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.
Paul gives us some of his history.
(11) And, I make known to you, brothers, the gospel, the one preached by me, that it is not according to man. (12) For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught, except by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (13) For you heard my former way of life in Judaism, that in [the] extreme, I persecuted the assembly of the God, and ravaged it. (14) And I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my race, being much more a zealot of the traditions of my fathers. (15) But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace, (16) to reveal His son in me so that I might proclaim the good news of him among the nations, immediately I did not take counsel with flesh and blood; (17) nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. (18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. (19) But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother. (20) And what I write to you, behold, before the God, I do not lie. Galatians 1:11-20 (Green's Modern King James Version)
Now compare this account with Acts 9, especially from verse 1 to 29. This describes Paul upon his conversion to christianity as described by another writer, believed to be Luke. There is no mention of a 3 year time span. Shortly after Paul's conversion, he spent certain days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began preaching Jesus in the synagogues there. In order to escape the Jews there, he fled over the wall, with help from the disciples there, and Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He was with them, coming in and going out of Jerusalem. Read this for yourself to confirm my words.
There is an obvious contradiction between what Paul says in Galatians and what the writer of Acts says.
(6) But from those who seemed to be something (what kind they were then does not matter to me; God does not accept the face of man), for those seeming [to be something] conferred nothing to me. (7) But on the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter [had the good news] of the circumcision; (8) for He working in Peter to the mission of the circumcision also worked in me to the nations. (9) and knowing the grace given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave right hands of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we [are] for the nations, but they for the circumcision. (Galatians 2:6-9)
Take note of the backhanded comments Paul uses about the true apostles. They only "seemed to be" or were "reputed to be" pillars. In fact, he may have been talking about the apostles as a whole from verse 6, as those who "seemed to be something". In Paul's eyes, it doesn't matter who they are or what importance they had. Note, that that is not the way to speak respectfully of people, especially those who were supposed to have walked and talked with Jesus. These people mattered little to Paul.
What humility! Paul says that the apostles added nothing to him, meaning that he knew it all already! How humble! *sarcasm*
Paul continues his thoughts in a manner that is similar to that of the book of Romans. He says:
Therefore, seeing that a man is not made righteous by works of law, except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we, we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we may be made righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, because no flesh may be made righteous by works of law. (Galatians 2:16)
Now, we aren't going to go into any weird exegesis here, looking for ways to see Paul as respecting the Law of Moses, as some "messianic" Jews (i.e., Jews who have abandoned their heritage to become christians) and other christians try to do. Reading the whole book of Galatians, one can see that Paul is speaking of nothing other than the Law of Moses in this verse. He is saying that doing the deeds, the works, that the law commands doesn't make a person righteous. Others use the word "justify", but that just means "to make just, to make righteous".
It should be clear, at least logically or realistically, that Paul makes no sense with his statements. From the side of real life and real experience, how do you know if a person is good or not? Is it if they have wonderful thoughts and great convictions alone? No! It is because they do good and moral actions, actions that line up with a proper code of ethics and honourable lifestyle. If a person can show self control in their actions, that actually shows that they are righteous, as opposed to someone's invisible and internal beliefs.
But what makes Paul's situation worse is that the Jewish Bible as a whole contradicts and undermines his whole "by-faith-alone" theory. How and where does the Jewish Bible do this?
(24) And HaShem commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear HaShem our God; that it would be well for us at all times, and that he might preserve us alive, as it is this day. (25) And it shall be righteousness to us, if we observe to do all this commandment before HaShem our God, as he commanded us. (Deuteronomy 6:24-25)
It is clear here that the Jews get righteousness by doing what God commands in his Law. And it makes sense: if you obey the laws of the Lord, then you are doing what is right, and you are righteous, you characterize, you embody the God-given standards of the morality and justice.
Now a Noahide friend of mine (that is a gentile follower of the tenants of Judaism, keeping God's laws) says this: if a carrot can do what the Lord says, that is, to grow and be edible, then it is absolute foolishness to think that it is impossible for us to. Remember that Paul's fallacy is the notion that righteousness only only happens to you if you are absolutely perfect in your obedience of the Law of Moses. His followers may even point to the "all" in Deuteronomy 6:25 in order to say that righteousness would come to those who kept all the commands of God. But again, scripture contradicts their idea.
