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.
Take careful note of the words of Paul, who, as some claim, loved and respected the Law of Moses.
(5c) ... but our ability/competence is of God; (6) Who also has qualified us [to be] ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit makes alive. (7) But if the service of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not gaze intently at the face of Moses for the glory of his face - the glory of which was to be abolished/nullified - 8 how shall not the service of the spirit be more glorious? 9 For if the service of condemnation is glory, the service of righteousness shall exceed much more in glory. (1 Corinthians 3:5c-9)
You can look at the context of these verses, just to make sure that what I say next is accurate.
It is a fact that all the underlined terms are being used by Paul to clearly point to the covenant of Sinai and the Law of Moses. The "service of death, engraved in stone" can only refer to the Decalogue, the 10 Words, or "the 10 commandments", which were written in stone. "The letter" would refer to the written letters of the law and the strict adherence to those written words. It is called a service that brings condemnation. The goodness, the glory, of such a service, according to Paul, is "passing away, being nullified". If the glory of something or someone is being diminished, dwindling away, then that entity is no longer of any importance or use and will be replaced by whatever or whoever comes next. How any of this can be seen as respectful to the Law of Moses is beyond reason.
Note that the phrase "the glory of which was to be abolished/nullified" doesn't refer to the glory of Moses's face. Verse 9 confirms that the comparison is between the different "services" or "ministrations", or covenants, not how Moses' face looked at a certain point in history.
Paul's emphasis is the nullifying, the abolishing of the letter and the coming of the "glorious spirit", the passing away of the "service of death written in stone" and the coming of the new testament. But Paul's words are bitter, hollow, and void in light of the main passages in the Jewish Bible that speak of the everlasting nature of the law. Ceremonial services involving the sanctuary and the priests are everlasting, (e.g., Exodus 27:21; 28:43; 6:18; Numbers 18). Festivals and their laws were everlasting (e.g., Exodus 31:17; Leviticus 16:29). Just look throughout the Law of Moses and note the amount of times words like "everlasting", "perpetual" and "forever" are used, and you'll see the foolishness in Paul's interpretation.
And Paul's words are nothing less than insulting to the first giving of the covenant of Sinai, turning the thing that was to give and ensure the freedom of Israel and gave life and good, into some old, condemning, deadly entity, ready to give up the ghost. See how he calls the Law of the Almighty "the service of condemnation" and his own thing "that of righteousness". This is the reason why Paul's words must be seen as arrogant, wrong, and full of deception in light of the Jewish Bible.
(12) Then since we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech. (13) And we are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of the thing being done away with. (2 Corinthians 3:12-13)
To Paul, the covenant of Law is done away with, nullified. He uses the Greek word καταεργεω kataerge-o, which means to nullify, render idle or useless, or abolish. A number of points can be made:
The general message of 2 Corinthians 3 can be seen to be deceptive, insulting, and wrong when a person actually takes time to check out the sources.
(3) But also if our gospel has been hidden, it has been hidden to those who are doomed, (4) in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should not beam on them. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Some have to wonder about Paul's state of mind for him to refer to "the god of this age who blinds the minds of the unbelievers". It is obvious that he is not talking about the one true Deity, the Creator of everything. So he must be referring to another being as "the god of this age".
Who is this "god"? This has historically been understood by christians to be referring to the devil, Satan. But seeing this with the glasses of the Jewish Bible, which states that there is no other deity except the Creator of the universe, Paul leaves the door wide open for idolatry, i.e., other spiritual beings who control the world. In the modern christian mind, there are only two forces you can worship, either God or the devil. If you don't serve God in a christian way, then, by default, you must be worshipping the devil. If you don't worship the devil, then, by default you must be a christian. Now this point should be stressed. To many christians, and the message is strong in the new testament, if you are not a christian, you are worshipping the devil. If you are not worshipping God through [the belief in] "jesus christ", then you are doomed, lost, and worshipping the devil!
What a different message there is in the so-called "old testament", the Jewish Bible!!! There are no grounds for this duality there. God controls all and the "adversary", the satan, is his servant (see the article Satanic verses: Who or what is "Satan" in the Hebrew Scriptures? for explanation). In the Jewish Bible, you can either serve God or you don't. But if you choose not to serve God, then, according to those holy scriptures, there is no default spiritual opponent or opposite of the Almighty as christianity claims. The only thing that has happened is that you've disobeyed an essential commandment. There is no other "god" like Paul claims.
