Didn't Paul refer to himself as a Pharisee after his "conversion"?

Yes, because he never stopped being a Pharisee.

There was absolutely a "conversion" that happened in Paul's heart and mind. No one here is arguing that.

I believe OP's original intent was to dispel some common thoughts/narratives surrounding Paul's conversion.

A lot of times we attempt to place our current cultural language & understanding upon a historical event in an attempt to sympathize or even understand what someone (in this case Paul) was going through.

Edit: looks like OP beat me to it and used bigger words than I did

I see what you are saying. As Catholics we share the same "roots" and there are a number of actions during the mass that are based on Jewish practices.

We do, however, believe that The Law (Torah) is a way, but that the words of Christ are the life.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. The Torah was given by Jesus, and His ministry is explaining it. The psalms say the precepts of God give life. St Paul says Jesus is the culmination of the Torah. I don't think it is correct in any way to set them in opposition to each other. Right worship upholds and ratifies the Torah, and the Torah teaches right worship and true religion.

We read from the Old Testament (includes first 5 books of the Torah) and the New Testament at every mass, so they ARE integrated in our highest form of prayer and worship.

However, as Peter confessed, only Jesus has the words of eternal life- this is where things change from Judaism in my opinion.

Paul says it better in Rom 6:14, " For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace"

The Torah and commandments given to Moses are the words of Jesus. He is both Lawgiver and Judge.

The entire Law / Gospel dichotomy is an invention of Luther and is simply wrong.

Christ Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it. He in no way changed or overhauled the Torah. Psalm 19 and 119 are just as true today as when they were written.

The Torah leads to Jesus and is good, and holy. When you follow the Spirit, you will follow and fulfill the Torah.

This is exactly the kind of thing I think the OP addresses. If St Paul was really talking about something that overturned or negated or changed the Torah then for one thing he is a liar because he says over and over again that isn't what he taught, and for another it makes his accusers on the Jews right, and third it makes the Lord a liar as well!

PabloSerna said:

---

Paul says it better in Rom 6:14, " For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace"

---

Amen. And there seems to be a huge understanding of this. Events in the OT were defined by a different covenant, which praise the Lord, we are no longer under.

We are under a covenant of grace exemplified by the revelation of God through Christ.

It seems to me that Paul, in his writing to the Galatians, says that we (followers of Jesus) are no longer under the Law but are to follow the Gospel that God had revealed to him alone which was confirmed by Peter at the Council in Jerusalem.

So the Law can only take us so far. The new Gospel (of Grace) if you will, preached by Paul is a revelation and while it does not dismiss the Law, removes it from its previous place of prominence, in my opinion.

As a gentile the Torah had limited applicability to you. The council of Jerusalem in Acts is a very close and literal application of what Leviticus says to those not of Israel - no idolatry, no blood, no sexual immorality. They did not negate the Torah, they applied it strictly.

They never changed what the Torah required of Jews, which is why St Paul had St Timothy circumcised.

St Paul's message in Galatians is similar to that in Ephesians and Romans - following the Torah in and of itself, while it will make you Jewish, will not save you. You need to be faithful to the Messiah to inherit the promises, because He inherits them all as the unique seed of Abraham. And, when you follow the Spirit, not only will you be faithful to the Messiah, and pleasing to God, but you will naturally do the things the Torah requires - love God, love your neighbor. The way you live will fulfill the Torah to overflowing, and "against such things there is no Law."

This absolutely does not denigrate or lower the Torah, or in any way revoke or cancel it! It upholds it. These are St Paul's words!

St Paul's gospel was not grace over against the Torah. He says several times what his gospel is: that the Jewish Messiah will return to judge all, and that He is the savior of both non-Jews and Jews.

What you're describing borders on Marcionism. The Torah was unchanged. It was given by God, and God never changes. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Had to look it up, but I am in no way advocating to accept part of the New Testament.

It may only be me, however, you led off with that Paul was not converted. Then you say he did have a change of heart. I agree and that this infusion of grace and revelation led him to say that we are not "under the law" but under "grace."

That statement alone is a change wouldn't you say?

I said he didn't convert to Christianity.