For a man, there is no righteous one in the earth, who does good and doesn't sin. (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
Now this verse is used by christians to say that there is no righteous person at all. But that isn't what the verse says. It does not say "there is none righteous". It says that there is no one righteous who doesn't make any mistake at all. That means that there are righteous people (see Ecclesiastes 7:15; 8:14), but they don't live in an absolutely perfect way. Another way of saying this is that everyone makes mistakes. But it is essential that you see that even though they make mistakes, scripture still calls them righteous!
This tells us something we should already know in our day-to-day experiences: we know - the Almighty knows - our frame, our limitations; and thus we know that a general and earnest directed effort to conform to God's law makes one righteous. This is shown in another passage that refutes Paul's doctrine, which I have mentioned before, Ezekiel 18:5-8. This passage clearly shows that if a man does certain deeds, then the Lord declares that that person is righteous! Thus flesh can be and is justified, declared righteous, seen to be just, by works of law, by deeds that line up with the Law of the Lord.
To make the statement clear, let me quote Paul's words and then paraphrase.
Paul: No flesh can be justified by works of law.
Paraphrase: no one can be righteous by obeying the Lord.
The "works of law" are things that the Almighty says and commands to humanity and/or Israel. Therefore, to keep these laws is simply obeying the Lord Almighty. So, you can see that Paul's words make no sense. In fact, scripture teaches that you can be righteous by obeying the Lord, or by keeping his law.
So Paul is just dead wrong.
I do not neutralize the grace of the Deity; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died for nothing.(Galatians 2:21)
So based on what I've already shown from scripture, and scripture's willingness to call people righteous, if we go with Paul's theological statement in this verse, if righteousness comes through law-keeping, then Jesus died for nothing. And we can confirm that with a big YES!. Since righteousness does come through law keeping or by obeying what God commands, then, based on Paul's words, Jesus did die for nothing.
But it is important to know that if we are talking about the law of the Lord, true obedience to it is not a dry affair, with no aspect of a real relationship behind it between a man and his God. The law itself says to "love God with your all" (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to "love your neighbour like yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). It advocates the real worship of God, not some hypocritical routine existence. So when we speak of "works of law" or "deeds of law", it includes the divine and human love by default. Thus, keeping the law properly as a whole must breed a righteousness and a righteous people/person.
Even as Abraham believed the Deity and it was reckoned to him to be righteousness [Genesis 15:6]. (Galatians 3:6)
Paul here quotes Genesis 15:6. This has already been dealt with, so please refer to my comments on Romans 4:3.
For you know that the ones [that are] of faith, those are the sons of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7)
Paul says that those of faith are children of Abraham. First let's deal with the extremes.
Paul cannot and must not mean this literally to speak of any faith whatsoever, i.e., he is not saying that anyone that has any sort of faith is a child of Abraham, regardless of whether they have faith in Zeus or Vishna or any god. In his writings, Paul uses "faith" to speak specifically and concretely of "faith in Jesus as the sacrificial christ".
But if we actually look at Abraham's life, the other extreme of interpreting Paul's words, we encounter a problem: this is not the faith of Abraham who only believed in the one true Deity and in obeying His voice, keeping His commandments and laws (Genesis 26:5, see context). At best, the faith of Abraham means God promising him something and then him trusting God to fulfil that promise, as Genesis 15 shows. But this faith of Abraham had nothing to do believing that a man would die as a sacrifice. There is no textual evidence of that. And there is no overt and clear evidence in scripture, in the Jewish Bible, that such a thing was promised. I've looked.
So if we take "faith" too generally, Paul's words are meaningless and confusing. But if we focus on the faith of Abraham, it is not the same as Paul's faith. So once again, this is all about Paul's agenda, and his using biblical words and events and twisting them into his own image for his own purposes.
Paul here quotes Genesis 12:3.
And the scripture, that the Deity making the nations righteous, gave the good news beforehand to Abraham that "all the nations shall be blessed in you. [Genesis 12:3]". (Galatians 3:8)
Let's take note of the difference between exegesis, deriving meaning from the scripture, and eisegesis, reading meaning into the scripture that isn't there. Genesis 12:3 and similar verses only say that Abraham would bring a blessing to the world. It is a very general blessing that is not defined by the verse itself. But Paul manages to squeeze a whole doctrine of the nations, the gentiles, being made righteous by believing in Jesus, into a verse and context that says absolutely nothing about such a notion.