To be very blunt, such thinking is pure and simple idolatry at worst! At best, it's just a doctrine that has no basis in the Jewish Bible, and thus has no foundation.
(13) For we, having the same spirit of faith - according as it is written, "I believed, and therefore I have spoken" [Psalm 116:10] - we also believed and therefore speak, (14) knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus shall also raise us up by Jesus, and shall present us with you. (2 Corinthians 4:13-14, Green's Modern King James Version)
So Paul here quotes Psalm 116:10.
This is one of the few occasions where Paul actually manages to quote the LXX, that ancient greek translation, word-for-word. Then again, in the Greek, the phrase "I believed and therefore I have spoken" is only three words. But still, give credit where credit is due.
But that's where the credit stops!
Now it could rightly be pointed out that the word "therefore" that Paul uses is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word which doesn't mean "therefore". So Paul is going along with the LXX's mistranslation of this whole verse. But again, that is not the problem here. If a person would just read Psalm 116 in its entirety, it should be plain that the subject of the song is not a belief in Jesus, but rather the writer's experience of struggle, whilst giving thanks to God. The words of the whole verse in Psalm 116 is, "I believed/trusted even when I spoke: I am greatly afflicted". The verse has nothing to do with Paul's message. The chapter of Psalm 116 has nothing to do with Paul's message.
Paul is not explaining what the verse means; he is just pulling some words from the Psalms that he can use to make a point, to express his own feeling. It has nothing to do with interpretation in order to understand the original intent. Paul has his own message, separate from that of scripture, and these out-of-context words agree with a sentiment that he is feeling, so he just uses them with no regards to context. It's similar to me seeing a stranger who is rooted to the spot and not moving, and then saying "it's just like the verse that says 'he shall be like a tree'." Those who know their bibles, or look it up, will see that I'm quoting a portion of Psalm 1. The whole chapter is about the righteous man who loves Torah, the Law of the Lord, and speaks about how prosperous he is, using the tree metaphor. My usage of the scripture had absolutely nothing to do with the righteousness of this stranger, only that he was standing still. Paul uses the scripture in much the same way where what scripture is actually saying is put aside for the sake of the moment.
So once again, Paul takes the verse out of context.
Paul here quotes Isaiah 49:8, agreeing with the LXX version. Lets just compare Paul's words with the Hebrew Scriptures.
PAUL: At the approved time, I heard you and in the day of salvation I helped you.
ISAIAH: At the time of favour, I answered you, and in the day of salvation, I helped you.
For one of the very few times, Paul actually quotes something that is very similar, if not the same, as the Jewish Bible. This is a pretty good rendering by Paul.
BUT ... (unfortunately, there had to be a "but")
Paul's great weakness again comes into view. The problem, as usual, is the context. Isaiah 49:7 onwards is referring to Israel as a nation. The Almighty is saying that he saved and answered them, i.e., Israel the nation. The context speaks of saving from slavery and maltreatment at the hands of other nations. This is a salvation in real life, something visible. This is a prophecy to a nation, not a religious sect.
But Paul is not referring to the salvation mentioned in Isaiah, but rather an invisible "spiritual" salvation. Whereas Isaiah was speaking of the redemption of a real nation called Israel from other nations, Paul is referring to a spiritual deliverance from sin given through faith in Jesus separate from works of obedience. So basically, Paul is ignoring context again and speaking of his own message, not bringing across anything from Isaiah himself.
Paul appears to use another quote in this verse, apparently Leviticus 26:12. Once again, we'll look at the comparisons, comparing between Paul's Greek, the LXX Greek, and the Hebrew standard.
PAUL: οτι ενοικησω εν αυτοις και εμπεριπατησω και εσομαι αυτων θεος και αυτοι εσονται μου λαος
TRANSLATION: I shall dwell amongst them and I shall walk amongst [them] and shall be their God and they shall be my people.LXX: και εμπεριπατησω εν υμιν και εσομαι υμων θεος και υμεις εσεσθε μου λαος
TRANSLATION: I shall walk amongst you and I shall be your God and you, you shall be my people.HEBREW BIBLE:
וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בְּתוֺכְכֶם וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֺהִים וְאַתֶּם תִּהיוּ־לִי לְעָם
TRANSLATION: And I shall walk about in your midst, and I shall be your God and you, you shall be my people.