And Romans 6:14 is not in a vacuum. He specifically says he is making an argument about the Torah using the Torah itself shortly thereafter. A midrash, if you will. The Torah's prescriptions ends when a person dies, so if you participate in the death of the Messiah you will be dead to sin, and the Torah has nothing to negative say to those who live a life free from sin. Again - this does not negate the Torah! It upholds it! A person who is faithful to Christ and follows the Spirit will have no fault under the Torah, and will even more fulfill it.

Fair.

How do you interpret Romans 6:14?

What about grace?

What about it?

When Paul says we are under grace, and not the law, I wanted to know your understanding of that point.

I agree with everything St Paul says about it. The Messiah died for us, regardless of our sin, and through His cleansing of sin as the perfect sacrifice, we can be pleasing to God also - which is grace. If we participate in His death, and are faithful to Him, we are pleasing to God, sin no longer has hold of us, the Torah no longer accuses us. We live to the Messiah, we fulfill all the commandments, and we are under grace.

I see.

A point about something I brought up and had to look back on your words:

10andbouce wrote:

" Would you say that it is incorrect that my Bible uses "Saul's Conversion" as a sub title?"

And you wrote "Yes."

I understood that to mean that Saul was not converted, but you cleared that up. Thx

Zobel said:

---

St Paul never converted to Christianity.



St Paul - and all the other Apostles - never ceased following the Torah. He never stopped being a Judaean, never stopped celebrating the religious customs he practiced. He continued to worship in the Temple, continued to go to the Synagogue. He continued being a Pharisee. He perhaps did give up his zealotry or it at least was baptized into more productive efforts than violence.


St Paul says he continued being a Pharisee, and continued in the faith of his fathers. In his most detailed account in Acts 26 he says lived strictly as a Pharisee and preaches nothing more than the promise made by God to his fathers, "saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass."


What happened on the road to Damascus was a few things:
1) St Paul correctly understood that the Messiah he was waiting for had already come, and was Jesus of Nazareth.

2) St Paul's timeline shifted accordingly: no longer was he waiting in expectation for the Messiah, or trying to cleans the land through his Pharisaic zeal to bring about the Messiah's coming... but instead he realized he was in the Messianic age!

---

So, prior to Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, but after the resurrection and ascension of Christ during his persecution of the Church (or The Way), was Paul of the faith?

Zobel said:

---

As a gentile the Torah had limited applicability to you. The council of Jerusalem in Acts is a very close and literal application of what Leviticus says to those not of Israel - no idolatry, no blood, no sexual immorality. They did not negate the Torah, they applied it strictly.

They never changed what the Torah required of Jews, which is why St Paul had St Timothy circumcised.

St Paul's message in Galatians is similar to that in Ephesians and Romans - following the Torah in and of itself, while it will make you Jewish, will not save you. You need to be faithful to the Messiah to inherit the promises, because He inherits them all as the unique seed of Abraham. And, when you follow the Spirit, not only will you be faithful to the Messiah, and pleasing to God, but you will naturally do the things the Torah requires - love God, love your neighbor. The way you live will fulfill the Torah to overflowing, and "against such things there is no Law."

This absolutely does not denigrate or lower the Torah, or in any way revoke or cancel it! It upholds it. These are St Paul's words!

St Paul's gospel was not grace over against the Torah. He says several times what his gospel is: that the Jewish Messiah will return to judge all, and that He is the savior of both non-Jews and Jews.

What you're describing borders on Marcionism. The Torah was unchanged. It was given by God, and God never changes. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

---

But the law did change for Jews. Particularly Levitical ceremonials.

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12

I'm not sure. I think it depends on how you are creating your categories.

For example, when St Andrew as a follower of St John the Forerunner, but had not met Jesus, was he of the faith? Or St Peter, before he was called?

I think on some level we can say yes, but on another level we can say no.

There is always a faithful remnant to the God of Israel. These are the people who recognized Jesus as the Messiah when they saw Him. But even those who were around Jesus and heard Him teach struggled with really understanding who He was.

I think St Paul was faithful to Yahweh, and was zealous for God and the Torah. Here I think we can say yes. But he was wrong about the only thing that mattered, which is who Jesus is. He was ignorant, and needed to repent. Which he did!

And I think all of the examples above, even faithful, we not complete in their faith until their receipt of the Holy Spirit. That is a material change in the life of a believer and is the mark of faithfulness to Jesus. On that level we can say no.

