How would a Christian reconcile the problem of Jewish law (please read all first!)?

Question

The gospel of Matthew states that the law (Torah) is to be followed by those who follow Christ. The Pauline Epistles state that ceremonial law can be done away with but moral law is to be kept. Herein lies a quite interesting contradiction, continue...

The gospel of Matthew was written some time after the death of Paul. However many Christians believe it to be the actual words of one of the disciples of Jesus (though it most likely wasn't). This of course is a later text however it seems to hold more strongly to what Jesus believed if you believe it was written by an disciple. According to this, all of the Jewish law is to remain intact.

Paul was a Christian convert from Hellenistic paganism. His goal was to convert other pagans. It makes sense that he would want to relax the laws in order to achieve this goal. However his words were actually committed to writing closer to the time of Jesus.

So which one is right? Remember, Jesus himself was a Jew who observed Jewish law.

Please cite all scripture, thanks.

I may be mistaken about Paul being a pagan... however his goal was to convert pagans, no doubts about that

Answer 1

If you read in the OT you will see that it states that if a foreigner (gentile) comes into the tribe of the chosen people that that foreigner therefore would have to commit him/herself to the laws of the Jewish people.
However, the laws where created to basically teach the "Chosen People" kinda like you would set rules down for a toddler to follow and learn so that once that child became an adult, it would then follow the rules that where set forth to them when they where a child.
The Laws apply to those who are Jewish. But if you read up on the Jewish community, you will see that alot of the laws are taken out of context, and enforced in places where they should not.
Jesus was the first "Christian Jew" and brought forth a better understanding of these laws for us to follow. But the Jews who do follow the "Torah"(which is only the OT) omit the teachings of Jesus.

Answer 2

My dear friend, I have no idea where you are getting your information, but it is ALL wrong. Allow me to enlighten you on these points that someone has misled you by. And hopefully, I can dutifully do a good job at explaining this to you.

First, we will deal with the dating that you mentioned. The Gospel of Matthew was written at the earliest by 4 A.D. and at the latest by 33 A.D. The 33 A.D. date is the date even the most liberal of skeptics will attribute to it. It could not have been written after the death of Paul for several reasons. #1 is because the missionary journeys of Paul did not take place until AT LEAST 45 A.D. and #2 there is no mention of Paul dying in the Bible. All that we have recorded in the Bible is him being in Rome held as a prisoner and the earliest of dates that we can give to this moment is A.D. 60.

Next, there are those who do not think that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew? Where is the proof? There is none. But even the earliest of students of the Bible -- Tertullian, Chrysostom and others attributed this book to the disciple known as Matthew.

Next, Paul was not a Christian convert from Hellenistic paganism. Paul was a member of the Pharisees. (Phil. 3:5) He was a devout Jew. And the Bible tells us that his goal was to persecute Jewish people who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. (See Acts) For further consideration, you might consider the words of Stephen, as Paul stood by and watched. Over in Acts 7, Stephen preaches that Jesus was superior to the law and to the Temple.

And that is where I want to make my final point. Jesus said Himself that He came to fulfill the law that the law might be made full through Him. (Matthew 5.17) How did that happen? By His death on the cross. A close inspection of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) -- a deep study of what Jesus was saying -- is that you cannot fulfill the Law of God fully! You cannot do it. Even the religious Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' day were not able to carry them out. That is the reason He said, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will in no way enter into Heaven." They were following the Law because they felt they had to. Jesus wanted us to follow the Law because we wanted to. Jesus wanted those who followed Him to make following the Law a "heart" thing rather than a "have to" thing. But He knew that we would fail -- and thus, He went to the cross. Also, we have to realize that many of the ceremonial laws were laws that were geared toward Jewish people. Jesus kept those laws because He WAS Jewish. We are not under those laws, therefore, we are not responsible for keeping them.

There is no contradiction here, my friend. Only confusion. The Bible does not confuse -- only those who seek to confuse others for their own ends. I am sorry this is so long, but I do hope that it helps.~

Answer 3

Your facts are wrong ...

Matthew is considered to have been written about 70 AD, give or take ... Paul died in 67 AD, so it wasn't written "some time after the death" as you said.

Paul was not a Hellenistic pagan, he was born in 10 BC, while the Hellenistic movement ended 31 BC, 21 years before Paul was born. Nor was he a pagan, he was a Roman.

To answer your question, despite its errors, Jesus came to set us free from all this legalism, to tell us it doesn't matter to our soul whether we eat pig or not, the soul is more important than what we eat or drink. You can nitpick it down to the word if you like but it doesn't change what Jesus did, whether Paul or Matthew was correct.

Answer 4

Matthew doesn't say to follow the Torah. Matthew was in fact written around or before the same time as the Apistles.

I am a little confused on this part though... Paul or Saul of Tarsus was a VERY pious JEW who was a very practicing JEW. He was not a pagan. He was in fact born and brought up in a hellenistic setting and was a Roman citizen but was not a pagan. He was JEW.

Obey the parts of the law that is repeated in the NT.

Answer 5

WRONG Matthew 5:18 PREDICTS the end of the law. Christians were NEVER directed to follow the law.

... Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17) The effect was the same. Once fulfilled it was no longer in effect. The very NEXT VERSE, Matthew 5:18, looks forward to the time when the law WOULD BE set aside. "...Not even the smallest stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS COMPLETED."

IF the law were intended to be permanent, the "UNTIL..." clause would be meaningless... OBVIOUSLY, Matthew NEVER said ANYTHING about Christians following the law.

The immediate context of the passage that is so often misconstrued by those who try to bind the law on people clearly teaches us the TEMPORARY nature of the law, yet the opponents of truth fail to recognize the fallacy in their claims.