We can either call this a bad translation from Paul, or he is just editing the words, but still, it doesn't really change the message of the verse in the original version. So Paul can only be criticized for changing the words, but not really moving too far from the message of the verse.
But Paul again applies promises meant for Israel to others, to those who he chooses, who are in his camp of believers. He appears to spiritualize the intent of the scripture which refers to God dwelling amongst the nation of Israel as a people. In Leviticus 26:11, it speaks of the tabernacle being set up, but the verse which Paul uses refers more to God walking amongst his people, not simply residing in the temple. So Paul seems to misapply verse 12 to refer to the tabernacle/temple and then apply it to his group as if they are the temple or the people Israel. The context of the verse also has nothing to do with Paul's message of rejecting unbelievers, but rather of the care that the nation Israel should take when they enter the land of promise and the punishments that would befall them should they sin.
At the very least, this interpretation by Paul is questionable. It has the merit of still requiring people to live holy lives which is not too distantly removed from the message of Leviticus. But the link is not strong. I wouldn't blast Paul for the way he uses this verse. But I wouldn't pat him on the back either. The link to the context is also quite weak, so he doesn't help himself very much.
Paul here quotes from Isaiah 52:11,12. Let's see how this goes.
PAUL: εξελθατε εκ μεσου αυτων και αφορισθητε λεγει κυριος και ακαθαρτου μη απτεσθε καγω εισδεξομαι υμας
TRANSLATION: Get out from their midst and be excluded, says [the] Lord, and don't touch an unclean thing, and I shall accept you.LXX: αποστητε αποστητε εξελθατε εκειθεν και ακαθαρτου μη απτεσθε εξελθατε εκ μεσου αυτης αφορισθητε οι φεροντες τα σκευη κυριου οτι ου μετα ταραχης εξελευσεσθε ουδε φυγη πορευσεσθε πορευσεται γαρ προτερος υμων κυριος και ο επισυναγων υμας κυριος ο θεος ισραηλ
TRANSLATION: Distance yourself! Distance yourself! Get out from there and don't touch an unclean thing! Get out from its/her midst! Be excluded, those carrying the vessels of [the] Lord! Not with trouble shall you be liberated, nor with hasty flight you shall go. For [the] Lord [is] in front of you and the one gathering you [is the] Lord the God of Israel.HEBREW BIBLE:
סוּרוּ סוּרוּ צְאוּ מִשָּׁם טָמֵא אַ־תִּגָּעוּ צְאוּ מִתּוֺכָהּ הִבָּרוּ נֺשְׂאֵי כְּלֵי ײ: כִּי לֺא בְחִפָּזוֺן תֵּצֵאוּ וּבִמְנוּסָה לֺא תֵלֵכוּן כִּי־הֺלֵךְ לִפְנֵיכֶם ײ וּמְאַסִּפְכֶם* אֱלֺהֵי יִשׂרְָאֵל
TRANSLATION: Depart! Depart! Get out from there and don't touch an unclean thing! Get out from its/her midst and be pure, those carrying the vessels of HaShem. For not in haste shall you go forth and in flight you shall not go, for HaShem is going before you and the God of Yisrael [is] your rearguard*.
Just in case you are uncertain, the word "HaShem" is used in the place of the name of God. I want this to be printable if any part of Judaism wants to use it, and I don't want to just use the word "God" or "Lord" to cover it, since that isn't really a translation conveying the name. The word "HaShem" means "The Name", so at least some respect is kept.
מְאַסֵּף me'asef: in the Hebrew version, both in the Hebrew and the English, you'll see a word with a star (*) next to it. It's not a common verbal form. The same verbal form is used in Numbers 10:25 and Joshua 6:9,13. The word means "rearguard", someone who watches the rear of a group of people.
Now this is significant. Why? Because Paul, not only edits the verse, cutting out the bits he doesn't want, but he mistranslates the final clause as the Lord receiving or accepting a person into his favour. But the actual text of Isaiah 52:11-12 speaks of God delivering Israel and being both in front of them, and being behind them, being their "rearguard". Again, Paul makes up a totally separate message from that of the prophet of God, Isaiah.