Quote:

---

But the law did change for Jews. Particularly Levitical ceremonials.

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12

---

I think that is not what that means. What St Paul is saying is that the Torah and the priesthood are linked. He says before that the Torah established the Levitical priesthood. The change in the law or Torah there is not an incremental change like a to a' but a change from one to the other. I say this because the difference between the comparison he is making is between the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Melchizedek. The Melchizedek priesthood is not a modification or alteration of the Levitical priesthood - it precedes it, and is different altogether. That point is reiterated when he says a moment after that the former is set aside and a better hope is introduced.

There is no scriptural basis for making a distinction between the so-called ceremonial and moral law. The commandments are all mixed together. That is a later interpretation to explain (incorrectly, in my opinion) why Christians do not follow the Torah as Jews do.

Aside from the form of the argument here, the evidence in the scriptures and history is that the Apostles, including St Paul, did not understand it that way. Until the day the Temple was destroyed the followers of Jesus were worshipping there and offering sacrifices. St Paul offers a sacrifice just before his arrest. St Paul has St Timothy circumcised. There is no indication at all that St Paul taught Jews to stop following the Torah - in fact, he denies this very thing, and Acts 21:21-24 say that is not correct. "There is no truth in these reports about you, but you yourself are living in obedience to the Torah." In Acts 25 he says "I have done nothing wrong against the Torah" and "If the charges brought against my by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them." He denies these charges.

He denies them again in Acts 28 - "I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors."

St Paul never taught Jews to stop following the Torah, or he is a liar.

Would you speculate that Paul endorsed that Jews continue to offer the annual lamb at Passover even though the Lamb had already made the final atonement?

The distinction between ceremonial and moral is made because some laws are universal (do not kill) and some are specific to the levitical priesthood.

Paul's circumcision of Timothy and the nazarite vow were accommodations to the Jews (1 Cor. 9:22). The law of Moses was "old" and had been fulfilled in Christ.

Quote:

---

The distinction between ceremonial and moral is made because some laws are universal (do not kill) and some are specific to the levitical priesthood.

---

The Torah does not make this distinction. This is nowhere in the scriptures. This is truly a tradition of man.

For example, Leviticus 11 is said to all of the sons of Israel, and ends "You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." St Peter quotes this in 1 Pet 1:15 - this commandment does not go away. St Paul applies the Torah to non-Jews multiple times.

The difference is in the Torah itself. Some of the commandments are given to the sons of Israel - for example, dietary restrictions and circumcision. Some are given to everyone, "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them..." These are idolatry, sexual immorality, and eating blood. This is exactly the ruling of the council of Jerusalem - a strict application of the Torah. The commandments given to Israel remain in effect; the commandments given to Israel and to the people of the other nations also stay in effect. The commandments given to Israel do not get extended to the foreigners who are being grafted in - because then they would be Jewish.

"This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations."

"For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Torah until everything is accomplished."

"the Scripture cannot be broken"

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever"

"Your word, O Lord, is everlasting; it is firmly fixed in the heavens."

"God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind."

Nobody can overturn the Law of God, because it is the Law of Christ. He does not abolish or change it.

Quote:

---

Paul's circumcision of Timothy and the nazarite vow were accommodations to the Jews (1 Cor. 9:22). The law of Moses was "old" and had been fulfilled in Christ.

---

This makes St Paul a liar. I do not agree.

1 Cor 9:22 was not about keeping the Torah. It was about interpretation of the Torah, that is to say, the application of the Torah with regard to cleanliness. You can see this in Philippians 3:5 when he says "as to the Torah, a Pharisee." His relationship to the Torah, the way he interprets it, is as a Pharisee. That makes particular sense in this passage because he is talking about eating. Put another way - when he is around Jewish people who interpret the Torah in a way that would affect their dietary restrictions over and above the Torah (i.e., other Pharisees) he does this not to offend them to win them over.

St Paul can no more put aside the Torah or change it than any other person. He says literally he does not break the Torah. He is a son of Israel - if he violates the Torah, he will have lied.

I understand this is taught this way in some evangelical circles, but it makes St Paul out to be actively deceptive - including deceiving St James and the other apostles - and an out-and-out liar. I don't think St Paul is a liar.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Would you speculate that Paul endorsed that Jews continue to offer the annual lamb at Passover even though the Lamb had already made the final atonement?

