Paul and the Law

[Rivers]

I have been reading through the Pauline epistles lately.  He often talks about "the law."  Is he speaking of the law of Moses specifically or a broader definition?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I have been reading through the Pauline epistles lately.  He often talks about "the law."  Is he speaking of the law of Moses specifically or a broader definition?

 

Good question. I think the answer is pretty complex and I'm not really qualified to expound on it but I'll share an opinion.

Paul's religious career began as a Pharisee which would have required strict obedience to the Law of Moses so I think he naturally had an inclination to strict obedience of the Mosaic law. However, as his ministry progressed he seemed more likely to depart from strict adherence, even disagreeing with Peter in some important areas. For example, Peter felt that new Christian converts must first convert to Judaism (because he viewed Christianity to be a subset of Judaism). However, Paul argued that conversion to Judaism was unnecessary, which meant that new Christians, who weren't Jews, weren't necessarily required to follow the same law (dietary etc).

So I think in some places he was talking about the old law, while in others he was talking about the new law of the gospel (Love God and Love your neighbor). He sometimes referred to the Law of Moses as the "old covenant". (Romans 7:4)

I think he viewed the Law as preparatory for conversion to Christ but not an ends unto itself.

[stemelbow]

It seems to me like when referencing the law he is referencing the difference between Jews and gentiles.  Romans he starts in on it (while Romans is the first of Paul's words int he NT, I dont' think it is considered his first written account, but whatever).

Chapter2:

Quote

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

I dont' know that he's wholly consistent in his use fo the word law, but I'd say he is using "law" as reference to Moses.  In chapter 5:

Quote

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Was there no law at all before Moses?  or is he saying there was no law of Moses before Moses? 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I have been reading through the Pauline epistles lately.  He often talks about "the law."  Is he speaking of the law of Moses specifically or a broader definition?

 

This article on Romans 2 by N. T. Wright is helpful here. It's tricky since Paul is dealing with Jews - especially Jewish Christians - who keep the law of Moses as understood at the time. However in many places he's almost certainly talking of gentile Christians and how they keep the law despite not following Jewish practices of the law like circumcision. 

[bluebell]

I've always understood him to be mostly speaking about the law of Moses, but also a little bit about justice (in that, we are not justified by perfect righteousness-by keeping the law-because we all sin).

I have to admit though that I struggle with Paul.  Sometimes I have no idea what he is saying (there are epistles where i swear they are missing every other word or something because they make no sense!) and other times he comes off so self righteous to me (in a 'i'm so lowly-you should really be as lowly as i am' kind of a way).

And it's hard to get past his sexism.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I have been reading through the Pauline epistles lately.  He often talks about "the law."  Is he speaking of the law of Moses specifically or a broader definition?

I believe he is probably always talking about the law of Moses. For instance he says "the the law came and I died." What he is saying is before God introduced the law, we were innocent, and not subject to its legal penalties. Whether Moses was the first to give God's law is uncertain. I do believe God gave man covenants before Moses through Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Hebrews also recognizes a difference in saying that the covenant was 400 years before the law. It does seem Adam brought the covenant of the Sabbath, and introduced the Word. Exactly how much of that was considered law, we don't really know I don't think, but apparently men of Enoch's day recognized righteousness. 

This does not mean that Paul recognized all the law of Moses tho - for instance the literal dietary restrictions. Circumcision was actually not a part of the law, but was a token of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul still recognized the sins outlined in the law tho. He just tries to make clear that the penalty of death no longer applied. Judgment was removed from man by Yeshua, and man was to forgive their fellow man, and allow Yeshua to be the judge. 
I agree with some other posters that Paul can be difficult to understand. He speaks differently than the other apostles, and sometimes seems circuitous to me. I think his abstraction also has presented some issues in translating the epistles into English, and presents a few difficulties in translating his ideas into understandable English. I believe my wife and I have caught some things not picked up in the JST.

Good luck in your studies

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And it's hard to get past his sexism. 

