Home
If you are in the Frames view of this article, just close the window when you're finished. If not, then just press the "Back" button until you get where you want, or use the relevant link at the very bottom of this page.
Now some may have wondered why, in my analysis of Romans, I kept on comparing Paul's quotes with the LXX, the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Bible. They may have thought that in most cases Paul's quotes agreed with the Septuagint, so it was quite needless. There are a number of reasons why I continued to keep the LXX in the conversation as I was discussing Romans. One reason was that a good number of more knowledgeable christians and secular scholars cherish that greek version, thinking they could use it to find or reconstruct some hidden or lost original Hebrew manuscript, or that the greek version itself is as holy as the Hebrew version. So it's interesting to see if Paul, their main teacher, treats it with the same respect. He may have done so in Hebrews, although he still cuts and edits where he wants to.
Another reason is that Paul's quotes do not always agree with the greek version, especially as we go through his different books. As we go through 1 Corinthians, you'll see that the "revered" Paul chooses to go his own way when it comes to quoting scripture, regardless which version you would look at.
So we start here, in 1 Corinthians 1:19, where Paul refers to Isaiah 29:14.
PAUL: απολω την σοφιαν των σοφων και την συνεσιν των συνετων αθετησω
I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise and neutralize the understanding of those understanding.LXX: και απολω την σοφιαν των σοφων και την συνεσιν των συνετων κρυψω
I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise and hide the understanding of those understanding.HEBREW::
וְאָבְדָה חָכְמַת חֲכָמָיו וּבִינַת נְבֹנָיו תִּסְתַּתָּר
The wisdom of his wise ones perishes and the understanding of his "understanders" shall hide itself.
Although Paul retains much of the LXX language, he does change one word to suit his notions, changing the word "to hide" to "to neutralize, or set aside". Apparently, for Paul, it is not that understanding is simply hidden: it is given no place at all. We also see that he has, for all intents, simply forgotten the original Hebrew. The structure and meaning of each of the words has changed. The Hebrew just says that wisdom and understanding are gone; whereas the Greek has the Lord himself destroying wisdom and hiding understanding. Instead of Isaiah speaking of Israel's wise men and "understanders" losing their wisdom, it is just some set of wise and understanding people who have lost it. Things have changed! Of course, such a translation paves the way for Paul's applying it to any group of wise and understanding people, be it Jew or Greek.
What is the point that Paul is trying to make? He is saying that the message of the cross, the execution of Jesus, is foolishness, stupid, to those who are "perishing". In case you don't know, according to Paul, anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their "Lord", as one who died for their sin is perishing. So Paul's message is that the Almighty himself has purposefully and actively used the execution of Jesus to baffle people, to destroy wisdom and understanding. Is this what Isaiah is talking about?
Those words of Isaiah speak neither of Paul's subject or his time. Isaiah 29 contains descriptions of war time and Jerusalem being surrounded by her enemies. Whilst in this condition, the people experience this blindness and drunkenness where their prophets are senseless and their wise men can't make heads or tails of the situation. The next chapter (Isaiah 30) speaks of the desire to join with Egypt, giving us some idea of the times they are facing. There is no mention of a dying man, or a "god" that is killed. Execution has no place in this chapter whatsoever. There is nothing in the context that would point to Paul's idea that a dead man makes people confused, or, to put in a more polite way, that the "messiah" dying would be confusing. There is no mention of the future Davidic king in these passages.
Now don't get me wrong! Am I saying that these messages and passages can't have lessons for us today, or for any time in history? No! Am I saying that Isaiah's words are only relevant to people in his time so no one can take a message from it? No! All I'm saying is that if you are going to use a verse to support your point, make sure that the context can also support your point. To take a verse, isolate it, and then make it seem like some sort of prophecy about Messiah is pointless if the whole context isn't pointing in the same direction, and Isaiah 29 is by no means pointing to Paul's notions or ideas. So it's the same old story of Paul taking a verse out of context.
What makes things worse is the commentaries of Paul's writings, those which are written by those who love and follow Paul. For example, the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary would make it seem that the spirit of "God" guided Paul's hand and understanding. I'll quote them commenting on this verse we're looking at, 1 Corithians 1:19:
19. I will destroy - slightly altered from the Septuagint, Isa 29:14. The Hebrew is, "The wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Paul by inspiration gives the sense of the Spirit, by making God the cause of their wisdom perishing, &c., "I will destroy," &c. (emphasis mine)
Just like many other Pauline christian commentators and readers, they base their interpretation of Paul's methods on their faith in the "truth of Paul", as opposed to honesty and sincerity with the original passage, i.e. Isaiah 29. That way of commenting on scripture can never lead to truth!
(27) But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to disgrace the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to disgrace the things which are mighty; (28) and God has chosen the base things of the world, and things which are despised, and things which are not, in order to bring to nothing things that are; (29) so that no flesh should boast before his presence. (30) But you are of him in Jesus Christ, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness also and purification and a ransom; (31) so that, just as it is written, "He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord [Jeremiah 9:24]." (1 Corinthians 1:27-31)
I believe the context is important here for us to get an idea of what Paul is talking about before he does his "quote". In a nutshell, the Almighty has messed up the wisdom of the world using stupid and vile things so that no one can have any pride before him. Jesus is now the wisdom that christians should use. And that fulfils what is written.
Now I will say that what Paul quotes is nowhere in scripture. The words he uses, in the order he uses them, is nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or the jaded Septuagint. Now some may be surprised to hear this, especially if they have a christian bible with references that universally point to Jeremiah 9:23 or 24. I don't want to overload you with Greek or Hebrew, but there is no point in me making a claim if I can't back it up. So here it is. I shall once again compare Paul's words with that of the Hebrew and Septuagint. I do this because normally when Paul says "as it is written", he actually attempts to quote, not just paraphrase, a scripture.