---

Yes, because God said that the sons of Israel should keep the Passover forever. St Paul cannot change the commandments of God.

Quote:

---

This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast...Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever...You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever...This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.

---

This passage is also why some Pharisees thought those coming to Jesus must be circumcised in order to eat the Eucharist.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure. I think it depends on how you are creating your categories.

For example, when St Andrew as a follower of St John the Forerunner, but had not met Jesus, was he of the faith? Or St Peter, before he was called?

I think on some level we can say yes, but on another level we can say no.

There is always a faithful remnant to the God of Israel. These are the people who recognized Jesus as the Messiah when they saw Him. But even those who were around Jesus and heard Him teach struggled with really understanding who He was.

I think St Paul was faithful to Yahweh, and was zealous for God and the Torah. Here I think we can say yes. But he was wrong about the only thing that mattered, which is who Jesus is. He was ignorant, and needed to repent. Which he did!

And I think all of the examples above, even faithful, we not complete in their faith until their receipt of the Holy Spirit. That is a material change in the life of a believer and is the mark of faithfulness to Jesus. On that level we can say no.

---

Paul is fairly clear in his own words he was not of the faith.

1 Timothy 1:12-16.

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.


This is Paul's testimony of coming to faith by the grace of Jesus Christ. He's point blank admitting his unbelief and stating how he is an example of God's patience "to those who were to believe" which insinuates a point in time of unbelief. The whole counsel of God's word would suggest that Paul was not a believer. This isn't like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who did not have the mystery of Christ fully revealed to them in their lives. Paul heard the gospel from Stephen directly and was complicit in his unbelief and persecution.

In a lot of ways I agree with everything you're saying about faith and its continuity in the Bible, but I'm not understanding this point you're making specifically about Paul's conversion. Reconciliation with God is ultimately the same throughout the Scriptures, but Paul was definitely converted and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ after the Damascus road experience. The point you're ultimately trying to make is that Paul was already justified by faith like Abraham before his experience on the Damascus road which I really don't think can made biblically.

Im not sure that contradicts anything I said. Jesus judged that he was faithful, but he was ignorant, and needed to repent. His blasphemy and persecution and insolence were because he did not know that Jesus was the Yahweh he was trying to be faithful to - which was ignorance.

I don't know what "a believer" means, I guess? His unbelief wasn't general - he believed in Yahweh, and was trying to please God through strictly following the Torah as a Pharisee. But he did not know that Jesus was Yahweh, so what he was doing did not make him righteous or pleasing to God.

Quote:

---

In a lot of ways I agree with everything you're saying about faith and its continuity in the Bible, but I'm not understanding this point you're making specifically about Paul's conversion. Reconciliation with God is ultimately the same throughout the Scriptures, but Paul was definitely converted and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ after the Damascus road experience. The point you're ultimately trying to make is that Paul was already justified by faith like Abraham before his experience on the Damascus road which I really don't think can made biblically.

---

That isn't the point I'm making at all! The point I'm making is what I started off with - St Paul never converted to Christianity. He never changed religions, because there was no religion to change to....because his belief and understanding about God didn't change in general. Because his Pharisaism and Judaism wasn't in error. His error was the denial that Jesus was the Messiah he was faithfully waiting for.

Abraham's faith, what made him righteous or right with God, was his faithfulness to Yahweh. That faithfulness is borne out by what he did, as St Paul teaches - "by faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going."

St Paul is clear on how faithfulness works. It is faithfulness to the heir of the promises which matters. There isnan unbroken line of inheritance of the promises of Abraham, and it is faithfulness to that line that counts. That is why the northern kingdom of Israel was cut off - faithlessness to God's chosen king and heir. That is why even though Esau was reconciled to Jacob (the heir) and therefore inherited to become a nation, that nation of Edom ultimately was cut off - because of faithlessness to Judah. The unique seed and unique Son of both Abraham and God the Father is Jesus, who therefore inherits the promises of Abraham and everything.

You cannot be faithful to God, or righteous or pleasing to God, if you are not faithful to the Messiah. That is what makes you righteous. This is why he says "we know that a person is not made righteous by works of the Torah but by faith in Jesus Christ" and in another place "not having my own righteousness which is of the Torah, but that which is through faith from Christ."