If we notice the role of the priestly nation of Israel, or the fact that all the major monotheistic worldviews descend from Abraham, other possible understandings of the verse in Genesis 12, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to say which of these interpretations is meant by Genesis 12:3 when taken in isolation. And even in context, Paul's "interpretation" is nowhere to be found.
Paul quotes Deuteronomy 27:26. We'll compare his version with the Septuagint and the original Hebrew version.
PAUL: οσοι γαρ εξ εργων νομου εισιν υπο καταραν εργων γεγραπται γαρ επικαταρατος πας ος ουκ εμμενει εν πασιν τοις γεγραμμενοις εν τω βιβλιω του νομου του ποιησαι αυτα
TRANSLATION: For as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it has been written, "For cursed [be] all who do not remain/persevere in all of what is written in the book of the law to do it".LXX: επικαταρατος πας ανθρωπος ος ουκ εμμενει εν πασιν τοις λογοις του νομου τουτου του ποιησαι αυτους ...
TRANSLATION: Cursed [be] every person who doesn't remain/persevere in all the words of this law to do them.HEBREW BIBLE:
אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֺא־יָקִים אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֺרָה־הַזֺּאת לַעֲשׂוֺת אוֺתָם
TRANSLATION: Cursed be one who doesn't affirm the words of this Torah/Law to do them.
As you can see, Paul doesn't exactly quote either the Hebrew Bible, or the Septuagint. He feels the need to change the words "the words of this Law" to "all of what is written in the book of the Law". Paul's words have a much stricter sense to them than the words of the Hebrew Bible, more strict than even the Septuagint. But let's get to the meat of the matter.
It is very easy to say that εμμενω emmen-o, is not a good translation of the Hebrew word קוּם quwm. The Greek word emmen-o has the root meaning of "to stay in a place or thing". It has implications of remaining constant or fixed, holding true to something, to stand fast. Here, in Deuteronomy 27:26, it is in its active sense. So with the negative attached to it, it means "he does not continue in or hold true to". The Hebrew word quwm properly means to rise, but has the extension of standing and being erect. Here it is in causative form, so it means "to cause to rise, or cause to stand". So the Greek is saying something slightly different to the Hebrew.
Now despite this difference in meaning, the way each word is used in context doesn't really help Paul's case. But what is Paul's case? Let's see what the classical commentators say. John Gill says when commenting on Paul's words in this verse,
... and [the Law] requires perfect obedience, an observance of all things contained in it, which can never be performed by fallen man.
... moreover, the law requires constant perfect obedience; not only that a man should do all things commanded in it, but that he should continue to do them from his infancy, to the day of his death; and in failure hereof, it pronounces every man cursed, without any respect to persons, or any regard to pleas, taken from the infirmity of human nature, the sincerity of the heart, or repentance for transgressions.
Adam Clarke, in his commentary of this verse, says:
All that seek salvation by the performance of the works of the law are under the curse, because it is impossible for them to come up to the spiritual meaning and intent of the law; and the law pronounces them cursed that continue not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Hence, every Jew is necessarily under the curse of God’s broken law; and every sinner is under the same curse, though he be not a Jew, who does not take refuge in the salvation provided for him by the Gospel. It is worthy of remark that no printed copy of the Hebrew Bible preserves the word ... "All" in Deuteronomy 27:26, which answers to the apostle’s word "all", here. St. Jerome says that the Jews suppressed it, lest it should appear that they were bound to perform all things that are written in the book of the law.
This commentator goes as far as to accuse the Jews of manipulating their own most holiest portion of scripture. It has to be said that this accusation is ridiculous when you actually take note of the way that the Jews treated their scripture, washing themselves when they wrote every single letter, because they believed that every single letter was given by God. And christians know this!!! Plus they had a nationwide tradition, and multiple copies of the law, all of which buttressed the version that was historically stowed away in the Temple. Everything about the actions of the Jews and their written and oral tradition worked to preserve and protect the letter of the law. The root of such comments can only come from christian arrogance, believing themselves and their teachers to be the truth, anyone, even the Jews, who contradicts them must be wrong and have covered up the truth! I know that Adam Clarke uses Targums and the Septuagint to prove his point, but his essential problem is the same: all the Hebrew originals have no "all", and only some translations have it.
But his point is the same as Gill's: no one can keep the law because "they are bound to perform all things that are written in the book of the law" and thus "the law pronounces them cursed".
