We're not reading different Bibles—for some reason we seem to be talking around each other. Let's keep trying.

Neither Jesus nor Paul ever taught anyone to disobey the commandments, or that the commandments didn't matter. Both of them affirmed the Law (Mt. 5.18; Rom. 3.31). Both of them were diligent to uphold the Law and the Prophets.

At the same time both of them said that the Law had served its purpose and it was being superseded by Jesus himself (Mt. 5.17; Gal. 3.23-25). The Law doesn't go away, but it finds it completion in the person of Christ. So in one sense, the Law is always there, always beneficial and tutorial, standing like a rock in the revelation of the person of God. In another sense, Jesus has made not made it immaterial, but has filled it up. The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not one part of it. He "fulfilled" it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we’ll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don’t do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus’ example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

The Law was always meant to be preliminary revelation. The Law brought a revelation from God; Jesus not only brought a revelation *from* God, but was the revelation *of* God. And both Jesus and Paul are quite clear: salvation does not and cannot come from obedience to the Law, but by submission to the person of Christ.

Now let's deal with some of those specific texts. Mt. 23.16-22 is the third of seven "woes" that Jesus expresses in the chapter. It deals with a misguided use of Scripture, as does the 5th woe (25-26). As I claimed, even while he expressing his judgment, he is still complimenting them on some perspectives. They obviously had a favorable and respectful view of the temple, which was not universally shared in their day. In bringing up the illustration, there is an acknowledgment that they are showing reverence for the sacredness of the temple and its altar. He doesn't denounce that part at all, but only their hypocrisy in their meticulous attempt to avoid evil— an admirable goal, but discreditable means.

> 2 Cor. 3.7-11

Right. Paul did declare that in one sense the Law was passing away. So did Jesus in Mt. 5.18, and that's what the entire book of Hebrews is about. The new covenant has superseded the old. Now, in another sense the Law will never pass away because it is the eternal revelation of God. The teachings of the Bible are deep and rich, not shallow and simplistic. There's more than one sense to what's going on here. The Sinai covenant had a fading, rather than an eternal, glory. While the face of Moses (the old covenant) was glorious, the ministry of the Spirit is even more glorious (2 Cor. 3.8). The former condemns men, the latter brings righteousness. The law was not annulled, but its time has passed. The new covenant is abiding, not dependent on human ability, of the heart, and carries the real offer of true atonement and forgiveness (Heb. 9-10).

> Mt. 25.31-46: The Sheep and the Goats

It’s absurd to think that Jesus is teaching that someone can be saved and secure eternal life by being kind to the poor. A quote from Abbott might be the best way to explain it: "The plain teaching of the passage is this, that not only those who have in this life recognized Christ as their Lord and Master will be accepted by him, but also those who have never done so and yet have actually imbibed his spirit and followed his example in the consecration of their lives to their fellow men; for they give thereby evidence that they are the children of God, born of the Spirit of God, blessed of the Father, though the full disclosure of his grace they may not apprehend until they recognize their King in the day of judgment. With this accords a host of other passages of Scripture: Dt. 15.7; Job. 29.13-16; 31.16-22; Ps. 112.9; Isa. 58.7-11; Ezk. 18.7, 16; Dan. 4.27; Lk. 11.41; Acts 10.31; Heb. 6.10; 13.16; James 1.27; 1 Jn. 2.10; 3.14; chapter 4. It does not conflict with the doctrine that no man can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again; but it recognizes love to man as the best outward evidence of the new birth (1 Jn. 4.7). It does not conflict with the doctrine that all men are saved by Christ, but it recognizes the truth that they may be saved by a Redeemer whose redemption they did not understand. But observe it is not the works, as such, but the love that prompted them, that love which was their faith, which felt its way, though in darkness, to him who is love, which is commended; and that when Christ is, in the day of glory, fully disclosed to them, they recognize him as their Lord."

> Mt. 17.20-23

Faith, over and over again, is Jesus' point and the condition for the kingdom. Repeatedly he says "Your faith has made you whole", and he taught repeatedly about faith (mustard seeds, children, Gentiles). In verse 20, as we have already mentioned, he rebuked them for their lack of faith, and he immediately follows that saying with a reminder about his death and resurrection (22-23), a subject that had also come up on the mountain (9-12). You're right that he never explicitly mentions the Law, but what do you think is the significance of Moses and Elijah on the mountain? They are almost universally acknowledged to represent the Law and the Prophets. And notice the declaration from the cloud: "Listen to [my Son]." This is pretty easily understandable.