So by his own example, I would say that he was absolutely not righteous before God when he was persecuting Jesus. But he didn't change religions, because his religion wasn't what was in need of changing!

Zobel said:

---

Im not sure that contradicts anything I said. Jesus judged that he was faithful, but he was ignorant, and needed to repent. His blasphemy and persecution and insolence were because he did not know that Jesus was the Yahweh he was trying to be faithful to - which was ignorance.

I don't know what "a believer" means, I guess? His unbelief wasn't general - he believed in Yahweh, and was trying to please God through strictly following the Torah as a Pharisee. But he did not know that Jesus was Yahweh, so what he was doing did not make him righteous or pleasing to God.

Quote:

---

In a lot of ways I agree with everything you're saying about faith and its continuity in the Bible, but I'm not understanding this point you're making specifically about Paul's conversion. Reconciliation with God is ultimately the same throughout the Scriptures, but Paul was definitely converted and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ after the Damascus road experience. The point you're ultimately trying to make is that Paul was already justified by faith like Abraham before his experience on the Damascus road which I really don't think can made biblically.

---

That isn't the point I'm making at all! The point I'm making is what I started off with - St Paul never converted to Christianity. He never changed religions, because there was no religion to change to....because his belief and understanding about God didn't change in general. Because his Pharisaism and Judaism wasn't in error. His error was the denial that Jesus was the Messiah he was faithfully waiting for.

Abraham's faith, what made him righteous or right with God, was his faithfulness to Yahweh. That faithfulness is borne out by what he did, as St Paul teaches - "by faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going."

St Paul is clear on how faithfulness works. It is faithfulness to the heir of the promises which matters. There isnan unbroken line of inheritance of the promises of Abraham, and it is faithfulness to that line that counts. That is why the northern kingdom of Israel was cut off - faithlessness to God's chosen king and heir. That is why even though Esau was reconciled to Jacob (the heir) and therefore inherited to become a nation, that nation of Edom ultimately was cut off - because of faithlessness to Judah. The unique seed and unique Son of both Abraham and God the Father is Jesus, who therefore inherits the promises of Abraham and everything.

You cannot be faithful to God, or righteous or pleasing to God, if you are not faithful to the Messiah. That is what makes you righteous. This is why he says "we know that a person is not made righteous by works of the Torah but by faith in Jesus Christ" and in another place "not having my own righteousness which is of the Torah, but that which is through faith from Christ."


So by his own example, I would say that he was absolutely not righteous before God when he was persecuting Jesus. But he didn't change religions, because his religion wasn't what was in need of changing!

---

When we talk of Paul's conversion, we are in fact saying he was converted in the context of the New Covenant. Paul was in error in his Judaism because his unbelief was due to a wrong understanding of the Messiah like his cohorts. His conversion was regeneration. His was given eyes to see, and ears to understand.

The event on the road to Damascus was not just God appointing him to his calling, but he was given faith. "No man can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit". What is the first thing Paul says? "Who are you, Lord?".

I'm not sure the point of making this distinction about religion and conversion. The real point is that Paul's "religion" prior to conversion was in error and Jesus had rather strong words to say about that.

I would also disagree that Paul's religion didn't change. Paul very much understood the "types and shadows" were now gone and there is no longer distinction, "Jew or Greek". So even though he may have carried on some practices (Nazarite Vow), he very much understood there were things he couldn't go back to, hence the scolding remarks he gives to the Galatians. You're religion can't help but change when you put on Christ.

Galations 3:26-27
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

John 4:21-24
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Quote:

---

The event on the road to Damascus was not just God appointing him to his calling, but he was given faith. "No man can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit". What is the first thing Paul says? "Who are you, Lord?".

---

Two problems. One, he didn't say "Jesus is Lord". Asking who someone is isn't the same thing. And the second problem is the scripture says when he received the Holy Spirit, and it wasn't then - it was when Ananias laid hands on him: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit"

Quote:

---

I'm not sure the point of making this distinction about religion and conversion. The real point is that Paul's "religion" prior to conversion was in error and Jesus had rather strong words to say about that.

