Paul and Conversion

I received this comment on one of my posts, and I thought it deserved a substantial response. Rather than responding to the comment with another comment, I have posted it here, because I think it is an important topic.

I came across this article while Google searching for information on the contrasting and similar views of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. While the article is not exactly what I was looking for, it did inform me of some things about the Pharisees of which I was not aware and I thank you for that. It is obvious that you took a lot of time and effort to research this article and many others which I briefly viewed on this site.

I do have a big question about your overall beliefs in general. At first, I must admit, I was willing to just go on with my research and say nothing, not wanting to offend others that do not share my beliefs on such matters. But after several restless nights, I feel moved to ask you about New Testament teachings that obviously refute the need for those of us who put our faith in Yeshua for righteousness (Romans 3:21-22), and feel compelled to continue in the futility of strict adherence to the Written Law and/or the Oral Law.

Please don’t misunderstand, I love God’s Law and believe it is pure and perfect. But like Paul wrote to the Church at Galatia, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery,” (Gal 5:1) I believe the Law was given for a purpose and that purpose has been completed. How do you and your assembly deal with the Epistle to the Galatians? How do you interpret many of the verses in that Epistle such as:

(3:23-25) - But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

and

(5:18) - But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Of coarse there are many other passages in which the New Testament says the Law “is powerless) and other things, but I just felt that it was important for me to ask you these questions. I mean no harm, nor do I wish to put you down or criticize you. I’m sure you must have struggled with these passages before, but I’m just curious as to how you can justify them in the light of the Messiah’s bondage breaking freedom?

Peace
Lorne

Thank you, Lorne, for your questions. I appreciate your graciousness and sensitivity.

Polemical issues are easy to take personally, and you did an amazing job of expressing in writing your concern inoffensively. Please interpret my explanation cordially and also without offense.

You have the real advantage of the entire body of orthodox Christian interpretation on your side. I acknowledge my views as being outside the pale of commonly accepted Christian belief.

I am well familiar with the book of Galatians and the other passages you cited. I used to hold the same interpretations of them that you expressed.

Discrepancy

One important issue with the passages you cited is the discrepancy with the rest of Scripture:

Moses warned Israel that if anyone tells them to neglect the commandments of the Law, the person is a false prophet sent by God to test them. (See my article on this for details.) Did God give them this command, and then send Paul to tell them that they are free from the Law? We are left with few options:

1. Paul was the false prophet God warned about
2. God is forgetful/malicious/incoherent (Heaven forbid)
3. The conventional interpretation of Galatians, etc. is mistaken

Moses made clear that the future redemption of Israel would be accompanied by renewed observance of the Law (Deuteronomy 30:8).

The Prophets warned Israel not to stray from the Law. When they did, they encountered severe punishment including loss of life (Isaiah 5:24; 42:24, Jeremiah 6:19, etc.). They repeated the promise of redemption accompanied by observance (Isaiah 2:3; 66:23, Zechariah 14:16; Ezekiel 36:27; 37:24).

The Psalms constantly extol the virtues of the Law, not merely as a tool to point to Christ, but an eternal handbook of righteous life. Not only is the Law pure and perfect, but it “endures forever.”

Jesus gave no indication that observance of the Law should end. Instead, he plainly said: “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” (Matthew 5:19). Will Paul be called great or least?

In Acts, James and the elders glorified God that there were thousands of believers who were “zealous for the Law” (21:20). Paul had been accused of “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs,” (21:21) so they instructed him to provide nazarite offerings for some of the believers present in Jerusalem, so that “all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law,” (21:24).

The epistles of James, Peter and John repeatedly uphold observance of the Law and make no mention of it having outlived its usefulness.

James explains:

“But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does,” (1:25).

The “perfect” law, as you explained, is the Law of Moses. The “law of liberty” is none other than James’ loving term for the Law of Moses, since James indicates that the “law of liberty” contains the commandments “Do not commit adultery” and “Do not murder,” (2:11-12).

Peter points out that Paul’s letters are “hard to understand,” (2 Peter 3:16) and the error is committed by those who are “unprincipled” (v. 17). The word translated “unprincipled” is άθεσμος athesmos, literally, “against law/custom.”

