“I admit having the dilemma bug for many years”

I think one of the take aways from all that stuff I talked about is that we all have the bug and we always have to be diligent about it.

Anyway, I heard this from a real person–she moved into a neighborhood with a large Jewish population. Orthodox Jews would pay people to perform particular petty tasks (and slap such deliberate alliteration) such as turning lights on and off, because the Orthodox Jews had a dilemma about doing any task on the Sabbath.

You are also right in asserting that many Christian groups do the same thing. I have been in a couple of churches that practice inconsistent legalism, inventing ways to burden people with silly moral quirks (and I admit having the dilemma bug for many years).

Ambrosia

“however, the lines that have grown alongside Christianity seem to be bent on keeping the law, as were the Pharisees, or bent on scoffing at those who do.”

I think you absolutely right, bruce.

There has been an astonishing amount of work on this since WW2, the great majority of it being since about 1977. That year a guy named E.P. Sanders, released a book callled “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” in which he asserted that Luther had totally overread Medieval Catholic and 2nd Temple Jewish (Ezra to Titus sacking Jerusalem) parallels in matters of grace and law. Without question Luther’s assessment of Catholicism at the time was correct (and I would say, especially with Benedict’s reaffirmation fo Trent, continues to be theoretically right). He said that he found a pattern of expression called Covenantal Nomism, which he summarized as people entered into the Covenant by the grace of God (and so making an equation with a kind of temporal salvation, which is a strange concept) and they maintained their covenant status via what they did. Sanders felt that the eternal aspect was dealt with by God’s grace, but the ecclesiological aspects were dealt with by the person doing the works of the covenant. His point was, and continues to be, as you can see by the interview I linked to below, that grace was highly prominent in Judaism at the time of Christ.

http://philosophyandscripture.org/Issue2-2/Sanders/Sanders.html

Some people, especially defenders to the death of Luther, are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this matter, choosing to not interact with the research being done on Dead Sea Scrolls, and the mountains of Jewish commentary on Scripture (like you said C, Midrash, Talmud, Etc.). Which is the same anti-intellectual error within what is generally referred to an fundamentalism (the word has come to mean as little as saying “Western culture”, in that, that differences between American and, for instance, French thought on any number of things are vast).

This whole discussion now revolves what is called “The New Perspective on Paul” or NPP. There are very significant proponents of different varieties of it, NT Wright being the most well known, but, in addition to Sanders, there is also, James Dunn at Cambridge and Scott Hafemann here at my own school has a much more nuanced variety of it. I am about to receive a huge book called “Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1, The Complexites of Second Temple Judaism” which dives very deeply into the literature of the time. DA Carson is the editor and the scholars he has assembled have come up with something for everyone in this matter and something against everyone is this matter.

For instance, Sanders is absolutely right that Grace from Yahweh is primary and continues to be prominent. However, as in Josephus, there is a consisent summary of praxis within contemporary teachings that says something to the effect of “God will save those who are righteous, otherwise he would not be just.” Which is absolutely impossible to square with anything Paul says about the effect of Christ’s sacrifice. The idea of being saved while still in our sin is a constant drumbeat in Paul.

To be fair to the Jews, I read a summary of debates regarding behavior on the Sabbath, which was really illustrative for me. They were trying to figure out how to be obedient, they were trying to figure out how to honor God as he had commanded in the fourth commandment. They weren’t sitting around debating how many angel can fit on the head of a pin, they were trying to make sure that thye weren’t dishonoring God. So on and on and on went the debate regarding what is work.

Which, from what I have read so far, and in light of what we have all seen and experienced in matters of legalism, is illustrative of the human condition. The default of all other religions is “I do which results in my being accepted” The message of the Gospel is “I am accepted which results in my doing”. And these two ideas become very fuzzy sometimes, very chicken-or-the-egg. Christ’s rebukes in Matthew 23 have to stand as, yes a rebuke to the Pharisees who had lost the spirit of the law, but even more importantly, a rebuke to the don’t-drink-don’t-chew crowd who still teach Christian behaviorism. I think Paul’s repeated issues with this speak to the fact that we as people cannot stop our tendency to justify ourselves by doing, we see it throughly in legalsitic varieties of Christianity.

Probably the best summary of the views, and a most reasonable amalgam of the “new” and “old” perspective is Stephen Westerholm’s book, “Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics”.

This tendency towards legalism is why I never stop regarding the exclusivity of Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life, and how his Sacrifice and Resurrection are totally efficacious for his sheep. If Christ is the only way, then grace, not legalism, is our only hope.

I tried Josephus but did not get very far.

Honestly? I believe that someone tainted our idea of Jews who did not convert to Christ, in order to condemn them. Who? I don’t know–however, the lines that have grown alongside Christianity seem to be bent on keeping the law, as were the Pharisees, or bent on scoffing at those who do.

That being said, I think that even a first century Jew might admit that there comes a point when one need not focus on the minutiae of the Law because they have finally come to a better understanding of God. As Abraham did. In fact, I think that might describe quite a few modern Jews (of the more devout variety)

As far as Dave goes….who knows? I don’t think he is too terribly serious about this, do you? At least not based upon conversations I’ve had with him.

Your words,
“I think the “Law” of the Old Testament is much like what we find in a “Paint by Numbers” set. The Laws are very important because they help us to paint a picture of what someone who loves God looks like.” might lead a reader to think that’s what you are saying, O great One.

Uh, having been raised by a non-legalistic Jews, and each day seeing the contrast between Jews who are bound to the law, and those, who like My Dad are not, I mite knoe a thung or tooo about the genre.

Oh! Now you’ll run to the open-minded defense, as you tried above (with the reference to our common Dave).

The point is that Jews look at the law as an open question–and for us to say “Grace”is a New Testament idea would be an error.

Knowing you already know all this, O great One.

Bruce