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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:29 pm
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.
That is what I thought you thought. Thanks.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

To me it boils down to what Paul says in Rom. 7:5-6:
For when we [i.e., Jews] were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
And Rom. 10:4:
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
This is what Paul's gospel is, something that is "in the realm of" the "spirit" rather than the "flesh," where "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:38).

This is the same "spirit" he talks about in 2 Cor. 3:5-6:
... our competence comes from God. 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.
This is where I start to find Paul confusing (or confused) though, his idea that the Torah kills or brings death, which he sums up in Rom. 7:21-25 (after what sounds to me like a whole lot of crazy talk in 7:7-20):
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
I don't understand this argument at all. I just don't buy this kind of "spiritualizing" interpretation of the Torah in general, so that may be what is turning me off, and at the same time I can't really follow what he saying. But in the big picture, it just strikes me as preposterous that Torah observance kills or brings death like he says in 2 Cor. 3:7-11:
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! For 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!
And I don't buy that the "glory" of the Torah is "transitory" and was replaced by a "glory of that which lasts," and I don't think I even want to understand his argument that "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." It sounds like (as far as I can grasp it) the complete opposite of what the Torah says (or how I'm thinking it "should" be understood, i.e., with plain meaning). Right off the top of my head I can think of Lev. 18:5 ("Keep My statutes and My judgments, for the man who does these things will live by them"), though Paul somehow incorporates this into his "the letter kills" argument in Gal. 3:12.

And Dt. 4:2 ("Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you"); and Dt. 4:40 ("Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time").

So Paul's argument about the Torah being transitory and the Torah bringing death seems convoluted to me. But what seems clear is that he thinks the Torah has served its purpose and no longer needs to be observed because "Christ is the end of the law." And I see anything he says that sounds pro-Torah observance as being part of his stated MO in 1 Cor. 9:20-22:
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.


He says himself that he only pretended to be Torah observant (i.e., "like a Jew" and "like one under the law"), but that "I myself am not under the law."

Another thing that comes to mind regarding whether Paul believed that Jews ought to continue to observe the Torah is that the Letter of James is addressed to Jews ("To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations") and in my view it castigates Paul's position on Torah observance, like in 2:14:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no works? Can such faith save them?
Last edited by John2 on Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

And as Jesus himself says Mt. 5:19 (again):
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.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:36 pm To me it boils down to what Paul says in Rom. 7:5-6:
For when we [i.e., Jews] were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
And Rom. 10:4:
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
"End" = τέλος. The range of meaning is impressive, including "consummation," "goal," and "ideal."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply