Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
What About Pro-Law Comments by Paul?
Messianic Christians hallow the Law today. They regard the Law of sacrifice completed in Yeshua (Jesus).
They have a variety of verses they like to cite from Paul to prove he did not abrogate the entire Law. Their view on the Law's ongoing validity is certainly a minority view. Messianics are regarded in this respect as borderline-heretical by many other Christians. However, Messianics are not deemed un-Christian. The Messianics are thus tolerated by mainstream Christianity. I suspect when Paulunist Christians realize they are about to lose Paul's validity, they might cite these Pauline pro-Law verses (which Messianics cite) as a last gasp to save Paul. So let us examine these verses which the Messianics cherish.
First, Paul said that by faith we "establish the Law." (Rom. 3:31). Elsewhere, Paul says "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the Commandment is holy, and just and good." (Rom.7:12). The Messianics even cite the self-contradictory verse:
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the
keeping of the Commandments of God [is what matters]."
(1Cor. 7:19).
Lastly, Paul is also quoted by Luke as saying: "I worship the God of my ancestors, retaining my belief in all points of the Law....'" (Acts 24:14).
- It is self-contradictory because circumcising Jewish children was a command of God. (Lev. 12:3).
However, to lift these snippets from Paul's writings, and say this explains all of Paul's thought, is to mislead the listener. It allows self-deception too. It would be like taking Paul's statement in (Rom. 3:23) that "all have sinned" and say that Paul means Jesus sinned too. Paul clearly regarded Jesus as sinless. To take out-of-context (Rom. 3:23), and apply it to Jesus, would be perverse. Likewise, to use these snippets to say Paul endorsed the Law's ongoing validity is just as perverse a lie as saying Romans 3:23 proves Jesus was a sinner. If you cannot take Paul out-of-context in (Rom. 3:23), you cannot take him out of context in (Rom. 3:31) or (Rom. 7:21).
Also, Paul's compliments about the Law's good nature in (Rom. 3:31) do not mean much. We can all speak kindly of the dead. It is only by agreeing that those principles are more than dead letter would Paul's words have any bearing. Such words are absent in Paul.
Furthermore, in (1Cor. 7:19), Paul is clearly self-contradictory. He says being circumcised is nothing. Paul then says keeping God's commands is everything. Since being circumcised is a command of God for Jews, these are two logically incoherent statements. But this self-contradiction is purposeful. What Paul is doing is using the word commands as a neologism ( i.e ., a word that the speaker privately holds an opposite understanding than what his listener would suppose) to lead the pro-Law listener to think he is on their side. It still works on the Messianics to this day.