Acts 25:8 "I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish Law"

[Shermana]

What does Paul mean by this? Was he telling the truth? How did he do nothing wrong against Jewish Law? If he was teaching Jews to abandon the Law, then he'd be lying here right? So the only way he'd be telling the truth here is if he was not preaching a version of Christianity that violated the law, right?

So at best, does this mean that Paul was NOT telling Jewish Christians to abandon the Law and only gentile Christians, and thus promoting a dual-gospel doctrine in which Jewish Christians were still bound to the Law? Is it related to why he was claimed to have been held in suspicion by the Jerusalem Church in Acts 21?

Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple

I notice that the commentary from the orthodox commentators on this very critical verse seems to be sorely lacking. Almost as if this episode was swept under the rug.

Acts 25:8 Commentaries: while Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."

How do you reconcile this sentence by Paul? Was Paul telling the truth when he said he had done nothing wrong against Jewish Law? How does that apply to his teachings?

(Note: This is in same faith debates to see Christian interpretations of how to reconcile what Paul said here, but a similar question can be posed in a more general examination of Paul on another sub-forum).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I find it interesting that he says against Caesar and not against God lol.

 

[Pegg]

What does Paul mean by this? Was he telling the truth? How did he do nothing wrong against Jewish Law? If he was teaching Jews to abandon the Law, then he'd be lying here right? So the only way he'd be telling the truth here is if he was not preaching a version of Christianity that violated the law, right?

So at best, does this mean that Paul was NOT telling Jewish Christians to abandon the Law and only gentile Christians, and thus promoting a dual-gospel doctrine in which Jewish Christians were still bound to the Law? Is it related to why he was claimed to have been held in suspicion by the Jerusalem Church in Acts 21?



I notice that the commentary from the orthodox commentators on this very critical verse seems to be sorely lacking. Almost as if this episode was swept under the rug.

Acts 25:8 Commentaries: while Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."

How do you reconcile this sentence by Paul? Was Paul telling the truth when he said he had done nothing wrong against Jewish Law? How does that apply to his teachings?

(Note: This is in same faith debates to see Christian interpretations of how to reconcile what Paul said here, but a similar question can be posed in a more general examination of Paul on another sub-forum).

what do you think think he's saying?

 

[Xian Catalyst]

What does Paul mean by this? Was he telling the truth? How did he do nothing wrong against Jewish Law? If he was teaching Jews to abandon the Law, then he'd be lying here right?

NO, not even close.

Why would you think so?

So the only way he'd be telling the truth here is if he was not preaching a version of Christianity that violated the law, right?

Do you not accept the OT prophecies regarding the Christ? If you do, then that question is way out of line.

When the Jewish law BEGIN in History?

It was after there was a Jew. You can slide back a generation to Abraham I guess. But that's problematic.

Who was the Christ in Abram's day?

High Priest to God Most High, King of Peace<<<<<< MEL
vs
High Priest to God Most High, Prince of Peace<<<< Jesus

There was no law there.
Psalm 110 says that Christ's church (hebrews as well says it) will be established as Melchizedek's was. That's before the law and the Jew and Gentile existed.

So, why would you force a law on people that has fulfilled it's purpose?

 

[Shermana]

Xian Catalyst, I don't believe you actually answered the question of what Paul meant, I appreciate the antinomian reply, but that's not at all related to what Paul actually meant.

Please answer the question of the OP, this thread is not meant for a detailed discussion on whether the Law which is for "All generations" is meant for gentiles or not.

 

[Shermana]

what do you think think he's saying?

I'll share my thoughts after I hear people actually address what they think Paul meant instead of dancing and dodging. But it involves Paul's alleged epistles directly clashing with what he says here.

 

[Xian Catalyst]

Xian Catalyst, I don't believe you actually answered the question of what Paul meant, I appreciate the antinomian reply, but that's not at all related to what Paul actually meant.

Please answer the question of the OP, this thread is not meant for a detailed discussion on whether the Law which is for "All generations" is meant for gentiles or not.

The question is moot if based on a false presumption.

That's what I showed. Sorry you couldn't appreciate the impact it had. When the premise is gone, it's gone. Minus the premise what is the question?

I'm lost. Seems I've been like that all day. I must be much less intelligent than folks give me credit for.

 

[Xian Catalyst]

What does Paul mean by this?

The only thing he could mean with the words given was he kept the laws as He should.

Was he telling the truth?

If it's a lie then the whole infallibility concept is gone in one fell swoop. That would imply GOD couldn't monitor what got into HIS book for HIS PEOPLE to learn HIS message. If you are comfortable owning those, "Unforseen consequences" for that claim, then..... okies, the question may have merit then.