PAUL: ο καυχωμενος εν κυριω καυχασθω
TRANSLATION: The boaster, let him boast in [the] Lord.LXX: αλλ' η εν τουτω καυχασθω ο καυχωμενος συνειν και γινωσκειν οτι εγω ειμι κυριος ποιων ελεος και κριμα και δικαιοσυνην επι της γης οτι εν τουτοις το θελημα μου λεγει κυριος
TRANSLATION: But rather, let the boaster boast in this: to understand and know that I am [the] Lord, doing mercy and judgement and righteousness upon the land, because my will is in these [things], says [the] Lord. (Jeremiah 9:23 LXX verse numbering)HEBREW VERSION:
כִּי אִם־בְּזֹאת יִתְהַלֵּל הַמִּתְהַלֵּל הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדֹעַ אוֹתִי כִּי אֲנִי ײ עֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה בָּאָרֶץ כִּי־בְאֵלֶּה חָפַצְתִּי נְאֻם־ײ
TRANSLATION: But rather, let the boaster boast in this: to know and understand me, that I, GOD, do lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness in the earth, for I delight in these [things] - a declaration of GOD. (Jeremiah 9:23 Hebrew verse numbering)
It may be a lot to take in, but just see the simple point I'm making. The words "let the boaster boast in the Lord", in that order, is not in the text. Even the Septuagint does a better job of portraying the Hebrew than Paul, to the point where Paul's words are not even in that ancient greek version. In fact, Jeremiah is making a much more specific point than Paul is. Whereas Paul leaves it wide open, "boast in the Lord", Jeremiah is actually talking about understanding, doing, and observing the things that the Lord delights in, i.e., judgement, lovingkindness, and righteousness. Jeremiah's message has nothing to do with the words of Paul who is trying to make out that Jesus has become wisdom to shame the world. All Jeremiah cares about is letting people know that they should do and keep these good things, saying nothing about - and therefore caring nothing about - any "Jesus", any "cross", and such alien messages such as Paul is trying to give out.
What makes things that more confusing is Paul's use of the word κυριος, kurios which Paul uses for Jesus and sometimes for "God". The point of the context of this passage is that Jesus is the cause of the christian "foolishness", i.e., what is supposed to appear foolish to Jews and Greeks. Because of this, some christians interpret Paul's quote to be referring not to the Almighty, but to Jesus. For example:
He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord; not in his own wisdom, riches, and strength; but in Christ, as his wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. (John Gill commenting on 1 Corinthians 1:31 in his "Exposition of the Whole Bible")
Unfortunately, Paul doesn't do a good job of clarifying the matter, especially with statements like "there is one Deity, the Father ... and there is only one [κυριος] Lord, Jesus Christ..." (1 Corinthians 8:6).
But after all is said and done, Paul's method of arguing his point attempts to destroy any basis of defence against his teaching. He seeks to make all argument against his point impossible since wisdom and sign-seeking (or more properly, looking for evidence) - both normal ways of finding out things - become invalid: Jesus is the wisdom. The only way you can understand or know is Jesus. And all you can have in Jesus is faith or belief.
But, at least, the study of the Torah, the books of Moses, can prepare one for false teachers, such as Paul. Knowing passages like Deuteronomy 13 and knowing the eternal role of the Law of the Lord as given by Moses from its own statements, as well as reading the Hebrew Bible for oneself can protect a person from Paul. But what about people who cannot read for themselves? In essence, Paul's source is supposed to be the Hebrew Bible. So there are at least two choices: that person can either find a knowledgeable Torah Jew who can read the passages for you; or, he or she can learn to read it for themselves. Such Torah-derived lessons and laws and trust in its source, the Creator, can innoculate a person from Paul's deceit/conceit or cure one from his poison.
Paul quotes Isaiah 64:4. Let's see how well he does with this one in comparison with the Hebrew Bible and the greek source he is supposed to be using.
PAUL:
α οφθαλμος ουκ ειδεν και ους ουκ ηκουσεν κια επι καρδιαν ανθρωπου ουκ ανεβη α ητοιμασεν ο θεος τοις αγαπωσιν αυτου
... things which eye hasn't seen and which ear hasn't heard and has not gone up upon the heart of man, which the Deity has prepared for those loving him.LXX: απο του αιωνος ουκ ηκουσαμεν ουδε οι οφθαλμοι ημων ειδον θεον πλην σου και τα ε&hro;γα σου α ποιησεις τοις υπομενουσιν ελεον
From the age, we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen a deity apart from you and your works which you shall do for those awaiting mercy.HEBREW VERSION:
וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא־שָׁמְעוּ לֹא־הֶאֱזִינוּ עַיִן לֹא־רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ יַעֲשֶׂה לִמְחַכֵּה־לוֹ
And from old [or from the age] they haven't heard, they haven't hearkened. Eye hasn't seen a Deity except you - He shall act for the one that waits for Him.
After going through the texts that Paul has used so far, it is easy to get the impression that he is almost allergic to actually dealing with scripture as it is, as opposed to doing something or other to rip himself from the natural language of the Hebrew Bible. We have another classic example here. He almost ignores both the Hebrew Bible and the LXX to create for himself a brand new message. While the passages in both versions of Isaiah focus on the Deity who is doing the giving, Paul focuses on what is being given. Isaiah looks towards the person of Deity whereas Paul looks for the hand of Deity and what is gonna be given to those who follow his, that is Paul's, doctrine.
Let's just take a step back here. What is Paul going on about? What are the Hebrew Scriptures going on about? To take the latter question first, the prophet Isaiah is talking retrospectively about what happened in Sinai in the verse before (Isaiah 64:3) and then gives a general statement in verse 4, that no other nation has seen a Deity like the Most High who takes care of those who wait on him. There is nothing that prophetic (in the "speaking of the future" sense) about Isaiah's words here. There is nothing messianic about it.
But then here comes Paul! He speaks of "God's wisdom in a mystery, the wisdom that has been hidden with God foreordained before the worlds ... which none of the rulers of this world has known". Huh?!? Totally different! Isaiah is going on about stuff that was done by a deity not known by the nations, and Paul is going on about some wisdom that makes smart people look stupid. It takes an awful lot of twisting and shifting to even get to Paul's view from Isaiah's.
In essence, Paul goes his way with his interpretation; and the Almighty and Isaiah go theirs. And never the twain should meet! [Translation: there's no agreement!]
Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13. He depicts it as:
For who has known the mind of [the] Lord that would teach him [Isaiah 40:13]? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:16)
Now when I first read through 1 Corinthians and passed this verse, I thought that Paul had used this verse in a fair manner. You know, sometimes you can look at Paul's "quote", and then look at the original verse on its own, and then think that it is translated fair enough. But when you actually look at the verses in Isaiah that surround this verse that Paul "quotes" .... Well, I did, and my opinion changed quickly.
