IS ST. PAUL ABOVE GOD S LAWS? 1

tk

I have trouble appreciating some of the teachings of St Paul and wish to share this.
Feeling confused and disagreeing I question teachings like:

“All things are made lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

And in 1 COR. 9

20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

God laws are constant, just and for the good of man. And so we see through the history of God revelations to mankind that all Prophets not only preached and did practice same.
Not only did following God s laws bring peace and justice it also prepares us for better lives in the hereafter.
Now, St. Paul is claiming to have been given exception to this and I wonder by whom, where, and under what authority [rationale]

This contradicts:

MT 10 v4: The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Is Paul given a license do all it takes to gain converts?
There are more verses like this I believe some of us may have had similar view about.

gmankbadi

Tk,

Your dilemma encircles the issue of the "law"....which you believe Saint Paul places himself above. However, there is a second, refined Law which you have failed to perceive that supercedes and fulfills the first law. As in with your previous remarks on the ecumenicalism of Islam and Christianity, you have allotted the necessity of the commandments as the consummate expression of truth.
Now, if Paul believed that the law of the Pharisees and of the Old commandments was the ultimate expression of sanctity, then he would not have converted from his previous profession as a Christian persecutor. For he was a man who followed the law of old better then many others had and was willing to sacrifice his life for that very law which he seemingly “second-hands” here..

Thus as Luke writes in the book of Acts;

"Then Paul said:” I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today."

However, as Saint Paul expresses in Romans 4:1

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt."

Thus, Paul in his ministry never focused upon the salvivic potency of the law, knowing full well that the law itself could not save. He expressed the law was a means by which to convict men of their illicit works in hopes of turning them closer to God. By the same token, Christ declared Himself not merely as pathway close to God....but the singularly absolute path to the only God. In other words, the law was merely a preparation for the coming of the consummate Word from which that very law had primarily emanated from. Since Paul had received the relation with the Creator of truth Himslef, Jesus Christ, he was freed from the ceremonial vindictiveness the law placed upon the Israelites. The substance of Christ's reality overshadowed the very form by which that reality was to be expressed. In essence, Paul was fulfilling the law as Christ had fulfilled it by His coming into the world.

Furthermore, each of the passages you have exemplified does not mention Paul as placing himself above the Old Testament law. He merely talks of placing himself above his own pride as the “saved Christian” identity to the meager identiy of a lawless man, in order to win those who were lawless and without Christ. The decision to be “without law to those who are without law" is the prescription of personhood; not of works. The statement was never that "I became to those without law, as one having no law myself" but as one "without law", incurring the change of personality not of obedience to God's commands.
Knowing that some would bring up this very accusation against him, Paul places in parenthesis (as is apparent in your quotation) a clarification of his statement stating; "being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ". The apostle carried the garb of Christ in disguise as a mere man to win those who were only mere men without Christ. There is nothing narcissistic about Paul’s' claims. If you begin to understand that the law itself is valueless without the personhood of God enveloping it, then you will begin to ascertain the wisdom of Paul’s’ apologetics.


God bless you.

tk

Thanks and amen.
How would you explain St Paul 's claim that the first Apostles [now 11 without judas] do not understand the law or scripture so much that they were in constand need of his guidance to recognise the truth? GALATIANS 2:11-13
And in verse 14: his claims that the other apostles are not upright ..."I saw that they walked not uprightly according to thee truth of the gospel."
Aslo his claims that he labours more abundantly the others together. 1COR. 15:10
The Bible did taught that these Apostles were given understanding of the scripture: ..."it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" MT 13:11
I appreciate explanations given Paul, but isn't it true that Christ had always maintain that he was sent but to the lost house of Israel?

Unknown

How would you explain St Paul 's claim that the first Apostles [now 11 without judas] do not understand the law or scripture so much that they were in constand need of his guidance to recognise the truth? GALATIANS 2:11-13

1) St Paul is not addressing all the Apostles, he is addressing the actions of St Peter alone.

2) He is not claiming that St Peter lacks understanding of the law or the Scriptures, rather, he is accusing St Peter of being hypocritical in his actions. The Apostles were mere human beings, and were thus vulnerable to errors and shortcomings; after all, St Peter denied the Lord three times before the Lord's crucifixion.