Well, according to some scholars he was an old widower when he had his call.  (Not a confirmed batchelor as some have theorized).
Perhaps he was just an old man set in his ways.

But I am curious - if he is sexist (and I am curious which passages you are referring to) and it made it into scripture, does that make that POV canon?  The word of God?  In need of revelation to correct?

 

[clarkgoble]

Regarding sexism again you have to read it in terms of the times. Most of the things he mentions were common aspects of the culture. Now you can of course note that some pushed beyond the sexism. So for instance the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, while sounding sexist, is actually amazingly progressive for the time. (He talks of Mary being made man to be saved - but while that sounds disturbingly sexist most interpret it to mean he was pushing a type of equality where women got the same capabilities as men)

That doesn't mean Paul's statements about veils in worship or women remaining silent in church aren't sexist. They are in terms of our understanding. However arguably he also is pushing strong ideas about the mutual independence of men and women which were progressive. He also says that women have authority over their own heads which most likely means a degree of independence and autonomy unusual for the times - at least among Jews. Also when we read about silence it can't mean the way some fundamentalists take it since he talks about women praying and prophesying in church in the same epistle. 

A common interpretation is that Paul was more talking about people coming to church and engaging in gossip, hair styles and worldly things. How much of that is attempting to explain away uncomfortable facets of the Bible and how much is accurate I can't really say.

This NT Wright talk is interesting as well. Again though I think 21st century people have incentives to argue Paul this way.

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe he is probably always talking about the law of Moses.

Except that he's often referring to Christian Gentiles and is defending their not following the JEwish practices.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But I am curious - if he is sexist (and I am curious which passages you are referring to) and it made it into scripture, does that make that POV canon?  The word of God?  In need of revelation to correct?

Passages such as these-

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, according to some scholars he was an old widower when he had his call.  (Not a confirmed batchelor as some have theorized).
Perhaps he was just an old man set in his ways.

But I am curious - if he is sexist (and I am curious which passages you are referring to) and it made it into scripture, does that make that POV canon?  The word of God?  In need of revelation to correct?

Paul reflects his culture, and sometimes expresses personal opinions which he explicitly labels as his own opinions (not commandments).  Some people mistakenly think that every word in the Bible is revelation, but that is not so.  Much of it is descriptive human narrative, and much of it expresses personal opinions.  The Bible is canonized, that is, it is an acknowledged guide to right and holy conduct.  It contains the Word of God, but not all of it is the Word of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

I have been reading through the Pauline epistles lately.  He often talks about "the law."  Is he speaking of the law of Moses specifically or a broader definition?

When Paul speaks of the Law in the NT, it should usually be capitalized, since it refers specifically to the Torah (5 books of Moses) and the rabbinic interpretations of that Torah (Halakha).  Both go together in the Jewish mind.  This is the Law which Jesus frankly stated that he came to fulfill.  For those outside the Jewish faith, Paul says that they are a law unto themselves, i.e., they are judged on how well they live by their own cultural laws and customs.

Paul is a trained Pharisaic rabbi and fully understands the implications of what he says.  That is not always clear to us, but one must fully understand Judaism in order to understand the NT.

See the discussion by Amy-Jill Levine, “Jesus Who?” Moment, 27/4 (Aug 2002), 48-54,74-75.  P. 75, “Christian scholars and teachers now emphasize that Jesus cannot be understood apart from Judaism.  If you want to understand Jesus, you must understand the Jewish world in which he lived.”  See replies and rejoinder in Moment, 27/6 (Dec 2002), 20-26,54.  See http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jesus-who/ .

Also helpful is Amy Jill-Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, NRSV (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Rivers said:

I have been reading through the Pauline epistles lately.  He often talks about "the law."  Is he speaking of the law of Moses specifically or a broader definition?

 

I have an interesting suggestion for you: Why don't you post some of the verses from Paul's writings the meaning of which you're wondering about and we can discuss them here. For what it's worth, I have a fairly good understanding of Paul's approach to the gospel and can be help clarify some of the more arcane and difficult passages found in his epistles. Other board participants may also be able to provide helpful insights.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Passages such as these-

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

Joseph Smith taught similar things although not as extreme as "silence".  I wonder what the dividing line between sexism and proper order is?