Now some may say "but Paul quotes from the LXX". And I would reply that Paul quotes what he wants and cuts out the rest. And the words of the Septuagint for the most agrees with the message of the Hebrew Bible, but this time saying that God is gathering Israel, leading it from captivity, . Even though this is a mistranslation, it still goes with the general message of the context, unlike Paul who makes up a brand new message for these words.
So either way, whether we refer to the Hebrew or the Greek version of the Jewish Bible, Paul has both mistranslated, edited, and taken out of context the portions of these verses that he uses. It has little to do with believers and unbelievers, but rather Deity delivering his captive Israel from their captors. Again it's Paul's agenda speaking and not scripture.
And I shall be to you a father and you, you shall be to me sons and daughters, says [the] Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:18)
It is important to know that the word "you" in Greek refers to the plural "you", as in speaking to a group of people as opposed to an individual.
Now in this verse, Paul seems to be quoting God. But search as we like, these words do not appear in the Jewish Bible. We can ignore the claims that Paul is quoting 2 Samuel 7:14 or 1 Chronicles 28:6 because they are both speaking of Solomon, an individual. So basically, Paul isn't quoting the Hebrew Scriptures here.
And if he isn't quoting scripture, the only other conclusion is that he is attempting to speak for the Almighty. And if we even attempt to accept the claims of those who follow Paul that he is quoting scripture, then it only shows the fallacy of Paul's method, in that he totally distorts scripture for his own pleasure. And his attempting to speak for God shows his own arrogance in making himself a prophet.
(12) For if the eagerness is present, it is acceptable [to give] according to what one has, and not according to what one does not have. (13) For it is not that others may have relief, but you [have] affliction; (14) but by equality in the present time; your abundance for their need, that their abundance also may be for your need; so that there may be equality; (15) as it is written, "The one [with] the much didn't exceed; and the one [with] the little didn't get less. [Exodus 16:18]" (2 Corinthians 8:12-15)
Paul uses the verse in Exodus to support his argument that the Corinthians should give what they have in support of those in need; maybe those in need will one day supply the needs of the Corinthians when they need it. This is so that there will be "equality".
Now for those who don't know, Exodus 16 is about the children of Israel getting manna, a special food given by Deity whilst they were in the desert. They were commanded that each man should gather a certain amount for each person that would last for the day. Some gathered more than they should, and others gathered less. But, amazingly, when it was all measured out for their family, everyone in Israel had the same amount for each person (see Exodus 16, especially verses 14-18). That's why it was said that "he that had much did not have extra, he that had little didn't lack."
So we have Paul talking about giving to someone in need and sharing; and we have Exodus talking about people gathering food for themselves and having enough no matter how much they took. It should be plain that Paul had taken the verse out of context. Even the link between Paul's message and the message of Exodus is weak. I would have said that there was some link in the message of equality Paul was giving, but even that isn't enough. In what way were the Israelites equal? They had the same amount of food each. How were the Corinthians equal with those who they would help? The way Paul seems to phrase it, the Corinthians help those in need, so that when those in need are out of desperation and in a better position, they'll help the Corinthians. Maybe the equality comes in the Corinthians giving enough so that everyone would have the same amount, both Corinthian and the poor people. And then there would be a constant sharing between the two so they help each other out in making sure that everyone has the same amount of funds or food. But still, only on the very superficial level, everyone may have the same amount of funds or food, but that's only by sharing. That has nothing to do with the equality that the people of Israel had with regards to the manna. So the link between the two is weak and superficial and is still a case of Paul ignoring context.
Now I have read the christian commentaries on Exodus 16, especially that of John Wesley, who claims that the people in Israel would share their manna to make sure that they all had the same amount. There is just one main problem with that: it is not what the text says; he is adding too much to what the verse actually mentions. I wonder if he is using his christian methods of interpretation and using Paul to interpret Exodus, i.e., going backwards, as opposed to letting the words of Exodus speak for themselves and determine if Paul is really agreeing with its message.
(8) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; so that in all things, [at] all times, having all self-contentment, you may abound to every good work - (9) as it is written, He has dispersed; he has given to the poor; his righteousness remains for ever [Psalm 112:9]. (2 Corinthians 9:8-9)
Give credit where it's due! Paul actually translates the verse quite well, and his usage of it is quite fair. The verse in Psalms is an open verse meant to describe a righteous man. Paul isn't trying to give controversial doctrines in this instance. So there's nothing much to say here apart from the fact that this is rare. If only all, or even most, of Paul's quotations were this accurate. Unfortunately ...