> Mt. 28.19

Of course we are to obey everything Jesus commanded. He said clearly in John 14.23 that "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching." Obedience is the gauge of love. But also we're not to think that the teachings of Jesus are immaterial. Though the focus is always on his identity and his work of salvation, it's not like his teachings are ignorable. They're sacred, and we are bound to them. But the obedience is an expression of love, not the means of salvation.

> Mt. 5.19

The commandments still count, as I have said. No one ever said they could or should be thrown out. But what's needed is far more than anything contained in the commandments (Mt. 5.20). What is required is a righteousness of the heart, not just of active obedience (Isa. 1.11-18 et al.).

> meticulous in their attempt to avoid evil (Mt. 23.16-22)

You and I seem to be reading different bibles:
16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

> Jesus treats the law as a scaffolding for faith, but inadequate for faith,

No. Jesus said that tradition was not the law.

> Ritual was never a substitution for righteousness (Mt. 12.7;

And yet Paul declared the moral law (the Ten Commandments) to be "transient" and "passing away".

> The observance of the Law didn't make anyone righteous (Gal. 2.16).

And yet Jesus insisted that people should observe the Law.

> We are not saved by works

You need to review the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.

> At the bottom of the mountain, Jesus again reiterates the need for faith based in his resurrection rather than law (Mt. 17.20-23).

False. Jesus says simply, "You do not have enough faith". Other than to say, “Why do the teachers of the Law say that Elijah has to come first?”....Jesus never even refers to the law in that chapter.

> the commandments have value, but they are inadequate for entrance into the kingdom.

Matthew 28: 19 Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age.”

Here is one of Jesus' commandments:
Mathew 5: 19 So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least in the Kingdom of heaven.

I'll try to approach this differently for you, since you don't seem to be catching on. Jesus valued the Law and the Prophets (Mt. 5.18; 8.4; 11.13; 12.3-5; 13.13-15, et al.), as did Paul (Rom. 3.31). He regarded them as God's revelation of himself, and as beneficial for humanity. The first recorded words of Jesus after his entrance into ministry are an assertion of the authority of Scripture (Mt. 4.4, 7, 10—all quotes from Deuteronomy). And yet when he preaches his Sermon on the Mount in Matt. 5-7, he shows very clearly that the Law has not been eliminated, but built upon with a superseding manifesto (also Mt. 12.6, 8). He perches on a mountainside (a Sinai allusion and a Moses reference): He is going to teach like Moses (Mt. 23.1), but will be shown to be greater than Moses (Heb. 3.3). He announces a kingdom thoroughly and consistently founded in the Law, but his exposition shows that the Law has been fulfilled and a new standard is in place: Himself (Mt. 5.17; Heb. 1.2). His Sermon echoes the Exodus story and suggests that Jesus is teaching a new Torah—a definitive charter for the life of the new community based in his Person, not in a moral code (though that code is never thrown out, only brought to completion). He's very clear about these things in Matt. 5.17-20.

He uses the stories of Matt. 12 to contrast the Pharisees' rules with his own "easy yoke" (Mt. 11.29-30). He helps to clarify what the Law is and what it isn't, how it has been misunderstood and misapplied. He recognized the validity of the OT, but he was not bound to it because He fulfilled it. He is not a lawbreaker by any means, for he does nothing "illegal" (against the Law. See Dt. 23.25).

But let's also not think that Jesus only ever rebuked the Pharisees. In Mt. 5.20 he recognized their high view of righteousness. He admitted that they spoke the truth (Mt. 23.1-3), yet challenged them because their behavior failed to match their knowledge. They were active in their proselyting (Mt. 23.15), meticulous in their attempt to avoid evil (Mt. 23.16-22), and scrupulous in their tithing (Mt. 23.23).

Jesus treats the law as a scaffolding for faith, but inadequate for faith, just as Paul does (the books of Romans and Galatians). When he claims that "one greater than the temple is here" (Mt. 12.6), his teaching is consistent with that of the whole book: The Sabbath restrictions were superseded by the priests (Mt. 12.4; Lev. 24.8; Num. 28.9-10), therefore the temple was greater than the Sabbath and took precedence over it. Jesus claims to be greater than the temple, meaning that the Law points to Him and finds its fulfillment in Him. Ritual was never a substitution for righteousness (Mt. 12.7; Hos. 6.6). The observance of the Law didn't make anyone righteous (Gal. 2.16).

