of "doing" the law while keeping the ineffectiveness of hearing/having the law by making it impossible to be justified by the law alone yet not negating the vital need to "do" the law.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Justification from the works of the law would be possible but nobody can do it.

Yet Paul doesn't state that. Not in 19-20 or anywhere else.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But the Noachide Laws had been given prior to Abraham, which he was accountable for as well since they were given to all peoples back then. Abraham was not accountable to follow the Mosaiic Law since they weren't given until much later.

How did the Noachic Laws apply to Abraham in the sacrifice of Isaac, to which Paul referred?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yet Paul doesn't state that. Not in 19-20 or anywhere else.

He does say things like it. More importantly, it is logically entailed in what he says about the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice, that sin is inevitable, and that it is possible to be redeemed by doing the law/obeying the spirit of the law. For Jesus' sacrifice:

τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (ton me gnonta hamartian epoiesen, hina hemeis genometha dikaiosune theou en auto)

[he made sin him-not-knowing-sin for us, so that we should/may/shall/will become the righteousness of god in him | "God made Jesus, who was without sin, into sin itself for our sake, so that it were possible for we ourselves in him to become the righteousness of god"]




I think it is fairly clear that it does mean Paul saw part of Jesus' crucifixion as at least taking the burden of humanity's sin not off of humanity entirely (the next clause speaks to that) but sort of giving people a clean slate. That is, clearly there is a sacrificial aspect here. The main verb is active 3rd person singular, and as Jesus (him-not-knowing-sin) and sin are in the accusative, they are the grammatical objects (it's a double accusative structure, like "I gave her gifts" rather than "I gave gifts to her"). Sin, therefore, is personified by Jesus-the-one-not-knowing-sin, and furthermore is made into sin (quite literally turned into a personified sin by God) for the sake of "us".

Were there no sacrificial aspect, it is hard to understand why Paul makes a point of emphasizing that Jesus didn't know sin (let alone what being made into sin means). Paul doesn't name Jesus or use the typical titles we find in his letters, but instead uses a rather unique way of referencing Jesus as being the one-not-knowing-sin. It's not exactly an accusative absolute, but it is a participial clause made into the grammatical object rather than naming Jesus in some way and using modifiers (e.g., adjectives) to simply state that Jesus was without sin or didn't know sin. Instead, Jesus isn't named but is referred to by a verbal adjective serving as a substantive. This method identifies Jesus as and through his property of not knowing sin, rather than identifying Jesus and stating he didn't know sin.

This is set in quite deliberate and clear contrast (thanks to the double object construction) with "sin". God makes into Sin THE-one-not-knowing-sin for us. If you take away the sacrificial part, then this reads as the obviously untenable statement that God made Jesus, who didn't know sin, into sin itself. It would mean Jesus was worse than humans, who are sinful, because Jesus is sin. By understanding this in the context of both Paul's Jewish understanding and how he has worked Jesus into this framework, Jesus becomes the scapegoat of the new kingdom/"new Israel" (the people of god are, for paul, no longer "Jewish" by their relation in a by then already nebulous sense as an ethnicity, a "people", but by a connection to YHWH through membership in the "body of Christ"/followers of Jesus) .

The second clause, although it serves to explain in some ways, is not epexegetical. It is gives the reason by naming the result/purpose of this action (god making Jesus into sin): Jesus was made into humanity's sin so that his church/servants/faithful/etc. could be god's godliness. Again, there's a clear contrast. Jesus' transformation into/representation of humanity's sin so that Christians could transform into/represent (as "the ministry of righteousness") God's righteousness for those who were not yet believers.

In other words, I believe Paul did conceptualize Jesus' crucifixion as at least in part sacrificial, in that by giving up his life Jesus (Paul believed) shouldered the burden of humanity's sin. The words "made sin" (harmatian epoiesen) entail that God acted. What was the action (that is, how did god make Jesus into "Sin")? Through the crucifixion (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3). By having Jesus sacrifice himself "according to scripture" (kata tas graphas), God somehow was able to have Jesus represent the sins of humanity and thereby open or bring about the kingdom of god. It isn't that Jesus was made into sin, or made sinful, but that through his sacrifice (sinless dying for sins) he removed the sin of humanity which essentially had prevented humans from entering into God's kingdom. He didn't make everyone sinless, nor did he become sinful, but performed the one task that he alone could do: represent sin itself and take it's place, opening the way to the kingdom of heaven. At least that's how Paul conceptualized it (IMO).