Paul has been building up the notion that just as the spirit of a man knows "the things of [that] man", so the spirit of Deity knows "the things of Deity". In Paul's eyes, his followers have the spirit of Deity and therefore know "spiritual things". So when he writes what he does in 1 Corinthians 2:16, as quoted above, he is actually saying that because they have the mind of Christ, they essentially know the things of Deity. To reiterate, as Paul and his followers are supposed to have the spirit of Deity, therefore they know "the things of Deity", e.g., his mind.
Here's the problem with Paul's logic. There have been great prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures, men having a much closer relationship with Deity than Paul, for example, Moses, who not only had the spirit of Deity, but also spoke with him face to face. Yet, he said, "the revealed things are for us, but the hidden things belong to Deity" (Deuteronomy 29:29). This means that even though he had the spirit of Deity, he never claimed to know the mind of Deity, only that which was revealed. Then we have Isaiah himself, a prophet who was a channel of the divine message, a man who had the spirit of Deity, and yet when we let him speak for himself, he says the following:
(12) Who has measured in the hollow of his hand the waters, and meted out the heavens with the span, and comprised in a measure the dust of the earth, and weighed in the scale-beam the mountains, and the hills in balances? (13) Who has meted out the Spirit of GOD? and who was his counsellor that he could have caused him to know? (14) With whom did he take counsel, that gave him understanding, and taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and caused him to know the way of understanding? (Isaiah 40:12-14 - Translation of the Hebrew Version)
But Paul was using the LXX, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible which says the following:
(12) Who has measured the water in His hand, and the heaven with a span, and all the earth in a handful? Who has weighed the mountains in scales, and the forests in a balance? (13) Who has known the mind of the Lord? And who has been His counselor, to instruct Him? (14) Or with whom has He taken counsel, and he has instructed Him? Or who has taught Him judgment, or who has taught Him the way of understanding; (Isaiah 40:12-14 - Septuagint)
Now although the Septuagint is slightly different, the message is similar enough for what I say next to be valid, no matter which version you read.
For those who may not understand, Isaiah here is asking questions that have an obvious answer, i.e., rhetorical questions. And the answer to each of these questions is this: "Absolutely no one". No one has measured the waters in the palm of his hand! No one has weighed the mountains and hills in balances! No one is the Lord's counsellor! No one taught him knowledge!
So within this context, when Isaiah asks "who has meted out the spirit of GOD?" or "who has known the mind of the Lord?", this question has the same answer as all those questions around it: Absolutely no one! Remember, these are the words of the prophet, Isaiah, a man who had the spirit of Deity in a much more intense way than any christian in history or existence, including Paul. Whereas Paul had to try to argue his point through argumentation and using the Hebrew Scriptures as proof and could hardly say "thus says the Lord", at one point saying "I think I have the Lord's spirit" (1 Corinthians 7:40). But Isaiah could boldly say and write that the Lord had spoken to him and had definitely given him a message. If I have both writings in front of me, that of Isaiah and that of Paul, and Isaiah says that no-one knows the mind of Deity, and Paul says, referring to Isaiah's words, that he does know or even insinuates such a thing as he does in this verse, it should be clear that Isaiah, who was closer to Deity, had his spirit and spoke his word, would be right and Paul would be speaking foolishness.
ASIDE: I just want to confront something that some christian commentators have said about this phrase of Paul. They seem to have the idea that the Greek word δοκεω/δοκω [dok-e-o or dokow] translated as "I think" - when Paul says "I think I have God's spirit" - can mean "I know for certain" or "I am certain" (see Wesley's and Adam Clarke's commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:40). I will just put this bluntly: there are a good number of greek words that simply mean "I know" or "I am sure/persuaded" or "I acknowledge": that Greek word, dokow, isn't one of them. It means what it says on the tin: "I think". I know and see what the christian commentators say in order to defend their hero of the faith: Paul. But for all their reasoning and logic, one thing seems to stand: the word simply means "I think" or "I hold the opinion that" or "it seems to me". Rather than try to twist the meaning of the word, it would be more reasonable to say that it means what it means, but it depends on how authoritative the readers of Paul's letters would have thought Paul to be. If you are a believer in Paul (not necessarily in Jesus) like the Corinthians he was writing to, then you would believe his opinion to be very authoritative. If you are either a believer in Jesus who didn't accept Paul or anyone else, then you would think that such an opinion needs to be tested or rejected.
So, just to reiterate, Paul has taken this verse out of context and given it a different meaning. The original meaning of the verse in Isaiah gives Paul no basis for the phrase "but we have the mind of christ" which only strokes someone's ego, i.e., the person following Paul.
Paul continues:
(19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with the Deity. For it has been written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness [Job 5:13]. (20) And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain [Psalm 94:11]. (1 Corinthians 3:19-20)
So Paul is using these verses to prove his claim that "the wisdom of the world is foolishness with Deity". We'll see if Paul's quotes back him up.
Firstly, Job 5:13. It must be noted that Paul's translation does not agree with the Septuagint. Almost every word is different. Because of the nature of this essay, it is best to provide evidence of this.
PAUL: γαρ ο δρασσομενος τους σοφους εν τη πανουργια αωτων
Translation: for he catches the wise [people] in their villany.SEPTUAGINT: ο καταλαμβανων σοφους εν τη φρονησει
Translation: for he seizes wise [people] in highmindedness.
You don't even have to know ancient greek to see that the words are different. And just to compare it with the original Hebrew:
HEBREW BIBLE::
לֹכֵד חֲכָמִים בְּעָרְמָם
Translation: He captures/seizes wise [people] in their craftiness.
As you can see, Paul's translation isn't too bad. He is more forceful in showing the wickedness in what these "wise people" are doing, but still he is not too far off the mark. The verse itself, Job 5:13, doesn't really show that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with Deity. Why? Just because a person traps someone else with their own devices and plans, that doesn't really make those devices and plans stupid or dumb. But the verse does at least show that the Lord's wisdom is superior to man's wisdom, no matter how smart they think they are. So although the verse doesn't really back up Paul's point, it is not so far off the mark that we can add it to the many other misuses of scripture Paul is guilty of.