And what of the second part of my question -  does that make that POV canon?  The word of God?  In need of revelation to correct?

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I have an interesting suggestion for you: Why don't you post some of the verses from Paul's writings the meaning of which you're wondering about and we can discuss them here. For what it's worth, I have a fairly good understanding of Paul's approach to the gospel and can be help clarify some of the more arcane and difficult passages found in his epistles. Other board participants may also be able to provide helpful insights.

Quote

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Galatians 2 :20

 

How about this one for starters.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Rivers

[Rivers]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good question. I think the answer is pretty complex and I'm not really qualified to expound on it but I'll share an opinion.

Paul's religious career began as a Pharisee which would have required strict obedience to the Law of Moses so I think he naturally had an inclination to strict obedience of the Mosaic law. However, as his ministry progressed he seemed more likely to depart from strict adherence, even disagreeing with Peter in some important areas. For example, Peter felt that new Christian converts must first convert to Judaism (because he viewed Christianity to be a subset of Judaism). However, Paul argued that conversion to Judaism was unnecessary, which meant that new Christians, who weren't Jews, weren't necessarily required to follow the same law (dietary etc).

So I think in some places he was talking about the old law, while in others he was talking about the new law of the gospel (Love God and Love your neighbor). He sometimes referred to the Law of Moses as the "old covenant". (Romans 7:4)

I think he viewed the Law as preparatory for conversion to Christ but not an ends unto itself.

I wonder what Paul would say about the modern LDS church with all of our rules to which we strictly adhere. (i.e., Word of Wisdom, Tithing, etc.)

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, Rivers said:

How about this one for starters. [Gal 2:20]

I think he's talking about the Torah and he's talking about because of the new creation and new covenant it doesn't apply anymore the same way the law doesn't apply if one is literally dead.

[Bobbieaware]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

How about this one for starters.

2 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (Galatians 2)

One of the recurrent themes found n the Pauline Epistles is the solemn warning that it's utterly futile for one to think he can be found righteous before God by mechanical outward demonstrations of obedience to divine law. In other words, trying to prove one's righteousness to God by going through ritualistic motions of obedience to the commandments without obtaining forgiveness through Christ and enjoying the spiritual empowerment that comes by means of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Paul cautions his readers that the hollow, outward Pharisaic approach to keeping God's commandments (an impossibility) will only succeed in fulfilling the "letter of the law" while the much more vitally important inward-oriented  "spirit of the law" will remain unfulfilled. Paul calls these empty outward shows of obedience "dead works" and goes on to assert that such dead works will only succeed in generating spiritual death rather than creating vibrant spiritual life.

So what Paul is saying in this verse is that his previous life as a Pharisee taught him one cannot genuinely keep the law of God and establish his righteousness without first coming to Christ and living according to the gospel law. Without first receiving the forgiveness of Christ and the spiritual enablement that's imparted to fallen man through the gift of the Holy Ghost, the law of God is like an impossibly high and daunting mountain that no one on earth, except for Christ, has the skill or power to even begin to climb.

Without justification by grace (obtaining a remission of sins through faith in Christ) and sanctification by grace (being enabled to keep God's law through the spiritual enlightenment and empowerment imparted to fallen man through the dwelling of the Holy Spirit), the demands of the law of divine justice will unavoidably spiritually slay everyone. All the law of God can do on its own is teach man the difference between good an evil, but such knowledge cannot save us any more than the newfound knowledge of good and evil could save Adam and Eve, for without living faith in a chosen Savior, who has the power to overcome the affixed and totally inflexible demands of divine justice the law of God can do nothing but minister physical and spiritual death. So all Paul is saying is that he has given up on the idea that obedience to the law of God, without Christ and his Gospel, has the power to enlighten, strengthen and save fallen man. Giving up on the futile and spiritually deadening letter of the law approach to pleasing God, he now wholeheartedly embraces Christ and his Gospel as the only way the otherwise inflexible demands of God's law can be satisfied.