The epistles of John explain:

“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:3-6)

It hardly needs to be mentioned that “the manner [Jesus] walked” was in full and perfect obedience to the commandments in the Law of Moses. It furthermore states:

“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness,” (1 John 3:4) indicating to us that breaking the commandments of the Law is the very definition of sin. If a follower of Christ is free to break the Law, then they are, by definition, free to sin. But to the contrary,

“You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous,” (vv. 5-7).

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome,” (1 John 5:2-3).

Even the book of Revelation identifies the children of the woman as those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus,” (12:17) and the saints as those who “who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus,” (14:12).

The discrepancy reaches even into Paul’s own writings:

“For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Romans 2:13)

“So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?” (Romans 2:26-27)

“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Romans 3:31)

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

When compared against the whole of Scripture, the passages that appear to diminish the importance of observance of the Law stick out like a very sore thumb. It becomes even more apparent when we try to gain the worldview of the original recipients of these texts and read it in the cultural context of first century Judaism.

Paul the Heretic?

Can Paul so casually cast off the foundational revelation of God as a relic of a bygone era? I would submit to you that the thousands of years of history and theology that have transpired since then have desensitized us to how scandalous that is. If this was Paul’s message, then it was not just a new covenant or a new era he was describing, but a new bible, a new religion, and a new god. Here, then, are our choices:

1. The religion of Moses and Jesus is true, but what Paul wrote is false.
2. The religion of Moses and Jesus is false, but what Paul wrote is true.
3. The conventional reading of Paul is a tragic misinterpretation.

I know many people who chose either options 1 or 2, but I remain convinced of option 3.

Is it possible that Paul could be so misunderstood? Some hints, as previously mentioned, give us clues:

In Acts 21, people mistakenly believed that Paul taught against the Law of Moses and Jewish custom. Paul refutes that misconception in cooperation with James and the elders.

2 Peter 3 explains that Paul’s letters are “hard to understand” and the true error is to be “against law/custom.”

Yes, I submit that it is easy for Paul to be misunderstood, and according to these passages, if we understand Paul as teaching people not to observe the Law of Moses and Jewish custom, then we are indeed misunderstanding him.

So what does Paul mean?

I suggest that the central issue in all of the letters of Paul is the same, and it is not observance of law or custom, per se. It is the same issue that is pivotal in the book of Acts: the inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom of God.

We take for granted that Gentiles can come to God and be acceptable to Him without first converting to become legally Jewish. We are so used to that idea, we can’t imagine it any other way. In the apostolic era, that was a contentious issue and a hard thing for some people to accept. Yeshua is the Messiah of Judaism. The Messiah of the Jewish people. If people want to follow him, they must first convert and become like him: Jewish. That was the prevailing opinion of many believers in the apostolic community. After Peter’s experience in the middle of the book of Acts, they learned that Gentiles could remain Gentiles and still enter the Kingdom. Nonetheless, this idea was so shocking to many people (including even Peter at first) that it remained a topic of fierce debate. This is the issue of Paul’s letters as well as the book of Acts.

People were going to the Galatian community and teaching them that they absolutely must convert and become legally Jewish to be included in God’s Kingdom. Paul’s letter to them intended to dispel that belief. That much seems clear from the surrounding context with no re-interpretation necessary.

For one thing, Paul uses the terms “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” repeatedly. One might be tempted to interpret these literally as a clinical procedure, but it makes more sense to see these as technical terms for “being/becoming Jewish” versus “remaining Gentile.” In fact, this is often how the term is used in rabbinic writings.

An amazing thing occurs when we expand Paul’s jargon further by understanding “law” as often being a technical term for legal Jewish status. “Works of the law” could be understood as “conversion to become Jewish.” “Under law” could mean “legally Jewish”–it works well in almost every case, although Galatians 5:14 5:18 is notably problematic. (Note also the variant 1 Corinthians 9:20.)

Although this linguistic equivalence is not crystal clear, the general idea is fairly solid. It unifies Paul’s message both internally and externally.

Reading Paul in this light results in a very interesting result. What Paul was dealing with (especially in Romans) were people who believed as Gentiles, they could legally convert to become Jewish and then automatically escape God’s wrath — without actually transforming their lives in obedience to God’s commandments. Paul informed them that by becoming Jewish, they accepted upon themselves the additional liability of the special responsibilities of the Jewish people. As a result, they only brought upon themselves greater and more swift judgment.

I realize that this explanation, albeit lengthy, is not comprehensive. I hope that it provokes further prayerful study and thought.