But what about the other verse Paul quotes? That would be Psalm 94:11.
PAUL: κυριος γινωσκει τους διαλογισμους των σοφων οτι εισιν ματαιοι
Translation: [the] Lord knows the reasonings of the wise that they are vanity.SEPTUAGINT: κυριος γινωσκει τους διαλογισμους των ανθρωπων οτι εισιν ματαιοι
Translation: [the] Lord knows the reasonings of the men that they are vanity.
Once again, we'll compare this to the original:
HEBREW BIBLE::
ײ יֹדֵע מַחְשְׁבוֹת אָדָם כִּי הֵמָּה הָבֶל
Translation: GOD knows [the] reasonings of man that they [are] vanity.
What may strike you is that Paul seems to follow both the Septuagint and its pretty decent rendering of the Hebrew, except for one word. Paul changes a word. He changes the word that means "men" for the word which means "wise". Since Paul's point is that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with Deity, then it would seem that Paul has changed the word to go along with his point as opposed to accurately bringing across the words of scripture.
But some may say that it doesn't really matter about Paul's alteration of scripture because the message is the same regardless of whether you use "men" or "wise": that man's wisdom is folly to Deity. But stop and think! If the verse would back up Paul's point without him changing any words, then what's the point in him changing that word? Why not just keep it as it is? If the verse naturally backs Paul up, then there is no need to change it! Well, there is no need to change it unless Paul felt that the wording of scripture wasn't good enough. Or he made a mistake. But christians who believe that the new testament is inspired by "God" cannot accept that he made a mistake because that would affect their claim that Paul's words are "spirit-filled" and infallible, i.e., without error or mistake.
Now it should be noted that the context of this verse is pointing to wicked or foolish people as opposed to every single human, or even wise people (see Psalm 94:2-11). It is pointing to wicked people. Although the verse we are looking at, verse 11, speaks of "man", its context limits it to wicked men.
So does this verse, in its untampered state and when read in context, really back up Paul's point that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with Deity? No, not really, unless you equate "the wisdom of the world" with "the reasoning of wicked men"! It takes a limited and arbitrary interpretation to use this verse.
All in all, Paul's usage of verses don't really help his case. His scriptural evidence is either not conclusive or off the mark.
Here's one of the central themes of christianity:
So purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump of dough, even as you are unleavened. For even Christ our passover was sacrificed for us. (1 Corinthians 5:7)
According to Paul himself, Jesus died for them, on their behalf. The technical term for this is "vicarious atonement", which means that Jesus dies as a substitute for people, in their place. Paul, in this short statement, gives his support for human sacrifice. Before anyone argues with what I said there, let's just use some basic logic. Whatever people may think of the "divinity" of Jesus, he had to be human, according to christian doctrine and the new testament. And according to this verse and others in the christian bible, he was sacrificed for sin. So let's put that together: we have a human; and that human was sacrificed; therefore we have a human sacrifice. That is the basis of christianity.
There are two significant problems with this concept and with Paul's linking Jesus to the Passover.
Firstly, there is no textual basis for Paul's interpretation of the Passover in Exodus 12 as pointing to Jesus. The text says nothing about sin or a cleansing of sin. There is nothing prophetic within the text and no sign that it is in any way messianic. There is nothing that suggests that it is speaking of man at all. The links between the Pascal lamb and Jesus are non-existent. The first passover sacrifice was, in summary, about a symbol for protection as opposed to a sacrifice for sin. The passover celebrations that happen yearly afterwards were as a constant reminder of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt.
Now some christian will say something like this: "Yeah, Jews are reminded of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and Jesus was our deliverance from sin." But there are still significant problems with this sort of thinking. One problem is that anyone being delivered from anything could use the passover as a symbol for their deliverance. It can be interpreted in so many contradictory ways that the christian interpretation becomes meaningless. Just because the christians pin this symbol onto the death of their messiah figure, that gives it no truth or credence, neither does it make their messiah any sort of sacrifice. Another problem is that the passover lamb and its blood were symbols and signs. The passover lamb and its blood did not deliver Israel from Egypt. According to christians, Jesus' death couldn't be simply a sign or a symbol, and it was he who supposedly delivered christians from sin. That is the opposite of what the Passover lamb and observance was for.
The second and possibly most significant problem with Paul's interpretation is that human sacrifice is totally eschewed, avoided, and shunned in the Torah, in the law of the Lord. Throughout the Jewish Bible, EVERY clean and good literal sacrifice/offering was either of an animal or some inanimate object, like flour or grain. It always went down in the food chain, meaning that Jews didn't go around killing their equals, humans, but rather they went to what they ate, like domesticated animals or bread. That is what was always commanded in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Torah. Sacrifices for sin were done in very specific ways in very specific places, and always by the command of Deity. The animals had no blemish. The blood was only spilt on a specific altar by specific people: the Levitical priests. After the giving of the Law in completion, it could not be added to or diminished.
But Jesus' "sacrifice" had absolutely none of these characteristics. It was essentially an illegal sacrifice. Rather than fulfilling the law, Jesus' death, if seen as a sacrifice, broke the law. There was no Levitical priest involved (I'll deal with the Melchizedek idea later); he died outside of Jerusalem, away from the legal place, the temple grounds; his body was mutilated and therefore blemished; his blood just dripped to the floor; he didn't die of bloodloss; and, worst of all, he was human! In every way, Jesus' death is outside of legal limits that the divine law provides. It was outside of the aspects of the Passover offering which had nothing to do with sin. Basically, it is an illegal entity, like an outlaw.
So in every way, Paul's idea fails. Unfortunately, it never stopped his gentile followers, who were not versed in scripture, from drinking up his words.
But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Don’t even eat with such a person. (1 Corinthians 5:11 - World English Bible)
Now here, I don't really have much to say about the morality of Paul's command to his followers. What is significant here is the amount of christians who actually take this advice, especially with regards to those who fall under the category of "slanderers", where the Greek word means to revile or rail, which means to criticize severely or spread negative information about someone. I had been part of a church for a long time and hardly anyone got shunned and socially isolated for gossip or slander, even though it were a common occurrence.
I guess this advice fell of deaf ears generally. Or people can pick and choose the seriousness they put on Paul's words.