How did he do nothing wrong against Jewish Law?

Perhaps, he understood it. Perhaps it was much more evident if you heard him in person. I dunno why that's important. You are trying to deduce something from the claim that isn't part of the lesson. That's essentially the same thing as picking apart an analogy.

If he was teaching Jews to abandon the Law, then he'd be lying here right?

This is the crux of your diatribe. THIS was what I answered. YOU avoided the answer, by ignoring it claiming I didn't answer you.

So the only way he'd be telling the truth here is if he was not preaching a version of Christianity that violated the law, right?

Wrong.

Presumption is the same as assumption in these instances.

Now, I've answered each question.

You should respectfully respond to the answers.

 

[Shermana]

Let's try this again Catalyst, are you saying that Paul taught 100% compliance with Jewish law or not?

I challenge anyone else to point out where you directly answered the question in a way I should respect it.

 

[Pegg]

I'll share my thoughts after I hear people actually address what they think Paul meant instead of dancing and dodging. But it involves Paul's alleged epistles directly clashing with what he says here.

well if we look at the context of the passage, Paul is arrested after being accused by his fellow jews of being a seditionist according to their accusation found at Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow and stirring up seditions among all the Jews throughout the inhabited earth and a spearhead of the sect of the Naz·a·renes&#8242;

So Paul was being accused of sedition which was a capital offence under roman law. So the first point here is that the jews were accusing him of breaking 'roman' law.

They also accused him of profaning the temple as vs 6 states: one who also tried to profane the temple and whom we seized.
Paul apparently profaned the temple by bring a greek into the temple area. If we look at Acts 21:29 it says; *"For they had previously seen Troph&#8242;i·mus the E·phe&#8242;sian in the city with him, but they were imagining Paul had brought him into the temple. 30*And the whole city was set in an uproar, and a running together of the people occurred; and they laid hold of Paul and dragged him outside the temple.


So its being stated that he is not guilty of the things he is being accused of.
Acts 25:8*But Paul said in defense: &#8220;Neither against the Law of the Jews nor against the temple nor against Caesar have I committed any sin.&#8221;


He is not defending his christian teachings. He is defending the fact that he didnt attempt sedition against Rome, nor did he bring a greek into the temple area.

 

[Shermana]

So your argument is that Paul is not actually saying he's not guilty of breaking Jewish Law, just that particular Law. So when he said "I have not committed ANY" sin what he actually meant was "I have not committed that SPECIFIC" sin. But he still had violated Jewish law altogether, right?

Dang for a second there I was trying to give Paul a benefit of the doubt.

 

[Shermana]

Apparently, the commentators don't all agree with you on this issue Pegg, SOME translations agree and say that he was stirring "sedition" against Rome, others say that he was only stirring sedition against the Jewish leadership themselves. This would make more sense as they accused him of being a ringleader of the Nazarenes, which was of no threat to the Romans, and in context to the accusation of him defiling the temple.

Young's Literal Translation
for having found this man a pestilence, and moving a dissension to all the Jews through the world -- a ringleader also of the sect of the Nazarenes --

Acts 24:5 Commentaries: "For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Barnes:

And a mover of sedition - An exciter of tumult. This they pretended he did by preaching doctrines contrary to the laws and customs of Moses, and exciting the Jews to tumult and disorder.

Clarke:

2. He excites disturbances and seditions against the Jews.

Among all the Jews - Bp. Pearce contends that the words should be understood thus - one that stirreth up tumults Against all the Jews; for, if they be understood otherwise, Tertullus may be considered as accusing his countrymen, as if they, at Paul's instigation, were forward to make insurrections every where. On the contrary, he wishes to represent them as a persecuted and distressed people, by means of Paul and his Nazarenes.

Gilll's agrees with you however. But I will look up those not listed on that site.

As we can see, the issue is far from being settled on who Paul was being accused of fomenting "dissent" unto, and whether it was just one law or the entirety of them that he was being accused.

And this still leaves us with how to respond to Acts 24:14

New International Version
However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

"In accordance with the Law" would obviously mean the exact same thing as it does to me, and not to you in this instance.

Why what do we have here? (I use the NLT because the "offerings" in question is clearly in reference to sacrifices")

17:
New Living Translation
"After several years away, I returned to Jerusalem with money to aid my people and to offer sacrifices to God.

Paul was....BRINGING SACRIFICES???? Wait a minute, I thought sacrifices were all undone!

(Commentary is indisputably in agreement that the offerings are in reference to temple sacrifice, I won't entertain any argument that it's not.)

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/24-17.htm

 

[Pegg]

So your argument is that Paul is not actually saying he's not guilty of breaking Jewish Law, just that particular Law. So when he said "I have not committed ANY" sin what he actually meant was "I have not committed that SPECIFIC" sin. But he still had violated Jewish law altogether, right?

