(Cont.)
Then to the Gentile. At the time of the early church there was disputes about what was required of the gentiles. If gentile converted to Judaism then the Gentile was required to be circumcised and keep the law. Christianity, at the time, was not a “new” religion. Jewish Christians were still Jews. What to do with the Gentile converts? Some insisted that they must be circumcised and keep the law, just as the Jew did. Paul was putting that idea to rest, both in Galatians and at the meeting in Acts (alongside the other apostles). There are two reasons for this. The first reason stems from the two commandments—to love God and love thy neighbor. A part of Jesus’ teaching was freedom from the yoke of the law. Man was not bound to the law, but freed within it. This does not mean that the law was no longer in effect. It meant that the bondage to the law was broken. One must “keep” the law out of love for God and love for man—because that is the law. Keeping the law, for the Jew, had become a near impossible task. Man’s interpretation of the law was even so exacting at times, that in keeping one commandment man could become guilty of breaking another. The hypocrisy, legalism, and superiority/ judging of others was rampant—and Jesus condemned this. Keeping the law was not a source of love, but had become a burden. (Even today there are Jews who speak of the law in this manner, and many liberal sects no longer even require keeping with the law.) The problem was not with the law itself, but was with man’s heart. This is why Peter says in Acts 15:10, “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”
The second reason why Paul and the disciples probably spoke out against the idea of Gentiles keeping the Jewish laws, stems from the Jewish idea of the Noahide, or righteous gentile. In Judaism, it is not Jews alone who will have a place in the world to come, but also righteous gentiles will share in that. Non-Jews were only required to follow the Noahide laws—those laws handed down from Noah. Non-Jews were outside of the covenant relationship, and were therefore not bound to the laws. When the Gentiles became Christians (which at the time was not a distinct religion separate from Judaism), the Jews felt that these new converts must also be circumcised and keep the law—just as a new convert to Judaism would have to. Paul and the disciples put this to rest by saying no. Christ had freed both the Jew and the gentile from the yoke of the law, taking on that yoke would then be taking on something that was contrary to the teaching of Jesus. This is not the same as saying that choosing to adhere to the law out of one’s love for God and man is going against Christ’s teaching—on the contrary, it was not against Christ’s teaching, but it was also not required.
In Acts 15 we see three “laws” given to the gentiles to keep. This was not the only place where the gentiles or the Christian church was given laws to abide by. The laws came to be looked at as moral guidelines for behavior. When we read Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:5-11 (this letter written in approx. 62-67 AD, following Acts) Paul writes, “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” From this passage, again we see that the purpose of the law is love, and the problems with the law come from man. “The law is good if one uses it lawfully.” The law, in itself, is not a bad thing. It is how man wrongfully abuses the law which is bad. Paul goes on to say that the law is not created for the righteous, but for the lawless. The reason is because those who are righteous are already following the law. If someone is not a murderer, then there is no need to tell him not to murder. If someone is always honest, then there is no need to tell him not to lie. If someone has the love for God and man in his heart, and acts from a pure heart, then there is no need to tell that man not to do what he is not doing, or to do what he already is. If man gives his goods to the poor, continually giving charity out of his love for others and desire to help them, then there is no need to command that man to give charity. For the righteous, the law becomes unnecessary. The law is for the the lawless, insubordinate, ungodly, sinner, etc. The list goes on. They are the ones who need the law to govern their behavior, as they have no love for God or others. Unfortunately, many individuals who claim to love God fit with these categories, but God knows their heart. Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord will be saved (Matthew).
It should be noted that Timothy was circumcised. In Acts 16, following the ruling in Acts 15 that there is no need for them to be circumcised, Paul thinks it best for Timothy to be circumcised in order for him to best witness to the Jews. Acts 16:1-3 “He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” This is a good example of where the circumcision was not required, but it is allowable (and even sometimes best for man’s witness). It also shows that Paul’s words to the Galatians were to explain a larger phenomenon, rather than to criticize circumcision.
In conclusion, back to the original poster’s question, a Jew who converts to Christianity is allowed to continue to keep his Judaic practices (and the law) if he chooses, but it is not required of him. If he chooses to follow the Mitzvah out of his love for God and man, then he does s with right intention. The condition of man’s heart is what is important. The law does not save man. (We agree on that.) To answer your earlier question again, one who keeps the law is not more righteous than one who does not. Mainly, because keeping the law is not what makes one righteous and one who is righteous does not need the law, because one who is righteous is already doing those things out of love for God and man. It is not the act that is important, but the condition of man’s heart. One who acts, but has a heart (intention) that is not right, is doing it for naught.
I hope I answered your questions in a way that is clear. I have tried to be as concise as possible. The verses used are in no way comprehensive, nor is this message. I have attempted to be as brief as possible.
This section has been closed for all of Ramadan. Since you posted this thread not long before that, I am guessing that there were others, such as myself, who did not even notice it.
)