(2) Don't you know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (3) Don't you know that we shall judge angels, not to speak of this life? (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)
Not much needs to be said about the plain words of Paul. He believes that he and his followers will judge angels!!! Such a view had no basis in scripture, and speaks more of Paul's arrogance than anything else.
Or don't you know that the one who bonds [sexually] to an prostitute is one body? for they two, he says, shall become one flesh [Genesis 2:24]. (1 Corinthians 6:16)
Paul says that if a man is joined sexually with a prostitute, then they become "one flesh", based on Genesis 2:24. Now the quote of the verse is quite accurate. Superficially, it may even sound reasonable to use this verse since the words of Paul accurately depict this portion of Genesis 2:24. The only problem comes when you actually look at the context, and you have some knowledge of the Jewish Bible.
Lets first look at the whole of Genesis 2:24.
Based on this, a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Even looking at the plain rendering of this verse, a problem can be seen with regards to Paul's usage of this verse. A man's normal relationship with a prostitute has nothing to do with leaving his mother and father. This verse implies a lasting relationship where the man actually stays with his wife building a home, whereas a prostitute is a temporary business, or possibly religious, arrangement where one comes and goes as he pleases without any commitment. They are not the same thing.
According to this verse, it is only after a man leaves, with intended permanence, his father and mother, and clings to the person he intends to be his wife, it is only after that where they become one flesh. This says nothing about a paid worker, the prostitute. The context of Genesis 2:24 makes nonsense out of Paul's words. The sexual act by itself doesn't make the two one. Compare this with Exodus 22:16, where a man seduces a girl to have sex with him, and it is only once it has been accepted by the father of the girl that she becomes his wife. If the father refuses, the girl doesn't become the man's wife. This shows that just having sex with a girl/woman doesn't make her your wife or make two people become one.
Note also that the verse starts with "based on this" or "therefore". This is because what this verse states is based on what came before it. What happened before it? After the Lord said that it wasn't good for man to be alone, and after a little test with the animals, the Lord took a rib or a side from Adam and created the woman, who he recognised as his own flesh and bones. So they were absolutely one and the Lord separated them making them two. Therefore a man leaves his mother and father to become one with his wife. Now looking at what came before and the oneness that Adam and the woman originally had, and noting that sexual interactions are not even mentioned, how can it be interpreted that this verse simply refers to a sexual encounter??? The fact is that it can't and that sex is not essentially part of this verse's meaning.
In essence, there is no such concept in Genesis 2 or the whole Jewish Bible as that of an isolated sexual act making married couples or making two people one.
Once again, Paul takes a phrase out of context.
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) Nevertheless, [to avoid] sexual immorality, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband... (6) But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment. (7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 6-9)
Paul tells his readers that marriage is to help a person avoid sexual immorality, but only advises marriage as a concession, something to be done because it has to be done, rather than something to be desired. He says that he prefers that people remain single like himself, but that if they simply can't control themselves, then "it's better to marry than to burn" (I'll leave "burn" open to interpretation). So essentially, according to Paul, it is better to be single!
How different is the message of the whole of the Hebrew Bible?!? In the beginning, the Almighty says it is NOT good for a man to be alone, so he makes woman and institutes marriage so that they may be whole as they were in the beginning, one flesh. Every patriarch was married. Most of the prophets were married. And marriage wasn't instituted just to fulfil sexual appetites, but for wholesome togetherness, companionship, and, if possible, raising godly children.
Apparently, Paul has other ideas about the divine institution, ideas based on something alien to scripture. He carries it on even in v.28 of chapter 7 where he says that virgins who marry will have "oppression/trouble/affliction in the flesh", but Paul, in his mercies, is gonna be lenient with those virgins.
Another example of Paul reversing the message of the Hebrew Bible, calling the righteous wicked, and making positive experience, which was seen as good by God himself, such as marriage, into something negative and dark.
This is what Paul says after he gives his "advice" on marriage.
... and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 7:40 (King James Version -1769)
See this link (remember to click the "Back" button after you read the relevant paragraph to get back here).
It's clear that christians think this is still Paul speaking with the spirit of God. But when a normal person reads the words of Paul, I don't think even Paul seems so certain.
Paul writes at length about things offered to idols. He writes about the subject in chapter 8, seemingly digresses for a time in chapter 9 although there are still subtle links to the main topic, and then returns in a direct manner to the subject matter in chapter 10. Rather than recite the whole thing, in its multiple greek versions, let me just summarize.
To Paul, food is nothing and an idol is nothing. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with eating food offered to idols in and of itself. The only reason, he advises his followers, that they should really be careful of being seen eating such food is because of other people's weakness who see the idol as something and who are therefore affected when they see someone who has [Paul's] knowledge eating such food.
I will not be too callous with Paul. He does admit that those who serve idols are doing something wrong, even though, in his eyes, they are serving "demons" (there are no such things as these demons that Paul is talking about in the Hebrew Bible). He also says that he doesn't want his followers to have anything to do with "demons". But Paul's philosophy appears to be "all things are lawful (permissible) for him, but not everything is beneficial".
And after this small interlude (i.e., chapter 9), Paul returns to his essential argument: don't eat such things because of other people's consciences. Unfortuntely, we see Paul, because of his self-proclaimed authority, missing the mark by trying to reason people into obedience. Yet the Law of Moses, the Torah (Exodus 34:15-16; Numbers 25:2 [see context]) speaks against it, even commands against it. And even in the christian bible, James condemns such a practice for non-Jews (Acts 15:20) along with sexual immorality and the eating of blood and things strangled. James gives that as a command to be put on non-Jewish believers in Jesus.
So these actions were condemned and there were commandments (not just rational arguments) against them years before Paul. Yet to Paul, these commands and condemnations are nothing, as he tries to rationalize all of this. You don't have to think about what the Law warns, or what the leader of the church says. All Paul's followers have to think about is what their fellow man thinks. That in itself is not bad. It's just the total absence of the higher authorities in Paul's writing. His disregard for these authorities makes him the start and finish of these recommendations he's giving his followers. The commandments given by the Law, and, for those who follow Jesus, the commandments by James govern a person's public and private life, in front of people and when one is by oneself with only the Almighty watching. Whatever praise might be given Paul for teaching people to be aware of their neighbour is negated when he ignores and rubbishes laws and ancient divine principles, calling their condemnation "nothing", for the sake of his own rationalizations.