Dang for a second there I was trying to give Paul a benefit of the doubt.

i think you are not reading the context correctly.

Remember, its not Paul who wrote this about himself. So its not Pauls testimony about anything.

 

[Shermana]

i think you are not reading the context correctly.

Remember, its not Paul who wrote this about himself. So its not Pauls testimony about anything.

Can you rephrase that in a way that specifically addresses what I said?

When Paul said "Any" you're saying he meant "That specific accusation" only?

And when Paul said " I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,"

He meant "Except for all the parts that I believe no longer apply but hey who cares about that"?

 

[Pegg]

Can you rephrase that in a way that specifically addresses what I said?

When Paul said "Any" you're saying he meant "That specific accusation" only?

apparently thats what he said:

Vs 10*But Paul said: “I am standing before the judgment seat of Caesar, where I ought to be judged. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also are finding out quite well. 11*If, on the one hand, I am really a wrongdoer and have committed anything deserving of death, I do not beg off from dying; if, on the other hand, none of those things exists of which these [men] accuse me, no man can hand me over to them as a favor. I appeal to Caesar!”

He was being accused, by those jews, of brining a gentile into the temple area and sedition. And he clearly claimed innocent to those accusations

And when Paul said " I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,"

He meant "Except for all the parts that I believe no longer apply but hey who cares about that"?

it sounds like you are putting words in his mouth now.

Have you forgotten that Paul was a preacher to the nations? By your own views, are the nations expected to be adherents to the mosaic law??

 

[Shermana]

apparently thats what he said:

Vs 10*But Paul said: &#8220;I am standing before the judgment seat of Caesar, where I ought to be judged. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also are finding out quite well. 11*If, on the one hand, I am really a wrongdoer and have committed anything deserving of death, I do not beg off from dying; if, on the other hand, none of those things exists of which these [men] accuse me, no man can hand me over to them as a favor. I appeal to Caesar!&#8221;

He was being accused, by those jews, of brining a gentile into the temple area and sedition. And he clearly claimed innocent to those accusations

You are dodging the issue. He specifically said he was in full belief with the Law of Moses, and that he was not guilty of breaking the Law whatsoever. All your underlined quote is doing is saying that he was charged with such. His reply was not "I am innocent of that specific charge", it was "I am not guilty of breaking the Law", as in Altogether. There's no way around that and I won't entertain the notion that "Not guilty of breaking any of the Law" ONLY was meant to be in pertinence to that specific charge.

Here's a question for you: Do you think they were completely unaware of the lawless teachings Paul was giving, in your view? Sounds like they were looking for the best excuse they could muster. At the very least, this would indicate that he was surely not teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses, as he attempted to clear himself of the accusation in Acts 21.

it sounds like you are putting words in his mouth now.

It sounds like you are finding ways to dodge what he said or you aren't understanding what I said properly. Why don't you try actually addressing what Paul meant when he said he was in perfect accordance with the Law and the prophets. That's obviously not just in referring to the Temple issue.

Have you forgotten that Paul was a preacher to the nations? By your own views, are the nations expected to be adherents to the mosaic law??

Now that's a Red Herring. Stick to the questions and actually respond to the issue on your next reply. In my view, all grafts to the Tree of Israel are expected to obey the Law, if they claim to be members of the House of Israel, which is all whom Jesus came for.

I can certainly see why even the commentators avoided this whole affair as best as they could, and why the antinomians won't hit this nail on the head.

 

[Pegg]

You are dodging the issue. He specifically said he was in full belief with the Law of Moses, and that he was not guilty of breaking the Law whatsoever. All your underlined quote is doing is saying that he was charged with such. His reply was not "I am innocent of that specific charge", it was "I am not guilty of breaking the Law", as in Altogether. There's no way around that and I won't entertain the notion that "Not guilty of breaking any of the Law" ONLY was meant to be in pertinence to that specific charge.

i dont know how your missing his specific point about what he said he was not guilty of:

if, on the other hand, none of those things exists of which these [men] accuse me,

You need to go back and re-read what he was being accused of. And then you will see clearly the answer to your own question.

Here's a question for you: Do you think they were completely unaware of the lawless teachings Paul was giving, in your view? Sounds like they were looking for the best excuse they could muster. At the very least, this would indicate that he was surely not teaching Jews to abandon the Law of Moses, as he attempted to clear himself of the accusation in Acts 21.

Pauls teachings were obviously in harmony with the law. He had a far better understanding of the law then the jewish teachers who taught him.

And it is the difference in the jewish understanding, and the christian understanding that is the issue. Not Pauls teachings.