But the boaster, let him boast in [the] Lord. (2 Corinthians 10:17)
See my comments on 1 Corinthians 1:31. It's basically the same thing apart from the addition, in this verse, of the word "but".
(1) Oh, that you would bear with me a little in senselessness. But also bear with me. (2) For I am zealous for you with a zealousness of God. For I have espoused you to one man, to present you, a pure virgin, to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:1-2)
This is a very telling verse since it shows Paul's aim in contrast to that of biblical Judaism. No matter how authoritative a messenger or agent is, even the mighty Moses, the aim is to get the people connected to Deity. Paul's aim is to link people to an intermediary, someone between God and man, i.e., "messiah". It has always been possible for even a non-Jew to have relationship with Deity without an intermediary. Paul simply puts something in between a man and his God. Unfortunately, at any level, if your aim is to link someone to an intermediary rather than link that person directly to the Source, it only becomes a barrier, a further separation, as opposed to a bridge, something which is a common, but false picture of Jesus and his death in christianity.
For if, then, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well bear [these]. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
As will be shown later in Galatians, but is seen in this verse, the only message of Jesus to be accepted is Paul's! Thus, because the mainstream church adopts Paul's version of Jesus, modern christianity is the product of Paul as opposed to Jesus' own disciples/apostles, the 11 plus the one chosen by the apostles in Acts 1, those who had actually walked with the man Jesus. But as can be seen later in this chapter of 2 Corinthians, Paul sees himself as nothing less than equal to them (verses 5-6).
(1) Oh, that you would bear with me a little in senselessness. But also bear with me... (16) Again I say, let no one think me to be senseless. But if otherwise, you receive me as senseless, so that I may also boast a little. (17) What I speak, I do not speak according to the Lord, but as in senselessness, in this assurance of boasting. (2 Corinthians 11:1,16-17)
Some use these verses to warn readers not to take Paul too seriously with the words that he uses in this chapter. But Paul never said that he was lying! The only thing Paul is doing is "boasting", but his "boasts" are not baseless lies. Why? Because some points, such as verse 4 which I commented on before, are repeated in other books where he is not speaking foolishness, at least his kind of foolishness. Also he is still boasting as others do to show his "fleshy" superiority or his qualities that make him at least equal to his opponents. And he is using factual evidence!
I say this just to put the rest of the chapter into some context. Paul's words can be commented on and criticized without the answer coming back that he shouldn't be taken too seriously.
(22) Are they Hebrews? Me too! Are they Israelites? Me too! Are they the seed of Abraham? Me too! (23) Are they ministers of Christ? - I speak being deranged, Me, more so! I have been in labors more abundantly, in whippings above measure, in prisons more abundantly, in deaths many times. (2 Corinthians 11:22-23)
These verses seem to point to the fact that Paul's enemies in this context are other Jews professing Jesus, but in a way different to Paul.
Although friends and followers of Paul, those who try to interpret this in a pro-Paul way, say that they were simply Judaizers, those who would make gentile christian believers into fully fledged Jews, being circumcised and following the law of Moses. But here I will show another possibility. See Paul's strained relationship with the law-keeping apostles (Acts 21:18-26; Galatians 2), apostles who preached the keeping of the Law of the Lord, it could well be that those who Paul sees as enemies are those who preached the apostles' version of Jesus and his message as opposed to Paul's version. Some may not like such a possibility, but unfortunately for them, it will always be a possibility, a possibility with evidence that can be drawn from the christian bible itself.
(31) The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. (32) In Damascus the governor of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes, desiring to arrest me. (33) And I was lowered in a basket through a window through the wall, and escaped his hands. (2 Corinthians 11:30-33)
It is interesting to compare this, Paul's words, with the way Acts 9:22-25 depicts it. I'm sure Paul-loving christians (that is said just to highlight the point that not all people who claim or claimed to follow Jesus loved or followed Paul or even accepted his self-proclaimed apostleship) could find a way to harmonize these two accounts. But on certain levels, they do not agree. The source of Paul's harrassment is different in each account, one being this governor of Damascus; and the other being the Jews of the city. Again, Paul lovers see the harmony and exclaim that these differences show the "new testament's" truth since things too similar can smack of forced agreement caused by distortion or collusion. But sometimes an obvious disagreement can be exactly that: a disagreement/contradiction. The choice of harmony or contradiction I leave to the reader's judgment.