All things are lawful? I don't think so, Paul. Not according to scripture, either for Jew or Gentile.
If Paul is said to only be attempting to reason with the intellectuals amongst his followers, or even using some sarcasm to appeal to them, the same condemnation of his methods spoken of above applies in the same way, with the additional remark that neither Paul nor the Corinthians left a tradition about how the words of this letter to the Corinthians were meant to be interpreted. That means that when christians read it today, they basically have to guess, infer, use logical reasoning to deduce what Paul is most likely saying and if he is using different communication tools, such as sarcasm. So they are not on the most solid of grounds for this sort of argument.
(1) Aren't I an apostle? Aren't I free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Aren't you my work in the Lord? (2) If to others I am not an apostle, yet doubtless I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. (3) This is my defence to those scrutinizing me: ...(1 Corinthians 9:1-3)
What is interesting about Paul's claim to apostleship is that it was questioned. The people who had actually seen Jesus in real life, according to the new testament, those who were chosen at the beginning of the book of Acts because they had seen the man in real life, their claims to apostleship were unquestioned. But Paul, who had never seen Jesus in real life and only could rely on his supposed vision, had his apostleship questioned and rejected.
A question to ask would be whether a person's rejection of Paul but acceptance of Jesus would have raised the same questions regarding his faith as a person today who rejects Paul. Some of Paul's words in another place would seem to suggest that you don't necessarily have to accept Paul to still be a follower of Jesus (1 Cor 1:12-14; 3:3-7). But after looking through the words of Paul, this openness from Paul doesn't stop his word and his judgment being law and giving him the right to condemn those greater than him, like the original apostles and anyone else that would happen to disagree with him. It's probably such an attitude that made his brand of christianity, the christianity that survived and is believed by essentially all christians throughout history, so exclusively Pauline, where Paul's words are the words of God and none can condemn them.
(19) For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. (20) And 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; (21) To 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. (22) To 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. (23) And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
Now, I just have to be clear on something. I know that these verses have been used by some to claim that, here, Paul openly admits duplicity, meaning that he wears whatever mask he wants, maybe even breaking laws to win people over to his gospel. And it is a possible interpretation; it is similar to the code of liars and deceivers who will be one thing to some people and another thing to other people.
But although it is a possible interpretation, I don't believe that is what Paul is saying. He seems to be saying that he tries to communicate with people from all walks of life in order to convert them to his way of thinking about the gospel. Although that can still be exactly what deception is, or what a deceiver is, I don't think Paul would openly reveal his deceptive nature.
(1) But I don't want you ignorant, brothers, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And all ate the same spiritual meat; (4) And all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was the Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)
So according to Paul, the ancient Israelites who escaped Egypt "were baptised unto Moses", and ate from a rock which was "the Christ". But what must be brought out from this mystical interpretation of Paul's is the fact that it is total fantasy, a work of imagination not based on either reality or the Jewish Bible. I'll show you where my conclusion comes from.
Baptism is a sign of conversion into a religion, the christian religion. But the Israelites were not converting to any religion when they passed through the Red (or Reed) Sea. In fact, the Israelites didn't receive any new laws until they were on their way to Sinai. And the fact that the waters of the Reed Sea stood on either side as the sea was split, and that they walked on dry land shows that the Israelites themselves remained water-free throughout this miracle. That isn't similar to christian baptism which was historically the act of immersion, being covered over with water, or, later on, sprinkling; both of these acts involves the intentional contact between a person and water, i.e., you have to get wet!
The Israelites never went through or in the cloud, especially when they went through the sea. In fact, it was behind them, sometimes as a pillar of fire, to prevent the Egyptians from attacking them. And before and after that, it lead, went ahead of, them. So there was no "going through" or "being baptised" by the cloud!
Also, note the distinct opposite characters of christian baptism and the Reed Sea experience:
So basically, Paul has an upside-down, twisted approach to bible interpretation. But then again, that's been evident throughout Paul's usages of scripture.
And with regards to "the spiritual rock" being "the Christ", it must be stated that this is nothing more than straight out idolatry or a baseless forced "reading" of scriptures that say nothing about messiah in that way. Actually, I correct myself. It isn't an either-or scenario: it's both! It's both idolatry and a forced "reading" of scripture. I'll quote the following verses to forcefully kick Paul's notion to the proverbial kerb!
(3) For I shall call out the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God: (4) the Rock; his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: the God of truth and without iniquity, he is just and upright. (Deuteronomy 32:3-4)
(37) Then he will say, Where are their gods, the rock in whom they trusted, (38) who ate the fat of their sacrifices, drank the wine of their drink-offerings? let them arise and help you, let them be a protection over you. (39) See now that I, I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and make alive; I wound, and I heal; and no one can deliver out of my hand. Deuteronomy 32:37-39 (1853 Leeser Old Testament)
Fear not, neither be afraid; have I not caused you to hear it from past time, and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there a God beside Me? and there is no Rock; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8)
There is no rock with Israel except the one true God. No "christs"!
(2) But I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and you keep the doctrines as I delivered them to you... (23) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread ... (1 Corinthians 11:2,23)
The passage then goes on to described the little ceremony Jesus is said to have instituted just before his capture and execution.
That which Paul received from Jesus? Interesting. He claims that his teachings come from "the Lord", i.e., Jesus, not from the apostles, those who, according to the christian bible, walked with Jesus. He doesn't even say he got this teaching from an eye-witness! No, he gets it "from the Lord".
This is interesting for a few reasons:
Firstly, Paul never followed Jesus in the flesh according to his own admission (Galatians 1). When the reader of the new testament meets Paul for the first time, he is persecuting christians. Before that, he claimed, dubiously, to be an unconverted Pharisee. So he couldn't have received his message from the Jesus that was visible to everyone who saw him.
So if he claims to get this teaching from Jesus, and he never had contact with the visible fleshy Jesus, then he opens the door to his "spirit-Jesus", the Jesus that supposedly appeared to him on the road to Damascus. This leads to the second point.
