Was the didachist an enemy of Paul's crucified Jesus?

[Ben C. Smith]

Here is how Paul puts it in Gal. 3:16-19:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

That is my verse for you. Not only does the Law not grant the inheritance, but its purpose never was to grant the inheritance; the Covenant is what did that. That is my point.

[John2]

So which is it? Is the Law easy to keep, or is it so difficult that sin (which is imputed only through the Law, according to Romans 5.13) always gets the upper hand?

It's easy, like Deuteronomy and Mark say. And as God says regarding sin in Gen. 4:7:

If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.

[Ben C. Smith]

So which is it? Is the Law easy to keep, or is it so difficult that sin (which is imputed only through the Law, according to Romans 5.13) always gets the upper hand?

It's easy, like Deuteronomy and Mark say. And as God says regarding sin in Gen. 4:7:

If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.

Okay, then why does Paul threaten the Galatians with having to keep all of it, as if that were not a doddle, and why does Paul himself seem to be struggling to keep it in Romans 7?

[John2]

That is my verse for you. Not only does the Law not grant the inheritance, but its purpose never was to grant the inheritance; the Covenant is what did that. That is my point.

But whatever the Torah's purpose may have been (for Paul), it is no longer necessary in his view.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

[Ben C. Smith]

That is my verse for you. Not only does the Law not grant the inheritance, but its purpose never was to grant the inheritance; the Covenant is what did that. That is my point.

But whatever the Torah's purpose may have been (for Paul), it is no longer necessary in his view.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

And yet:

Romans 2.25: 25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

[John2]

Okay, then why does Paul threaten the Galatians with having to keep all of it, as if that were not a doddle, and why does Paul himself seem to be struggling to keep it in Romans 7?

I would guess it's because it suited his Torah-free agenda. "You can't do all of it anyway so why bother? And even if you could, it still wouldn't save you." As he says in Gal. 2:15-16 (again):

We who are Jews by birth ... have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

But another thing to add to the "easy" pile is what Hippolytus says about Jewish Christians in RH 7.22:

They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

And as Jesus says in Mt. 5:19:

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Mt. 11:28-30:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

[John2]

That is my verse for you. Not only does the Law not grant the inheritance, but its purpose never was to grant the inheritance; the Covenant is what did that. That is my point.

But whatever the Torah's purpose may have been (for Paul), it is no longer necessary in his view.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

And yet:

Romans 2.25: 25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

But he concludes the discussion by saying in 2:28-29:

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

This is ink keeping with what he says in Gal. 5:6 and 6:15:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.

For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What counts is a new creation.

This is because, as he says in Gal. 3:38, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[Ben C. Smith]

That is my verse for you. Not only does the Law not grant the inheritance, but its purpose never was to grant the inheritance; the Covenant is what did that. That is my point.

But whatever the Torah's purpose may have been (for Paul), it is no longer necessary in his view.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

And yet:

Romans 2.25: 25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

But he concludes the discussion by saying in 2:28-29:

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

Note the highlighting.

It sounds like you think that Paul simply lies as the case changes. When he is on his agenda against the Law, he pretends that he himself struggles to keep it, and sin reigns supreme; but in other contexts he can claim to have kept the Law blamelessly. In some contexts, circumcision has no value; in other contexts, circumcision has value if you keep the entire Law. You must think him quite confused or confusing. Is that fair?

[John2]

And the above is also in keeping with what Paul says about the Torah in 2 Cor. 3:6-11:

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

[John2]

It sounds like you think that Paul simply lies as the case changes. When he is on his agenda against the Law, he pretends that he himself struggles to keep it, and sin reigns supreme; but in other contexts he can claim to have kept the Law blamelessly. In some contexts, circumcision has no value; in other contexts, circumcision has value if you keep the entire Law. You must think him quite confused or confusing. Is that fair?

I do think he is quite confused or confusing. But I think whatever he has to say that may seem pro-Torah is negated by what he says elsewhere, such as 2 Cor. 3:13-17:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

My understanding is that when Paul speaks of "freedom" here he means freedom from the necessity of Torah observance, like in Gal. 2:3-4:

Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

And he at least seems very concerned about being thought of as a liar.

2 Cor. 11:31 (in the context of talking about Jewish Christians):

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.

Gal. 1:20 (after talking about meeting Jewish Christians):

I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Rom. 9:1 (in the context of talking about Jews and Torah observance):

I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit ...

I think his "double talk" could be due to his MO in 1 Cor. 9:19-23:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.