Let's also see what John Calvin says about this verse of Paul:
The sentence of the law is, that all who have transgressed any part of the law are cursed. Let us now see if there be any living man who fulfils the law. But no such person, it is evident, has been, or ever can be found. All to a man are here condemned. The minor and the conclusion are wanting, for the entire syllogism would run thus: "Whoever has come short in any part of the law is cursed; all are held chargeable with this guilt; therefore all are cursed."
And so he concludes boldly that all are cursed, because all have been commanded to keep the law perfectly; which implies that in the present corruption of our nature the power of keeping it perfectly is wanting. Hence we conclude that the curse which the law pronounces, though, in the phrase of logicians, it is accidental, is here perpetual and inseparable from its nature. The blessing which it offers to us is excluded by our depravity, so that the curse alone remains.
Again, all are guilty because everyone, every human, has to keep the law perfectly and no one can. Therefore, there are no real blessings in the law, "the curse alone remains".
John Wesley is very brief in his comment on the verse:
Who continueth not in all the things - So it requires what no man can perform, namely, perfect, uninterrupted, and perpetual obedience.
Matthew Henry's Commentary of the Whole Bible adds its voice:
"for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them," v. 10, and Deut. xxvii. 26. The condition of life, by the law, is perfect, personal, and perpetual, obedience; the language of it is, Do this and live; or, as v. 12, The man that doeth them shall live in them: and for every failure herein the law denounces a curse. Unless our obedience be universal, continuing in all things that are written in the book of the law, and unless it be perpetual too (if in any instance at any time we fail and come short), we fall under the curse of the law. The curse is wrath revealed, and ruin threatened: it is a separation unto all evil, and this is in full force, power, and virtue, against all sinners, and therefore against all men; for all have sinned and become guilty before God: and if, as transgressors of the law, we are under the curse of it, it must be a vain thing to look for justification by it.
Again, you must have perfect obedience to the law. And it covers every single human in existence.
Let's quote, finally, Martin Luther.
We must bear in mind that to do the works of the Law does not mean only to live up to the superficial requirements of the Law, but to obey the spirit of the Law to perfection. But where will you find the person who can do that? Let him step forward and we will praise him.
Hence, the statement of Moses, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them," is not contrary to Paul. Moses requires perfect doers of the Law. But where will you find them? Nowhere. Moses himself confessed that he was not a perfect doer of the Law.
I could continue quoting more commentators, but there is no point. The message is generally the same. It was important that I quote the older commentators. The commentators I quoted span from the 15th to the 19th century. The reason why I chose the older commentators is because I didn't want any of the modern twisted attempts by people such as messianic "Jews" (i.e., christians who used to be Jews but forsook Judaism) to make it appear as if Paul respected the Law. After reading Paul from start to finish, the word for their attempts is simply that: twisted. Looking at the christian church historically, there is no sign that there was ever a different understanding of what Paul meant in this verse: humanity is cursed because it cannot keep the law perfectly, and the law demands perfection.
Let's leave Paul for a while and go back to the actual Law that Paul is quoting from. Something very significant can be gained from just reading the words of Moses as opposed to those of Paul. The Hebrew word quwm and its context does not mean "perfection". As I said before, it means to cause something to stand. In this case, it means to cause the words of the law to stand in order to do it. To make a little more sense, it means to "affirm" or "uphold" for the purpose of doing it. Now this excludes some possible translations such as "perform". The verse cannot be saying "Cursed be the one who doesn't perform the words of the law to do it". That makes no sense. Why? Because what does the word "perform" mean? It means to actually do something. So that would make the verse actually say "Cursed is the one who doesn't do the law in order to do it". That is nonsense. And, since the Hebrew word doesn't mean "perfection", the verse doesn't mean "Cursed is he who doesn't do the law perfectly to do it". Again, total foolishness.
So what does it mean to cause the law to stand, or to uphold and affirm it? Well, to uphold or affirm something, e.g., a principle, doesn't necessarily mean to do it perfectly. It actually means to see and accept the truth of a thing. As one ancient rabbi says, it means "that every Jew must accept the Torah's validity in full, and dare not claim that even one of its commandments is not relevant". So everyone who acknowledges the God of Israel and his Law must "cause it to stand" or affirm its truth and importance, in order that they do it.