Ephesians 2:15 Through his body on the cross, Christ put an END to the LAW WITH ALL ITS COMMANDS AND RULES. He wanted to create one new group of people out of the two. He wanted to make peace between them.

Colossians 2:14 He wiped out the written Law with its rules. The Law was against us. It opposed us. He took it away and nailed it to the cross.

Galatians 2:16 ...No one can be made right with God by obeying the law.

Galatians 2:21 ...What if a person could become right with God by obeying the law? Then Christ died for nothing!

Galatians 5:4 Some of you are trying to be made right with God by obeying the law. You have been separated from Christ. You have fallen away from God’s grace... The ONLY verse that talks about falling from grace, and they did it by trying to follow the law!

On the cross, Jesus' last recorded saying, "It is finished," is an important milestone. Because of Jesus life, Satan had been defeated. The law was finished and would no longer stand between God and mankind.

The 10 commandments along with the rest of the law ("commands and rules" from Ephesians 2:15) were "set aside" when they were fulfilled or completed at Jesus' resurrection. We are no longer bound by that law.


The Gospel of Matthew NEVER states that Christians must follow the law.

... There was A LAW, NOT a MORAL law and a CEREMONIAL law. The WHOLE LAW was REPLACED, NOT altered piecewise.

There is some disagreement among scholars as to the date for Matthew, but a significant portion feel that it was written several years BEFORE the death of Paul. There is a strong possibility that it was before the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem which roughly coincides with Paul's death.

Since the teachings of Jesus PREDICTED the coming END of the law, it CANNOT be asserted that the law was to "remain intact."

Paul certainly WAS NOT pagan. Romans 11:1 So here is what I ask. Did God turn his back on his people? Not at all! I myself belong to Israel. I am one of Abraham’s children. I am from the tribe of Benjamin.

"Which is right?" Obviously, the Bible is correct and your assertions are misguided.

Answer 6

we should follow the law. namely the 10 commandments. jesus did not come to take the law away(read matthew chapter 5). the ten commandments is not a jewish law, it existed even before there was ajew.(how did joseph know that it was wrong to sleep with another mans wife?). the ordinances were just a shadow of christ's death on the cross. if we are to continue with the ordinances than christs death was of no use. incidently, the moral law was kept inside the convanent box while the ordinances was outside it. contact me for more info.

Answer 7

you are right about Matthew; 5:17 says "do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth; until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished".

so the law of the old testament has been fulfilled by Jesus. He establishes a new covenant with His people. It used to be that everybody had to rest on the sabbath, and under Moses it was a pretty strict law, while the priests had to make the blood sacrifices of the 2 lambs, bake 12 loaves of bread and set them out with incense, and being God's people meant being of the hereditary line of Jews.

But God's relationship with his people changes after Jesus; in the new testament 1 Peter 2:9 says "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of the darkness and into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not recieved mercy, but now you have recieved mercy."

God's people are no longer chosen for their human bloodline tracing back to Abraham, but for the fact of their being able to hear and read the word of God and obey His laws.

In Hebrews 7:12 it says "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still a need for another priest to come - one in the order of Melchizedek < an old school order that used water for cleansing and healing and forgiving sins > , not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change in the law."

The new covenant established by Jesus means that to be one of God's people all you have to do is believe in the Christ and do what God commands. In Protestant and Evangelistic strains of Christianity this is generally taken to mean that you don't need a priest to mediate between you and God; the Bible does that for you, which in effect makes believers their own priests or intermediaries. Communities and congregations are formed so that people can read and study and learn together. Catholics still like the mediation of Priests and the Pope. I don't know much about what's up with that.

the law of God essentially has not changed; follow the 10 commandments, keep the holy days such as the sabbath and passover (which, by the way, is almost upon us!), and the most important commands of Jesus to love God and to love one another. These are the commands Jesus himself keeps in the new testament and are what his teaching focuses on.

we don't need to worry too much about things like Jewish dietary laws because, well, we are not Jewish. When Paul says we can do away with the ceremonies it's because Christianity is a different religion from Judaism, so the laws of the priesthood aren't a big deal. It's the commandments of God as told to us in the Bible that are most important.

I don't think it's necessarily about making the religion comfortable for pagans with Paul, as it was with the attempt to make Christmas and Easter Christian holidays later on. It's about allowing people to hear the word of God and not excluding them because they have different ceremonies. And it doesn't matter if Pauls epistles or the book of Matthew was written first; they are both the word of God and they each can help us understand a little more of what He wants to tell us.

If you look at it this way I hope it helps you to see the change as a progression in God's relationship with his people instead of a discontinuity.

Answer 8

The law out.
The old testament out.
The New testament in.

Inaugurated in the blood of Jesus 2000 years ago.

If you wish to continue in the law you can.
Too bad you have fallen from Grace.
You have to remember that it is by Grace that you are saved.

Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

What was said in Hebrews.

Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

New in old out.
Who said it?
HE, who do you think that is?
He said, I believe.
You don't have to.

What is sin? Unbelief in what God says. That is what sin is.

Answer 9

Friend you are confusing your own self. All law is valid and all law is to be followed Christ himself taught this and Paul taught no different. The fact that the law and that is to say all of the law is fulfilled in no way infers its passing. When a man accepts the atonement of Christ he becomes by faith a new creature and is no longer under any law but is changed to a new creature who by nature is in agreement with the law. We do not follow as in the Sacrifices and such which are fulfilled we do not worship according to traditions but we worship in spirit and truth.

Answer 10

gentile Christians dont follow the Jewish traditions, nor is it inconsistent that because the gospel was written after the death of Paul that it was not created and transmitted verbal and was indeed a contemporaneous account of Jesus.
Your argument is based on timing, how ever written and transmitted arnt the same thing so your argument is invalid