3) He doesn't mention anything about their needing to be under his constant guidance. I have no idea where you pulled that one from.

And in verse 14: his claims that the other apostles are not upright ..."I saw that they walked not uprightly according to thee truth of the gospel."

He is not making any claims about the "other Apostles"; he is making claims about the Jewish Christian community, and he specifically mentions Barnabas. They were not being straightforward about the truth of the Gospel because they were trying to impute the law for the sake of convenience, knowing that it was not necessary.

Aslo his claims that he labours more abundantly the others together. 1COR. 15:10

Actually he attributes his abundant labours to the Grace of God. Please read the verse in context:

"But by the grace of God, I am what I am. And his grace in me hath not been void: but I have laboured more abundantly than all they. Yet not I, but the grace of God with me"

I appreciate explanations given Paul, but isn't it true that Christ had always maintain that he was sent but to the lost house of Israel?

This is a typical objection that i've read in Islamic polemics against Christianity. It is representative of a typical problem with Islamic polemics i.e. the problem of not being able to read the Bible in context.

The verse regarding Christ being sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel regards his initial mission, but not His exclusive or entire mission. It's simply a matter of chronological sequence: Christ was first sent to the loset sheep of the house of Israel, and then subsequently His mission was expanded universally, particularly via His commission to the Apostles. Here are some of the many verses which narrate Christ declaring the universal aspect of His mission:

Christ's death: For all mankind: Matt. 20:28, 12:32; Mark 10:45; John 4:42; 3:16; etc.

Christ's message: For all mankind: Matt 24:14; 10:18; Mark 13:10; 28:18-20; 16:15; 14:9; Luke 24:47; 4:25-30; Jn 17:20-21.

Christ's kingdom: For all mankind: Matt 21:43; 8:11-12; 25:31-32; Luke 13:28-30; John 10:16; 11:52.

tk

Whenever a student meets an able and patient teacher,whatever the subject it becomes interesting.
Now, you talk of Christ exclusive mission; if it was fore told of his coming and he did come confirming his mission severally while he was on earth what was the reason for delaying inclusion of the whole universe while here then.
Could itnot have been very instructional had the gentiles been called to serve the Lord directly?
Could the jews rejection of Christ be attributed to the additional mission as they were expecting an inclusive Messiah?
I feel you probably have had to ans similar questions but pls do not be tired.
God bless us all and grant us a permanent shield against the devil.

Unknown

Now, you talk of Christ exclusive mission

I spoke of His mission (and I should make the explicit qualification here - we are speaking about His teaching mission/ministry specifically - since Christ had many missions of a different nature) being two-fold and chronologically sequenced. First He would focus on those who were His own people in His own land, and then He would appoint His Apostles to spread His universal message universally.

what was the reason for delaying inclusion of the whole universe while here then.

But He didn't. His message was always inclusive in intent; it simply wasn't universally spread during His three years of ministry. Why? Because essential and substantial factors of that message were yet to come to pass - the prophecies were yet to be fulfilled - He had to die and rise from the dead. The Jews were the only people expecting a Messiah; it wouldn't have made sense preaching the coming of the Messiah to a people who do not presuppose belief in the prophecies concerning Him. It was ultimately His Crucifixion and Resurrection from the dead that constituted the essential subjects of the Apostles' evangelism to the world.

Furthermore, you will note that the few Gentiles Christ did bump into during his ministry, were entertained by Him. He didn't reject them and tell them to go away.

Could the jews rejection of Christ be attributed to the additional mission as they were expecting an inclusive Messiah?

They rejected Him because they were expecting a political Messiah who would save them from their subjugation under gentile authorities.

Again, if you read the verses referenced in my previous post, you will find that even if addressing a limited immediate audience, Christ's message was always universal. He didn't tell the Jews that He came to die for them, but He declared He would die for all. He didn't tell the Jews that He came to inaugurate the kingdom just for them, but rather that He came to inaugrate the kingdom for all.

Christ's mission was not just to teach; His mission was also to redeem mankind from the bondage of sin, and death. This was a universal mission fulfilled through His Incarnation, His perfectly moral life, His death, and His resurrection.