I mean, let's be reasonable here! When the wise Creator commands something, it must be possible to be done! And the scriptures clearly say that he knows our frame, that we are dust, and do fail (see Psalm 103:13-14). If the Lord is all-knowing, as the scripture describes him to be, then he would not demand from humans that which is not in their power to do. And it would follow from this, that this curse that is given in Deuteronomy 27 cannot be placed on someone who makes a mistake, and doesn't keep the law in utter and total perfection, because even christians admit that it is not possible for a human to keep the law perfectly and God does not command the impossible. So it should be clear that this curse is not a bad state of affairs that follows anything less than perfection. It realistically speaks of the person who doesn't uphold or affirm the truth and validity of the words of the Torah in order to do them. Therefore, a person can make a mistake in action, i.e., break a law inadvertently, yet still affirm that all of the Torah is true and valid.
A small additional point is that even the Greek word emmen-o does not speak of total perfection but rather to hold fast to, to remain in a place or state. Thus it just means remaining in the Law. So it is not speaking of the occasions where someone knows the Law and respects God but makes a mistake, but rather a purposeful and serious walking out of Torah. It is the difference between understanding that the Law rules a person's life, and thus when a mistake is made, the proper, lawful, action is done to make up for that mistake; and rejecting the sovereignty of God and his Law just living as one pleases. The person who rejects the truth of God's law can still do the things in it - they can refrain from murder and theft and love their parents - but essentially it means nothing in this context because they have rejected the source of the Law and its relevance for their life, just living on what their own intelligence thinks is best.
ASIDE: It is important to note that it does make this world a better place on some levels when a person does good deeds even from a purely intellectual basis with no belief in God. That's why when I said that doing good on an intellectual basis alone means nothing, I limited it by saying "in this context". But make no mistake: there are dangers in doing good only based on logic or rationale or just because it feels good rather than being based something truly objective, God's law, the regulations of the Creator of all.
So even the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible doesn't give Paul and his followers justification for their conclusions.
You see, Paul's mistake is his mindset. He believes that righteousness is only achieved through perfect obedience to every single thing the Lord says at all times, a conclusion that is not backed up by the Hebrew Bible. As I have shown before, true repentance, where a way of life is transformed, can change a wicked man into a righteous one, and a righteous man can make a mistake and still be righteous. Thus, with this twisted and unrealistic mindset, Paul commits two crimes against scripture and the Deity of those scriptures:
Just to expand on point 1: imagine that a father commands his son who is paralysed from the neck down to run in the daily able-bodied 100-metre dash (or sprint) and win and break a world record, and gives the warning that if that son should fail, the father will punch the son's face in until it is black and blue. Not only this, but for most of his life, from the time he is 6 years old until he is 50 years old, the father would consistently put his son forward for the race with the same warning, and knowing he will never be able to succeed. Then, when he is 51, this father tells him that he always knew the son couldn't do it, but that he put him through that just to show him that he could never do it!!! What is worse, since the father is a world-class Olympic athlete himself, the father will run the race for the paralytic son, win, and give him the medal. Let's put the icing on the cake. If the now 51 year old paralytic son doesn't trust his father, then the father decides to give the medal he, the father, won to someone else.
If someone reads that and calls it kindness and that the son should be grateful, then that person is sick to his deepest core. That is called cruelty and that father would be put in prison for the rest of his life. But that is what christianity fundamentally believes about God!!! He knows the Jews and humanity can't keep the law perfectly, yet he gives it demanding perfection. Then he "punishes" them with horrible afflictions for thousands of years since the creation of humanity, until he throws in the towel, and says that he will keep the law perfectly himself and give them "freedom from the law" and "salvation". Then, because the Jews, who he particularly gave the law to, don't accept what he's supposed to have done because it doesn't match with what he's said before (i.e., that the law gives righteousness and that it can be done [Deut 6:25; 30:9-14; Ezek 18, 33]), he gives those gifts mainly to the gentiles. And someone in their right mind would consider that fair!?! I guess that shows the power of indoctrinating the ignorant, since Paul went to the gentiles who didn't know the law to spread his "gospel".
So, to summarize:
It is more than obvious by their commentaries that Paul's followers throughout history have made the very same mistakes.
See also Isaak Troki's analysis of this verse which can be found in his book called Hizzuk Emunah or "Faith Strengthened", an English copy of which is online at http://faithstrengthened.org. And you can take a look at an article on Paul's misuse of Deut 27:26 at http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/, a webpage written and edited by Craig M. Lyons.