But the clean slate didn't mean that people could just go on as before ("hearing the law") nor could they simply do whatever thanks to the sacrifice:

I would say Paul is very clear on that point: Jesus' sacrifice doesn't mean everybody gets a free pass because sin no longer exists. That's the point of the contrast between Jesus' actions and what Paul states the "church" (ekklesia) must do. "Just as Jesus did X, so we must do Y". Jesus opened the door to the kingdom of God, but Paul emphasizes what duties and responsibilities the followers of Christ have in order to gain entrance. Jesus didn't just hand every person a "get out of jail free" card, but an opportunity or possibility. In fact, I'd argue that the key point Paul is making here is not that Jesus' sacrifice was for humanity (he makes this point elsewhere and I've no doubt did so when he established "churches" i.e., gatherings of believers), but that the early Christians had the responsibility to finish what Jesus made possible. Jesus opened the door, and Paul is arguing that it is up to the brethren/body of Christ/ekklesia to ensure people pass through.

Finally, in Rom. 3:20 itself Paul gives us reason to pair the law with sin. Knowledge of the law means knowledge of sin. Why say this? Because it's a reason why the works of the law will not suffice. With the works of the law comes inevitable sin, making something else necessary for justification before god.

 

[metis]

How did the Noachic Laws apply to Abraham in the sacrifice of Isaac, to which Paul referred?

Who made the Noachide Laws? God did, right, and what Abraham was about to do was to violate one of those Laws? But, could God tell someone to violate a Law that He made? I guess He could. But did Abraham violate the Law? No, since the action was never committed, therefore God nor Abraham actually violated the Law.

Obviously there is faith involved with Abraham's deciding to do the unthinkable, but this does not in any way negate either the Noachide Laws nor the Mosaiic Laws. Matter of fact, one of the most reoccurring themes in all of the Tanakh as previously mentioned was the importance of following the Mosaiic Law.

Therefore, Paul could not negate the Law because he wasn't the Laws's author, and God couldn't do it because He promised that the Law was "forever" and "perpetual".

 

[sandy whitelinger]

He does say things like it. More importantly, it is logically entailed in what he says about the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice, that sin is inevitable, and that it is possible to be redeemed by doing the law/obeying the spirit of the law. For Jesus' sacrifice:



But the clean slate didn't mean that people could just go on as before ("hearing the law") nor could they simply do whatever thanks to the sacrifice:


Finally, in Rom. 3:20 itself Paul gives us reason to pair the law with sin. Knowledge of the law means knowledge of sin. Why say this? Because it's a reason why the works of the law will not suffice. With the works of the law comes inevitable sin, making something else necessary for justification before god.

You remind me of Job's comforters. Making perfectly correct theological statements yet never applying to the situation.
Now as to verses 19-20. Paul has studiously and repeatedly made the argument in chapters 2 and 3 that man is guilty of sin, whether under the Law or by being a law unto themselves. The importance of law is crucial since God has set Himself up as the judge of mankind. In order to judge fairly, law is needed. Where man is righteous there need not be a law. That is why Paul said the Law came because of sin and as such defines sin.
Now as you so ably pointed out, in further chapters Paul point out that the sacrifice of Christ and the faith in him negates sin as a matter of Law. Christ is the propitiation for man's sin and there by makes man righteous and therefore he is no longer in need of the Law.

As such Paul's statement that the just will do the Law points out that to do the Law is not an action but a state of the spirit and mind. This is consistent with his argument that sin is matter of the flesh which died under the Law and we are to be ruled by the mind and the Holy Spirit which falls under the law of faith.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Who made the Noachide Laws? God did, right, and what Abraham was about to do was to violate one of those Laws? But, could God tell someone to violate a Law that He made? I guess He could. But did Abraham violate the Law? No, since the action was never committed, therefore God nor Abraham actually violated the Law.

Obviously there is faith involved with Abraham's deciding to do the unthinkable, but this does not in any way negate either the Noachide Laws nor the Mosaiic Laws. Matter of fact, one of the most reoccurring themes in all of the Tanakh as previously mentioned was the importance of following the Mosaiic Law.

Therefore, Paul could not negate the Law because he wasn't the Laws's author, and God couldn't do it because He promised that the Law was "forever" and "perpetual".

What it boils down to is a heart issue. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son as an act of obedience to God's command guided completely by faith. The "doing" of the Law therefore is matter of the heart and correct actions stem from the heart and not rote obedience.

 

[metis]

What it boils down to is a heart issue. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son as an act of obedience to God's command guided completely by faith. The "doing" of the Law therefore is matter of the heart and correct actions stem from the heart and not rote obedience.

So, you're saying disobeying God, as long as it's in your "heart" to do so, is perfectly fine? Good luck with that.

 

[Shermana]

How is it possible to have correct actions without "Rote obedience"? That's just a blatant contradiction unless your point is to say that you get to write the rules as whoever you want.

"Do as thou wilt".

Hmmm, where have I heard that...?