According to christian chronology, the books/letters of Paul were written some time before the gospels. The gospels were written at least decades after Paul had distributed his thoughts throughout the early christian sect. But all the synoptic gospels, that would be the first 3 gospels, have versions of the pre-death ceremony that match up quite well with Paul's "record". So that leaves a question open. What was the source of the gospel narratives of the "Lord's supper"? Was it the reports of eye-witnesses who were there at the time? Or was it the report of Paul's "spirit" communications? It doesn't help that no one knows who wrote the gospels since their authors didn't identify themselves in their gospels. All there is is tradition, which is interesting since Protestants, the most common sort of christian, reject tradition, except when it suits them, of course. They prefer "sola-scriptura", to use the scripture alone to determine doctrine. Unfortunately, the original translated words of the new testament didn't include words like "the gospel according to Matthew". You begin to see the limits of their approach right there.
Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 to say that "other [unworldly] languages are for a sign to the unbelieving". Lets see how he does this.
PAUL: οτι εν ετερογλωσσοις και εν χειλεσιν ετερων λαλησω τω λαω τουτω και ουδ' ουτως εισακουσονται μου λεγει κυριος
TRANSLATION: Because with those of another language and with lips of others I shall speak to this people, but not even in this manner will they listen to me.LXX: δια φαυλισμον χειλεων δια γλωσσας ετερας οτι λαλησουσιν τω λαω τουτω λεγοντες αυτω τουτο το αναπαυμα τω πεινωντι και τουτο το συντριμμα και ουκ ηθελησαν ακουειν
TRANSLATION: By the insulting manner of lips, by other languages, because they shall speak to this people, saying to it, this [is] the rest for him who is hungry and this [is] the destruction, and they didn't want to listen.HEBREW BIBLE:
כִּי בְּלַעֲגֵי שָׂפָה וּבְלָשָוֺן אַחֶרֶת יְדַבֵּר אֶל־הָעָם הַזֶּה: אֲשֶׁר אָמַר אֲלֵיהֶם זֺאת הַמְּנוּחָה הָנִיחוּ הֶעָיֵף זֺאר הַמַרְגֵּעָה וְלֺא אָבוּא שְׁמוֺעַ
TRANSLATION: (11) For with stammering lips and with another language he shall speak to this people, (12) to whom he had said, "This [is] the rest - give rest to the weary! this [is] the pause". And they didn't want to listen.
If you don't understand the languages, it is still enough to look at the translations.
First, what should be noticed is that, if this LXX (ancient Greek translation) was in existence in Paul's time (and it's the only version we have), then Paul neither cares for it or the Hebrew and edits out the bit that doesn't go with his agenda. He is not too worried about changing the words of scripture.
Also, note the context of Isaiah's words is this: that the prophet is talking to Israel, not believers of one religion speaking to those who don't believe. The chapter speaks of Ephraim which is a part of Israel (Isaiah 28:1-3), but no part of the christian church. It also speaks of Jerusalem in natural terms (verse 14). As it is with a great many verses that christians, including Paul, attempt to use, the natural context is ignored. The prophet is primarily talking to the people around him about the situation they are facing. There is no sign in the context of these words that Isaiah is speaking primarily of the distant future (Paul lived centuries after Isaiah).
The most important thing to see is that the words themselves of the verse in Isaiah do not go with the message Paul is trying to convey. The language in which the people in Isaiah 28:11 spoke could have been understood by the Israelites, but they didn't want to listen. They chose not to listen. Yet, the languages, or tongues, of Paul's day couldn't even be understood by Paul himself. According to verse 2, no-one understands! In my past experience as a christian, even people who want to understand what is said by tongue-talkers are at a loss. Reading all of 1 Corinthians chapter 14, it is plain that the "tongues" of the Corinthians were unknown and couldn't be understood by men. This is not what Isaiah was talking about at all. So Paul cannot be using the scripture according to its natural context and meaning.
It is commonly understood by Jewish scholars and other commentators that Isaiah here is speaking of Israel's disobedience and its desire to have a covenant with death, i.e., Egypt. The whole message of Isaiah 28 has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.
Out of context! Again, out of context!
Wives/women should keep silent in the assemblies for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be under subjection, as the law says. (1 Corinthians 14:34)
This verse has struck the nerve of many a woman. It has been bent, reinterpreted, modernized, anything to make women feel more welcome in church. It has been the point of much contention.
Now I myself am not one for total equality between men and women. Why? Because they are not the same in many ways, so why should they be treated the same in all ways? That approach makes little sense to me. But there is a reason why someone like me would find a problem with this verse.
Paul says that women should act like this because the law, the Law of Moses or the Hebrew Bible, says so. The question to ask is: where in the Law does it say this? To someone who reads the Hebrew Bible, they would have difficulty finding this. But thankfully we have christian commentators to clarify things for us! According to them, the source of Paul's words are in Genesis 3:16 which says:
... and your [the woman's] desire shall be for your man/husband, and he shall rule over you.
First, let's deal with the actual text in Genesis.
It is not a law! The context is about punishments upon mankind and the verse isn't letting you know things you should do, like a law that says "you shall not murder" or "you shall not kill". It is simply stating what the nature of the physical world would be like. For example, the text says that thorns and thistles will grow from the soil. Does this mean that one should purposefully plant them if he doesn't find any growing in his garden? It also says that man shall eat food with sweat and toil. Does this mean that we have to seek to sweat whenever we eat or work for our food? The answer to both questions is "NO". These are not commands. So although we are punished with the fact that there will always be struggle between husband and wife, man and woman, it does not have to be this way. Paul has no basis in the Law on which to give this instruction.
A christian commentator called John Gill attempts to point to the Talmud, i.e., the Oral Law, as a basis for Paul's treatment of women. But what is obvious is that Paul rejected the oral traditions of the Jews and taught based on his own convictions and his conversations with his spirit-Jesus. In fact, his words that he counts his history and law keeping in Judaism as dung can be seen as a rejection of the tenants of Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8). [NB. It should be pointed out that Paul is saying that he counts all things as dung for Jesus, and he distinctly refers to his keeping of the law, so it is not farfetched or irrational to conclude that he sees his former life and the doctrines of it as rubbish.] So the oral law of the Jews, if it could be blamed, which is doubtful, has nothing to do with this discussion.
Once again, Paul doesn't really have a foot to stand on with this teaching.