---

Well, perhaps it would be more productive to ask instead of telling me what I am saying and then arguing with it. You may not think it is important that St Paul didn't change religions, but I do, because the idea that over here there was this thing called Judaism, and over there was this thing called Christianity, and St Paul stopped being a Jew to become a Christian is wrong - and a lot of people believe it. And that gives rise to all sorts of misunderstandings and misconceptions.

St Paul's "religion" (were such a thing true) was not in error - his entire sect of Judaism was solely focused on living righteously by the Torah, and going even further to put a hedge around it to avoid violating the Torah even by mistake. He was a fanatic about keeping the Torah, an extremist. That wasn't bad! The problem was he missed the point of the Torah, and missed the very Messiah he was truly working so hard to welcome.

It is as if modern Christians want so badly for there to be a major disjunction between the Old Testament and the New - between Yahweh and Jesus. But there was not. Jesus taught the Torah as it was meant to be taught. He did not change it, He didn't negate it, or end it. He literally said as much. His issue with the Pharisees wasn't that they were wrong, it is that they were hypocritical. They followed the Torah diligently but forgot mercy. "You tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." Meaning - their diligence about the Torah was good and they should do it! But not without the other. St Paul teaches the exact same thing: merely following the Torah in an external way did not and could not make them righteous. Since following the Torah is literally what made you a Jew, even being a devoted Jew could not make you righteous. THAT is the teaching that St Paul repeats over and over again, and THAT is the same thing Christ Jesus told the scribes and the Pharisees. St Paul and Christ Jesus are perfectly in sync. Rather than throwing out the Torah, they both upheld it. I think the reason for this desire is probably because if we are supposed to have the same faith as the Apostles, and the Apostle's faith looked like first century Judaism vs modern Christianity, then there is a problem. So people re-invent first century Christianity and imagine it looked like theirs. It did not.

Quote:

---

I would also disagree that Paul's religion didn't change. Paul very much understood the "types and shadows" were now gone and there is no longer distinction, "Jew or Greek". So even though he may have carried on some practices (Nazarite Vow), he very much understood there were things he couldn't go back to, hence the scolding remarks he gives to the Galatians. You're religion can't help but change when you put on Christ.

---

"Religion" as a category of thing didn't exist in the first century. There wasn't a secular / religious divide, there wasn't a cultural / religious divide, and there wasn't an ethnic / religious divide. All of those things were wrapped up into one. That's part of the point of the OP. Reading modern categories back is an error, and it makes people say things like the above which really don't make any sense in the context of the first century. Your "religion" can't help but change - no - your life and who you are? Yes.

The lack of distinction between Jew or Greek was about being able to come to God, not "religion". And your comments about the Galatians miss the point - the exact issue I was talking about in the OP.

The Galatians did change their faith, and their religion, and their way of life, because they were pagans. They were separated from God, and did not know the God of Israel. They were living a life that was incompatible with faithfulness to God, so their entire life had to dramatically change. How they worshipped, their daily pattern of life, the food they ate, the clothes they wore, how they had sex, how they got married, how they understood their marriages and family obligations, their jobs, all of it had to be tested and changed and baptized. Some of it had to completely go, some could be redeemed. They had to stop being Galatians, in some ways completely withdraw from public and civic life, and start being something new and different - Christian Galatians, a category of being and people that had never existed before. A new creation!

This is precisely the difference between the conversion of a pagan to following the Messiah and someone like St Paul. St Paul's way of life and practice were not abhorrent to God. His understanding of right and wrong, how to live, morality, sexuality, worship, all of these things were informed by the Torah -- the words of God -- and the teaching of the prophets. The pattern of life he was trying to follow was in and of itself good - as he says, "indeed, the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." But all of this was nothing without the point of the Torah - the culmination or telos of the Torah - which is the Messiah. Which is why he says all of that is garbage compared to faithfulness to Jesus and the righteousness that brings.

The Lord's words to St Photini at the well are similar, and drive this point home. The Jews worship what they know - Yahweh - because He revealed Himself to them. The Samaritans did not know God, and like all of the other people of the nations (the gentiles) were separated from God, were not clean, and were ignorant. But the hour came, the once-for-all atonement happened, the people of all nations were made clean in the blood of Jesus ("do not call unclean what God has made clean") and that grace opened the way for them to be joined to the heir, the true vine, which is Jesus - and the vine he planted, which is Israel. This is the major point of St Paul's gospel, literally how he describes it ("The mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus...")