This third [time] I am coming to you. Upon the mouth of two witnesses and three, every word shall be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1).
Now Paul doesn't say that he's quoting anything in this verse. But his words do reflect Deuteronomy 19:15. For that reason I just want to quote the 3 sources that are said to be the source of Paul's words: the Hebrew Bible; the Septuagint; and, based on the commentary of Adam Clarke, Matthew 18:16. Why am I quoting these sources? Because some say that Paul is quoting from one of them and I want to show you how his version compares to them in order to judge such a claim.
PAUL: ... επι στοματος δυο μαρτυρων και τριων στηθησεται παν ρημα
TRANSLATION: ... on the mouth of two witnesses and three every word shall be established.LXX: επι στοματος δυο μαρτυρων και επι σοματος τριων μαρτυρων στηθησεται παν ρημα
TRANSLATION: ... on the mouth of two witnesses and on the mouth of three witnesses every word shall be established.MATTHEW: επι στοματος δυο μαρτυρων η τριων σταθη παν ρημα
TRANSLATION: ... on the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.HEBREW BIBLE:
עַל־פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֺ עַל־פִּי שְׁלֺשָׁה־עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר
TRANSLATION: Upon the mouth of two witnesses or upon the mouth of three witnesses a matter shall stand.
Now, as you can see, there are slight differences between all the Greek versions. And all of the Greek versions add or take away something from the Hebrew version. But whereas all the greek versions says "every word", the Hebrew version of Deuteronomy only says "a word shall stand", not "every word shall stand". But these are just slight differences and the message is generally the same. It would seem that Paul does get his statement from Deuteronomy 19, even if he simply alludes to it, rather than overtly quoting it.
But Paul uses this verse in a strange way. He makes it seem like his coming to the Corinthians three times is similar to the three witnesses of Deuteronomy 19:15. But the link is weak, if there is any. In Deuteronomy, the two or three witnesses are three different eye-witnesses, three different sources. And they are to help judge matters of law in Deuteronomy in the case of a crime that is reported to have been committed. Paul's coming three times, the appearance of the same man, has no similar authority. I'll give an example.
If there is a court of law, and three witnesses are called, and there one person comes once, and then again, and then a third time giving the same or similar testimony, that three part testimony is not considered as three witnesses. It is one witness. And nothing can be firmly established by one witness, whereas, according to the law of the Hebrew Bible, three different witnesses establish a matter. That's why the whole verse in Deuteronomy 19:15 says:
One witness shall not stand against a man for any [case of] iniquity or for any sin, in any sin where he shall sin. By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses, the matter shall stand.
The principle taken as a whole invalidates Paul's usage of it.
So how Paul's coming to the Corinthians three times relates to Deuteronomy 19:15 is mysterious unless we fall back to Paul's usual mode of operation, i.e., taking a verse or phrase out of context and twisting it for his own purposes.
One may say, "Isn't the word "twisting" a bit too strong? I mean, don't we all do something like what Paul's doing at times: using a verse or a phrase from the Bible without care of its context; and sometimes even using it in a different way than the natural context means?" Good question. It depends on the following factors. Are we using that verse or phrase as if it has divine authority, or just voicing our own opinion? Do we do this once in a while or almost every single time we get a chance to quote scripture? Have we been educated on what a scripture really means before we use it? Are we using this interpretation to push a doctrine that the whole of scripture knows nothing of? The problem with Paul is that almost every time he quotes scripture, he takes it out of context and gives it a meaning that must conform to his own agenda, ignoring the message of scripture as a whole. His convictions about Jesus and the Hebrew Bible are paramount and have the highest authority, even against other apostles, even against Jewish teachers who obviously had and have a better grasp on the teachings of the Hebrew Bible than he did. To go against him means a curse on your head! To have a different interpretation of who Jesus was is to be cut off! To view the writings of the man as a whole, to see his general usage of scripture, where he just cuts out a verse and uses it how he wishes, leads to the conclusion that he is not simply voicing an opinion, but what he considers to be THE truth. And that forceful character of his helps lead to the conclusion that he is forcefully distorting scripture, i.e., twisting it, to conform to his agenda.
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.