Galatians 2:2 is just another way of saying, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life" (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Edited May 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[halconero]

Definitely Mosaic law. He differentiates this from keeping commandments and moral standards, which absolutely believes is important. His problem with the law was that 1) it had been fulfilled and 2) many were practicing it in a way that alienated the grace of their patron deity from the client. The law had become the way to demonstrate personal righteousness which actually led nowhere salvation wise, whereas its original intent was to be a sign of a graceful covenant between God (patron) and His chosen people (client).

Paul taught that keeping commandments and morality was still necessary to show thanks and gratefulness for the grace of God through Christ, and an intrinsic part of the graceful relationship between the Saved and Saviour. It was a shift in emphasis that the law itself did not save, but that it was God who saved and our obedience was a covenant act and mindset of thankfulness for it.

[Glenn101]

On 5/5/2017 at 8:41 PM, Rivers said:

I wonder what Paul would say about the modern LDS church with all of our rules to which we strictly adhere. (i.e., Word of Wisdom, Tithing, etc.)

I think that he would be calling some of us to task for not "living our religion" as we should.

[bluebell]

On 5/5/2017 at 3:07 PM, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith taught similar things although not as extreme as "silence".  I wonder what the dividing line between sexism and proper order is?

And what of the second part of my question -  does that make that POV canon?  The word of God?  In need of revelation to correct?

I'd have to see the 'similar things' that JS taught to have an opinion on them.  And yes, I think that the teaching that women should be silent in church and not ask questions is either Paul's opinion or an issue of translation.

[janderich]

In general I now believe that Paul's words about the "law" must be taken in the largest sense of the word. That means believing they refer to more than the Law of Moses. By taking this broad view I start to see where my actions do not conform to the will of the Lord, I begin to see where I am still bound by law. However, if I take the narrow view, all I can do is pat myself on the back believing I do not live the Law of Moses. Let me provide some examples.  

"The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Cor 15:56). The Law of Moses is obviously not the strength of sin. Rather, any oppressive rules and regulations can cause us to sin. These regulations are not limited to the Law of Moses. They can also be found in the law we currently live.  

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal 3:24-25) Our current law is also a school master to bring us to Christ. Tithing will not be with us eternally. The Word of Wisdom does not direct us on what we should eat or drink in every circumstance. Instead, we must learn to live by the spirit. The spirit is amenable to circumstances, the law is not. 

Finally, take Nephi's words: "For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. ...Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away." (2 Ne 25:25, 27) I know Nephi previously spoke regarding the Law of Moses, but we must understand these words in the broad sense. Some day the laws we currently live will be done away. We will instead live by the spirit and the law will be fulfilled not with many rules but in one word only: "love". For Paul tells us that this is the fulfilling of the law (see Romans 13:10).

[rodheadlee]

Roman law/ Mosaic Law.

[HappyJackWagon]

This has been an interesting thread because there are so many interpretations of Paul's meaning, even among a small group of internet Mormons. It's very easy to see why there would be division, confusion, and misunderstanding about these things over centuries of Christendom.

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 3:07 PM, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith taught similar things although not as extreme as "silence".  I wonder what the dividing line between sexism and proper order is?

And what of the second part of my question -  does that make that POV canon?  The word of God?  In need of revelation to correct?

I don't know what exactly it is about Paul's words but they inspire me about as much as any words in scripture.  I can read them over and over and get so much out of them, probably because in some ways he leaves so much open to interpretation.  With that said, though, I'd say Bluebell is spot on in calling out his views of women and we should eschew those views in every way.  Joseph Smith the same.  They were both influenced by the patriarchal societies they were raised in, so I see where it's coming from and try not to make it personal, but hopefully in time, perspectives evolve (speaking of the general human perspective here).   There's no inspiration in trying to hold people back based on things like gender (race, sexual orientation, are also interesting considerations here). 

There's no inspiration in following the traditional culture of a time and place.  That is just part of us. 

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by stemelbow