Again in Matt. 15 Jesus upholds the Law and honors it. His case against the Pharisees is that they are using the Law as an excuse to not be godly, and so they have missed the whole point. We are not saved by works, but good works are demanded of those who are saved. The Word of God (i.e., the Law) is not to be deprived of its authority (Mt. 15.6), nor is it the path to salvation (15.8, where the heart is as much a part of the picture as the actions). In the following story (15.21-28), he illustrates again that faith, not works, is what is called for (he makes a similar point in 8.10-13). In Mt. 16.5-12, the "yeast" of the Pharisees is their conforming to Law without the faith necessary for salvation—faith founded in the Law, but faith in Jesus Christ as the final and complete revelation of God (Heb. 1).

On the Mount of Transfiguration there is another illustration that Jesus has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, as Moses and Elijah stand with him and discuss the resurrection, which will be the new touchstone of faith. Moses and Elijah are both allusions to Sinai, but the death and resurrection of Jesus will supersede them. At the bottom of the mountain, Jesus again reiterates the need for faith based in his resurrection rather than law (Mt. 17.20-23).

In chapter 19 (skipping a little for sake of time and space), Jesus affirms with the children (vv. 13-15) that humble trust is what is called for (cf. Mt. 18.4). By the time he gets to your text (Mt. 19.16-30), he has made his point well, and over and over: the commandments have value, but they are inadequate for entrance into the kingdom. What is required is faith in the person of Christ based on his death and resurrection.

There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul: the Law is inadequate to bring someone to eternal life.

> Jesus taught repeatedly and insistently that the righteousness of the Pharisees and that the keeping of the Law were inadequate for entrance to the kingdom.

Actually he repeatedly and insistently used the Pharisees as examples of how not to think and act. He had a very low opinion of the Pharisees. Usually he was calling the Pharisees hypocrites, vipers and murderers. And only one time did he state that the righteousness of Christians must exceed the righteousness of Pharisees.(Matthew 5:20). Considering Jesus' low opinion of the Pharisees he was saying that unless your righteousness exceeds that of hypocrites, vipers and murderers you will surely not enter the kingdom of heaven.

> He habitually did actions to bring the question to bear:

What question?

> healing on the Sabbath, picking grain on the Sabbath,

Are you trying to claim Jesus was a lawbreaker? In Matthew 12:10-12, Jesus says that doing good deeds or things of absolute necessity are lawful on the Sabbath.

> rebuking the Pharisees for obeying the Law but missing the point,

He rebuked the Pharisees for following tradition. Certainly he taught the greatest commandment. But he never said, "Forget the specific laws. Just be nice to everybody."

> and teaching that the Law was there to point to way to his person (Jesus).

He said that he was the example everyone was to follow. I fail to see what point you are trying to make within the context of this discussion.

>Jesus repeatedly repudiates the idea that obedience to the Law will get you anywhere.

Apparently, "life" (Mt. 19:17) is nowhere and being "called great in the Kingdom of Heaven" is nowhere (Mt 5:19).

> his statement to the man, "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments," was a teacher's way of leading a pupil to the truth.

You said obedience to the law leads nowhere. Now, apparently, the truth is nowhere.

> What follows in the story shows that only by attending to real love, real justice, sacrificial love and radical obedience can one enter the kingdom of heaven.

So we are saved by works. Jesus told the guy to follow 6 commandments listed in the the Old Testament and to sell his possessions and give to the poor. But thanks for revealing that you think "real justice" involves a redistribution of wealth. Anyway, I have yet to see a Christian do all of this. Looks like heaven is going to have a lot of vacancies.

> Notice Jesus sneaks in "Love your neighbor as yourself," which is not one of the Ten Commandments.

It's in Leviticus. He was not having an original thought.

> Jesus is leading him to the point where he will recognize that obedience to the commands doesn't lead to eternal life, but only submission to a higher "law", that of conforming to the person of Christ.

Odd. He says nothing of the sort in Matthew 19.

> The man recognizes it himself when he says in v. 20, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?"

I am not seeing how verse 20 translates to mean, "Should I conform to the person of Christ?".

> The only one here who thinks that Jesus is teaching salvation by works (obedience to the Law) is you.

You taught it yourself: "What follows in the story shows that only by attending to real love, real justice, sacrificial love and radical obedience can one enter the kingdom of heaven." "It's clear that Jesus uses that statement to draw the man in, and it's clear that the man recognized that more than keeping the commandments was needed."