But that [it is] clear in law no one shall be righteous with God because the righteous, by his faith, shall live [Habakkuk 2:4]. (Galatians 3:11)
Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 to prove that because righteous people live by their faith, there is no way of being made righteous by law. He sets up a false dichotomy, a false sense that there are two entities that are opposed to each other: faith; and law.
It has already been shown that people are declared righteous by obedience to God, i.e., doing what he commands, keeping his laws. I have shown this in my analysis of Romans 3:20a and I've already gone through Paul's misusage of Habakkuk 2:4 in my analysis of Romans 1:17. The fact is that Habakkuk 2:4 does not exclude the law simply because it uses the word "faith". In fact, the Hebrew word translated "faith" does not mean simply a belief or a mental, internal conviction, but rather it refers to a holistic faithfulness, steadfastness, steadiness, i.e., a reliable steadfastness in Torah and the Deity of Torah. It is shown by both a real trust in God's word and in the Law that he has given.
But even if we take the Hebrew word to mean a simple "belief" or "faith", i.e., only the internal conviction, it still does not negate or exclude the law of the Lord. Why? Because it is just a part of a righteous person's life which also includes law keeping. It is only Paul's creation of some artificial separation and opposition between law and faith that excludes the law from Habakkuk 2:4, not the text itself.
But the law is not of faith, but rather, the man doing them [i.e, the laws] shall live in them [Leviticus 18:5]. (Galatians 3:12)
Paul here attempts to contrast Leviticus 18:5 with Habakkuk 2:4 in the following way: the righteous lives by faith, but a law keeper only performs the laws of the Torah, and therefore lives by the law as opposed to by faith. So, in a simpler form: the righteous lives by faith, and the doomed law keeper lives by the laws he keeps.
But again, Paul has ripped a verse out of context. Can we actually look at Leviticus 18:5 in context?
Leviticus 18 starts with the Lord telling Moses to command the people not to obey the laws and statutes of other nations, but rather they should keep His laws because the man who performs his laws shall live by them as opposed to performing the laws of the nations and dying because by keeping their laws, the man rejects the Lord. So the context has nothing to do with living according to law as opposed to faith as Paul would have us believe. Leviticus 18 is promoting the fact that the Israelites should keep the Law of the Lord and not keep the laws of the other nations.
It should be plain that the Lord is not saying "don't have faith/trust". In fact, there is an important point to make here. Paul has used Habakkuk 2:4 to say that the righteous live by "faith". Now when Habakkuk says "faith", he uses the Hebrew word 'emunah. So remember, for Paul to be consistent, he is saying that the righteous live by 'emunah, as Habakkuk says. But the psalmist David himself says the following:
All Your commandments are 'emunah. (Psalm 119:86)
You have commanded Your testimonies in righteousness and 'emunah exceedingly. (Psalm 119:138)
So 'emunah is an essential part of the commandments, of the Law.
Now some will complain and say something like, "My bible doesn't translate that word as "faith" in Psalm 119." And I would say, if the original Hebrew is going to use the same word to speak of the commandments of the Lord and the quality that gives life, there must be a link, a similarity. Thus, there is strong evidence that says that the law and faith/'emunah isn't as separate and different as Paul would have us believe.
Christ has ransomed us from the curse of the law becoming a curse instead of us, for it has been written, Cursed is any one who hangs on a tree [Deuteronomy 21:23].(Galatians 3:13)
Now Paul's logic in this verse is, at best, peculiar. According to Paul, to redeem those under the curse that the Law brings, Jesus becomes accursed by hanging from a tree.
Even before we look into Paul's strange way of thinking and his manipulation of scripture, lets just stop and think!
Imagine a group of men guilty of a crime, let's say, murder. They are guilty, having actually committed the crime of murder. They have been sentenced to death! Then a guy who hasn't committed any crimes comes along and receives the punishment the murderers should get. Would that make the murderers any less guilty? Nope! What if they realised and fully understood that the other guy was totally innocent and showed remorse, would their sentence be revoked? Nope! What if the person who died was the son of the person who created the legal system? Would that change the fact that the murderers are guilty and have been sentenced to death? Nope! And this is all according to the law of the Lord: if a person commits premeditated murder and there are the right sort of witnesses to the crime, then the murderer is put to death. So according to the Law, even according to our own legal system, does it make any difference if an innocent person got executed? Would that ensure that the murderers get off scott free? Absolutely not! Why? Because there is nothing, nothing at all, in the Law of the Lord which has this get out clause: human sacrifice/slaughter in the place of guilty humans. This is totally absent from the law. In fact, the total opposite is stated: no one dies for another person; everyone is responsible for their own crime (Deuteronomy 24:16, cf. Ezekiel 18:4,20).
