Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | grafted in | 216909 | ||
Good morning Tim, Nicely put together post. You said, "The problem so many today seem to have is understanding that Paul makes a clean break with the covenant of Law" So, I must ask you the same thing I asked John about the vows Paul took part in. (He hasn't answered yet. It's still below.) I know your parents probably told you the same thing I was told coming up - actions speak louder than words (and words can very easily be misinterpreted, when it suits one's purpose). We have statements about Paul's actions that refute the statement that he made a clean break from the Law. :o) |
||||||
2 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216910 | ||
Good Morning Grafted In! I would differ with your characterization just a little in that while actions certainly are import, in terms of theology, Paul's words are much more important. :-) We have very clear didactic material concerning the Law from Paul's pen, these passages should take precedence over everything else. Having said that, I will try to touch upon your questions. 1) Acts 18:18 tells us that Paul had taken a vow. Some assume that a Nazarite vow was in view, and that after the time of the vow was over, Paul cut his hair. However, this is an assumption. The verse actually says that he cut his 'for he had taken a vow'. So, it is not clear that a Nazarite vow was in view at all. All we can say for sure is that Paul had made a vow. This really has no relevancy to the question at hand. 2) Acts 15:20-21 simply encourages Gentile believers not to do things that would be extremely offensive to Jewish believers. The justification for the request is given in v. 21, that Moses had been preached in the synagogue of every city. By no means, is that saying that Gentiles (or anyone) was obligated to keep the Law. It would be like a Christian woman wearing a head covering in a muslim country in order not to offend the native citizins. 3) Acts 21:20-24: Now, this passage is much more applicable to the question at hand. There are two main points that I would raise in regard to this passage. First, Paul again was simply trying to not deliberately provide offense. Would we call him a hypocrite for doing that? I wouldn't. :-) Second, the passage (a narrative) certainly does state that there were a large number of Jewish converts who were 'zealous for the Law'. However, this is a narrative, not a didactic teaching. Were they right for being zealous for the Law? This passage doesn't address that question, but Galatians does. Interestingly, Paul's attempt to lessen his offense to the Jews did not work. He was beaten and arrested. :-) Well, I need to get some work done! Thanks for the interaction my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||