St Paul was part of the vine already - at danger of being cut off for his hypocrisy and error - but by grace he remained. He received mercy and grace for his ignorance and disbelief. Had he rejected the Lord, he would have been cut off. But he was a natural branch of that vine as a son of Israel. The Galatians, the Samaritans, the Greeks, the Germans... your ancestors and mine.... we were all grafted in. They converted to something new. St Paul did not. He changed, but his "religion" didn't.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The distinction between ceremonial and moral is made because some laws are universal (do not kill) and some are specific to the levitical priesthood.

---

The Torah does not make this distinction. This is nowhere in the scriptures. This is truly a tradition of man.

For example, Leviticus 11 is said to all of the sons of Israel, and ends "You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." St Peter quotes this in 1 Pet 1:15 - this commandment does not go away. St Paul applies the Torah to non-Jews multiple times.

The difference is in the Torah itself. Some of the commandments are given to the sons of Israel - for example, dietary restrictions and circumcision. Some are given to everyone, "If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them..." These are idolatry, sexual immorality, and eating blood. This is exactly the ruling of the council of Jerusalem - a strict application of the Torah. The commandments given to Israel remain in effect; the commandments given to Israel and to the people of the other nations also stay in effect. The commandments given to Israel do not get extended to the foreigners who are being grafted in - because then they would be Jewish.

"This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations."

"For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Torah until everything is accomplished."

"the Scripture cannot be broken"

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever"

"Your word, O Lord, is everlasting; it is firmly fixed in the heavens."

"God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind."

Nobody can overturn the Law of God, because it is the Law of Christ. He does not abolish or change it.

Quote:

---

Paul's circumcision of Timothy and the nazarite vow were accommodations to the Jews (1 Cor. 9:22). The law of Moses was "old" and had been fulfilled in Christ.

---

This makes St Paul a liar. I do not agree.

1 Cor 9:22 was not about keeping the Torah. It was about interpretation of the Torah, that is to say, the application of the Torah with regard to cleanliness. You can see this in Philippians 3:5 when he says "as to the Torah, a Pharisee." His relationship to the Torah, the way he interprets it, is as a Pharisee. That makes particular sense in this passage because he is talking about eating. Put another way - when he is around Jewish people who interpret the Torah in a way that would affect their dietary restrictions over and above the Torah (i.e., other Pharisees) he does this not to offend them to win them over.

St Paul can no more put aside the Torah or change it than any other person. He says literally he does not break the Torah. He is a son of Israel - if he violates the Torah, he will have lied.

I understand this is taught this way in some evangelical circles, but it makes St Paul out to be actively deceptive - including deceiving St James and the other apostles - and an out-and-out liar. I don't think St Paul is a liar.

---

Well I don't think he's a liar either.

I'm not sure how broad your net of "evangelical circles" is, but every commentary I've consulted so far understands these things as condescensions and accommodations.

As you say above, Jesus is a high priest of an altogether different priesthood. The old has passed away. There is a new dispensation, a new testament established when Jesus, the testator, died (Heb. 9:16).

This seems like some flavor of NPP. Is it?

I don't know how you can say St Paul stopped following the Torah and also say he isn't a liar. Those contradict. He says he didn't.

Quote:

---

On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

---

Did St Paul "condescend" to St James??

Evangelicals always appeal to the plain reading of the text. The plain reading of the text is by doing the purification, St Paul showed that the rumors and accusations that he taught Jews to not be circumcised and forsake Moses were false, and that he himself lived in observance of the Torah.

Quote:

---

As you say above, Jesus is a high priest of an altogether different priesthood. The old has passed away. There is a new dispensation, a new testament established when Jesus, the testator, died (Heb. 9:16).

---

The establishment of the new does not end the old. If Christ Jesus came to save sinners then surely He came to establish this covenant with His death. If your understanding is correct, then He came to end the old ... but He explicitly says that is not why He came. Jesus never ends the Torah or cancels it, or changes it. St Paul never does either.

Quote:

---

This seems like some flavor of NPP. Is it?

---

I don't know what NPP is. I'm an Orthodox Christian.