Jews only see Moses... and if the Messiah had never come, then we would all do well to keep following the law of Moses. But with the arrival of the Messiah came a new set of circumstances and new conditions required by God. With Messiahs arrival, God did not require that his people keep following Moses...they were expected to change direction. The nations had to be saved through them...this would require a dramatic change for the jews because they could not reject association with the nations any longer...they had to go to the nations and bring them to God....and that is exaclty what the christians, spearheaded by Paul, were doing.

The mosaic law does not allow for such a thing to happen. The law requires that jews keep separate from the nations. But the Messiah was sent for the salvation of them and to bring them near to God.

how can the mosaic law accomplish Gods will to bless all mankind? All the 'nations will be blessed because you have listened to my voice" is what was told to Abraham. Dont you see that at some point, the children of Israel would be required to start blessing those nations???

I'll tell you this now, the children of Abraham DID start blessing the nations as God directed when they put the mosaic law aside and took the nations by the hand to bring them to God and make all mankind 'one people'

 

[Pegg]

Paul was....BRINGING SACRIFICES???? Wait a minute, I thought sacrifices were all undone!

(Commentary is indisputably in agreement that the offerings are in reference to temple sacrifice, I won't entertain any argument that it's not.)

Acts 24:17 Commentaries: "Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings;

Yep, Paul acted in harmony with the mosaic law.

It wasnt until 70ce that God made it absolutely clear that he wasnt interested in the temple or its priestly system any longer. Its destruction was evidence that a new covenant was in force.

 

[Shermana]

i dont know how your missing his specific point about what he said he was not guilty of:

if, on the other hand, none of those things exists of which these [men] accuse me,

You need to go back and re-read what he was being accused of. And then you will see clearly the answer to your own question.

No Pegg, I get what you're saying. You're saying he was only denying that specific accusation. But that doesn't match up with what he says right after. Nor does it match up with why he says he didn't break the Law altogether. He said he doesn't disagree with the Law altogether. I can see why you don't to address this head on.

Pauls teachings were obviously in harmony with the law. He had a far better understanding of the law then the jewish teachers who taught him.

Oh, so that means he didn't teach breaking the Law of Moses. Glad to see you agree!

And it is the difference in the jewish understanding, and the christian understanding that is the issue. Not Pauls teachings.

So again, you agree that he was not against Mosaic Law whatsoever. What a breakthrough!!

Jews only see Moses... and if the Messiah had never come, then we would all do well to keep following the law of Moses. But with the arrival of the Messiah came a new set of circumstances and new conditions required by God.

Okay you're ignoring the question and repeating your dogma.

With Messiahs arrival, God did not require that his people keep following Moses...

As blasphemously wrong as that is, and in complete rejection of what Jesus taught and in calling God a total liar who made the laws for perpetuity "Even unto the thousandth generation" (meaning forever), that's not addressing what I said.

they were expected to change direction. The nations had to be saved through them...this would require a dramatic change for the jews because they could not reject association with the nations any longer...they had to go to the nations and bring them to God....and that is exaclty what the christians, spearheaded by Paul, were doing.

Okay, that's a nice way of completely ignoring the Acts 21 issue as well as what Paul said about not being against the Law and the prophets. Paul did not mean to say "I agree with the parts of the Law that are still binding", he meant he upheld the ENTIRE Law. I simply won't tolerate any attempt to say otherwise.

The mosaic law does not allow for such a thing to happen. The law requires that jews keep separate from the nations. But the Messiah was sent for the salvation of them and to bring them near to God.

The law does not require Jews to keep completely separate. That is one verse from Ezra which has multiple interpretations. Even Orthodox Jews don't keep completely separate.

how can the mosaic law accomplish that?

Obedience to the Law is, by God's own instruction, the method to bring them near to God. It is doers of lawlessness like yourself who seek to undermine the method that our God put in place to bring Jew and gentile alike to that purpose.

That was a nice attempt again at completely dodging the questions.

It's easy to see why the doers of lawlessness are so slippery with this. The direct, in-context application of this passage completely kills their whole antinomian argument.

 

[Shermana]

Yep, Paul acted in harmony with the mosaic law.

It wasnt until 70ce that God made it absolutely clear that he wasnt interested in the temple or its priestly system any longer. Its destruction was evidence that a new covenant was in force.

So He wasn't interested either when he destroyed the Temple in the Babylonian period, and apparently Mosaic Law was still applicable even up to 40 years after the crucifixion, and thus Paul was in complete compliance with Mosaic Law without exception?

Wow, I can't tell if you're simply tripping over yourself, forgetting your earlier positions, or starting to agree with me, or all three.