It is clear that the man recognized that he was not going to give away all of his possessions to the poor...just like every Christian I have ever met.

> The call to self-denial had been sounded earlier in the book (Mt. 16.24). And in other places Jesus has said that what was required to enter the kingdom was to become as little children (Mt. 10.15) and to do the will of God (Mt. 7.21).

And follow the commandments.

> You can't just look at one tree and think you're seeing the whole.

I'm not the one ignoring Jesus' clear warning that, "anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

> There's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul: the Law is inadequate to bring someone to eternal life.

You need to review the Parable of the Sheep and Goats.

Thanks for bringing this up and giving me a chance to explain. This is a clear case of noticing the tree but missing that there's a forest all around it. Jesus taught repeatedly and insistently that the righteousness of the Pharisees and that the keeping of the Law were inadequate for entrance to the kingdom. He habitually did actions to bring the question to bear: healing on the Sabbath, picking grain on the Sabbath, rebuking the Pharisees for obeying the Law but missing the point, and teaching that the Law was there to point to way to his person (Jesus). Jesus repeatedly repudiates the idea that obedience to the Law will get you anywhere.

Even in this story of the man who comes to Jesus (Mt. 19.16-22 and parallels), Jesus makes clear that his statement to the man, "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments," was a teacher's way of leading a pupil to the truth. What follows in the story shows that only by attending to real love, real justice, sacrificial love and radical obedience can one enter the kingdom of heaven. Notice Jesus sneaks in "Love your neighbor as yourself," which is not one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus is leading him to the point where he will recognize that obedience to the commands *doesn't* lead to eternal life, but only submission to a higher "law", that of conforming to the person of Christ. The man recognizes it himself when he says in v. 20, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" The only one here who thinks that Jesus is teaching salvation by works (obedience to the Law) is you. It's clear that Jesus uses that statement to draw the man in, and it's clear that the man recognized that more than keeping the commandments was needed. The call to self-denial had been sounded earlier in the book (Mt. 16.24). And in other places Jesus has said that what was required to enter the kingdom was to become as little children (Mt. 10.15) and to do the will of God (Mt. 7.21). You can't just look at one tree and think you're seeing the whole. There's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul: the Law is inadequate to bring someone to eternal life.

We don't earn our way to heaven; no one gets there by being good. On that the teaching of the Bible (both Jesus and Paul) is quite clear.

You said, "Paul's words and Jesus' words don't contradict." But what about this:

Jesus' words: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

Paul's words: "Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died."

Wow, I have to admit I never heard this accusation. I was not claiming that the teachings of Jesus didn't matter, only that the real point is his person, not his words. Any Christian who acts like that isn't worthy of the Name. My point is this: even if Jesus didn't speak a single word on earth, but came, grew up sinlessly, died and rose again, he will have accomplished his purpose. His teachings were right, true, and need to be followed by those who claim to follow him, but what mattered was who he was and what he did.

> "it's not what Jesus said that is the key to Christianity, but who he was, and his death and resurrection."

I have a huge problem with this. This is the excuse so many Christians use to do evil in the world. To hoard their wealth, to dump on the poor, to lie, cheat and steal, and kill without looking back. I don't care that maybe they'll really go to hell because I don't believe in hell. I care that this enables people here and now to be horrible.

All Scripture is God-breathed—both the words of Jesus and the words of Paul. The same Holy Spirit was the source of both. Christianity is not more about Paul's writings, nor about Jesus' teachings. They stand equivalent. Paul's words and Jesus' words don't contradict; they are both endorsing the revelation of Jesus as God, the savior of humankind through his death and resurrection. Jesus told us about himself and about the kingdom of God. Paul told us how to find salvation in Jesus' blood and resurrection. It's not far less important than what Jesus said.

Besides, it's not what Jesus said that is the key to Christianity, but who he was, and his death and resurrection. Paul is on the same page with Jesus as to who he was, and the import of his death and resurrection.

Why should Christians be more concerned with what Paul says Jesus said than with what Jesus actually said? Church yesterday was more/less all about what Paul thought/said about homosexuality. There are countless more topics where Christianity seems to be more about Paul's teaching than Jesus's.

Why is that? Since this is a discussion forum, I'll go with "Jesus told us what he wanted us to know. What Paul has to say about it should be far less important."