(3) Because I passed down to you at first what also I received: that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; (4) and that he was buried, and was raised on the third day, according to the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
This verse reminds me of the gospels. When it comes to places where they make critical, important statements about Jesus being the christ, or that he had to die, and that he was to rise from the dead, they would say that these things happened "according to the Law and the Writings", or "according to scripture" like Paul. And then, they would give NO references, no quotes to prove it. So all that leaves us with is an empty statement, no stronger than saying "Michael Jackson will rise again, rule the world and we would all be his slaves, according to scripture". Yes, it is an empty statement, and it is only "full" or "apparently full" of meaning to those who already have been predisposed to the notion that Jesus is the promised anointed one.
Into this gap flys the christian commentators who try to fill Paul's mouth or mind with all sorts of scriptural references like Genesis 3 or Isaiah 53. Again, we must, must point out the fact that Paul left no tradition as to how these words were meant to be understood. He never made sure the proper interpretation of his writings were passed down throughout the generations up to the time of the modern Protestant church. Christian commentators living hundreds and thousands of years after Paul try to guess what he meant by using verses and passages from the Hebrew Bible that they are convinced point to what Paul and the gospels are claiming. But from Paul himself, we have no clue. From the gospels, we have a number of verse quotations that smack of Paul's method of butchering scripture and hacking off the context in order to promote their view. And aside from that, they also offer little insight into how the Hebrew Bible is full of their "Jesus", their "messiah".
But let me make some plain factual statements. There are no verses in the Hebrew Bible that clearly and unambiguously state that the coming "messiah" would die for sins; there are no verses in the Hebrew Bible that clearly and ambiguously state that the coming "messiah" would be buried and be raised on the third day. These are facts! Even Isaiah 53 lacks the focus to point to the future Davidic king, only mentioning "the servant". And the context of Isaiah 53 pulls the subject matter even further away from the person of the Messiah and focuses more on another child of God, another servant, namely the nation of Israel (Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:10). I've devoted a portion of my website going through every single one of the 300+ so-called messianic prophecies promoted by christians, and I know from experience and research using the context of scripture that no verse in the Hebrew Bible clearly backs up these claims of Paul and the gospels.
It is not within the scope of this article to go into the messianic prophecies. All I will say about these statements of Paul is that just saying "according to the scriptures" doesn't make something accord to scripture. I said it once, and I'll say it again: Paul just makes empty claims.
After that, he was seen by above five hundred brothers at once, of whom the majority remain unto now, but some have fallen asleep.
What truth there is to this claim we will never know. The gospels and the books of Luke don't appear to back Paul up when it comes to the number of people witnessing the resurrected Jesus going up to the sky. So all we have here is Paul's word. The reader of this letter to Corinthians would just have to take Paul's word for it.
Now some would attempt to use the Jewish Kuzari argument to support Paul's claim of 500 people witnessing Jesus' ascension saying that because a lot of people saw it, then it must be true, which is a horrible oversimplification of the Kuzari argument. I refer you to Jewish websites to tell you exactly what the Kuzari argument is (e.g., Living up to the Truth from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb at www.dovidgottlieb.com). But the christian argument has two problems: 1) Jesus' resurrection was not an event that would leave enormous easily available evidence, due to the fact that the resurrection itself was witnessed by no one, whereas Sinai would have been witnessed by a nation of over 2 million people; and 2) there is no evidence that the 500 men even existed since they left no unbroken line of tradition to show that they even existed, whereas the Jews have an unbroken line of written and oral tradition, a knowledge the community had that was passed down from generation to generation, that makes the claim of the event of Sinai too strong to ignore.
So there is an enormous difference between the event at Sinai and anything that Paul or his followers can bring up.
Paul attempts to quote Hoshea 13:14.
PAUL: που σου, θανατε, το νικος; που σου, θανατε, το κεντρον;
TRANSLATION: Where [is] your victory, death? Where is your sting, death?LXX: που η δικη σου θανατε που το κεντρον σου αδη
TRANSLATION: Where [is] your right/justice, death? Where [is] your sting, Hades?HEBREW BIBLE:
אֱהִי דְבָרֶיךָ מָוֶת אֱהִי קָטָבְךָ שְׁאוֺל
TRANSLATION: I shall be your pestilences, death! I shall be your destruction, grave! [or Oh, your pestilences, death! Oh, your destruction, grave! - Translated by Jewish Scholars: I will be your words of death; I will decree the grave upon you.]
It is amazing how different the Greek is from the Hebrew. No surprise, though. It's well known that there is a varying level of quality of translation within the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX. But again, context is different. The context of Hoshea 13 gives this promise to a sinning Ephraim and a rebellious Israel. There is no promise of an end of death here. This isn't a promise of resurrection. This is the punishment of Israel for going against God (v9). The verse before and the verse after only speaks of punishment against the people for going to idolatry (see also the first few verses of Hosea 14). Again, Paul rips the verse from its natural context and changes the meaning to suit his own agenda. If some are going to use the lame excuse that he is reciting from memory then that makes things worse for a person who they claim is filled with the spirit of the Most High, whose words are meant to be infallible, but are again and again shown to be anything but!
This process of going through Paul's writings, even at this early stage, is somewhat frustrating. I don't take pleasure in ripping apart and shredding someone else's efforts, but this guy ... spewing out such distortion and deception which is gobbled up by his followers! Every time he seems to get something even partially right, in some other way, he, seemingly purposefully, goes horribly wrong!
Paul says:
The sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law. (1 Corinthians 15:56)
I asked a christian what this meant and they said they didn't know. But it is obvious. Death has a painful impact on reality, much like a bee-sting, and that impact is sin. Sin is linked to and leads to death. But where does sin get its strength? According to Paul, sin is made strong by the Law, the Law of Moses, the law of righteousness. Without the law, sin has no strength. With the law, sin has strength (compare with Romans 7).
A person having some knowledge of what the Lord has to say about his own law through people such as Moses and David would have to throw out this statement of Paul with the trash. To have the law, which is the wisdom of the nation, the means of being righteous, that which renews life and makes the simple person wise, etc, to have this law - the law of God, by the way - called "the strength and power of sin" is insulting the God who gave it and called it good. And insulting God and his deeds is the definition of blasphemy.
Unfortunately, Paul twists the meaning of the law, and his lackies, like the commentator John Gill, make excuses for him!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.