ASIDE: This reasoning wouldn't usually show a christian, a Pauline christian, his error because they do not reason according to the Law of the Lord, or according to the Hebrew Scriptures, but rather the teachings of Paul and the new testament. Thus animal sacrifices, to them, points "spiritually" or "typically" (using the language of types and metaphorical figures) to a human sacrifice. But for those who read the words of the Jewish Bible, and are open to letting those scriptures speak for themselves as much as possible, it is much more likely they will see the baselessness of Pauline christianity's distortion of scripture).
Thus Paul's logic is really pointless because the law itself doesn't give any basis for his theory of human substitution and slaughter/sacrifice.
Anyway, let's get back ot the scripture that Paul uses. He says that Jesus became a curse to redeem man from a curse. How? By being hung on a tree!
Oh!
Ooooh!
On so many levels this reasoning is deplorable. Why?
The first reason is seen when you simply read the passage in Deuteronomy in context.
(22) And when there shall be on a man a crime with a judgment of death, then he has been put to death, and then you hang him on a tree; (23) his corpse shall not stay overnight upon the tree, but you'll definitely bury him on that date; because the one hung is belittling/slighting of Deity, and you shall not pollute the ground/land, an inheritance, which HaShem your God is giving to you. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
Please, just look at the first words, "when there be on a man a crime with the judgment of death ..." This means that the man has committed a crime worthy of death, i.e., he is guilty. Then the next words apply. But first the man must be guilty.
Now take a simple look at what christians believe about Jesus. They say that he was never guilty, he was guilty of no crime. But wait! The verse in Deuteronomy is talking about a guilty man. Jesus is not a guilty man. So the rest of the passage doesn't apply to him. So this passage can't be used to say that Jesus became a curse if he doesn't even fulfil the first part of the passage!
The second problem with Paul's logic comes from the words of the verses that he uses. He first says that everyone is under a curse, and uses a verse from Deuteronomy 27:26. Then he says that Jesus rescues people from the curse by becoming a curse based on Deuteronomy 21:23. Now thanks to both the translations and versions of translations in ancient Greek and in English, we get the impression that there is some sort of equal trade here, i.e., a curse for a curse.
But if a Jew, one intimately knowledgeable of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., the original language of the scripture, looked at these two verses (Deut 21:23 and Deut 27:26), then he would have difficulty seeing Paul's point. Why? Because two different Hebrew words are used in these verses. It's just that because of translation, these facts are, for better or worse, covered over. And the two different words have, logically, two different meanings. The word that is used in Deuteronomy 21:23 is קְלָלָה, qelalah, which comes from a verb meaning to make light, to slight, diminish. The word that is used in Deuteronomy 21:23 is אָרוּר, 'aruwr, which comes from a verb meaning to isolate and bring ruin; to weaken incrementally. But both words overlap with the English word "curse", but they still have different connotations.
Now because we're actually dealing with two different concepts, or at least two words, we aren't dealing with an equal measure, curse for a curse, thing here. Thus Paul doesn't have a strong case here at all. In fact, it puts some questions on the very idea that Paul really understood the Hebrew language. It also puts some of his other claims about himself into question, but that is for another time.
Based on all this, there is no real equality between the two passages of Deuteronomy, so there can be no real substitution one for the other, as Paul tries to do.
Thirdly, I just want you to think about something. Leviticus 17:11 says that blood atones for sins. Does this mean any blood whatsoever? Can I use pig's blood to atone for sin? Can I cut my finger, draw blood, and use that to atone for my sin? No! The context makes it plain that it is the life blood of an animal used in the temple/tabernacle context that atones for sin. So basically, blood can be used to atone for sin, but only in a specific way. Even ancient Jewish tradition tells us this. But the whole thing must be understood in a Jewish/Israelite environment. The biblical law shouldn't be understood in a pagan context, or a modern American culture. It doesn't really make sense there. It must be understood in its original context first and then proper understanding can be drawn from it.
Now, let's ask a similar question: what did it mean for a man to be hung in ancient Israel? Could he just be hung in any way? Should he be hung in the same way that criminals are hung in different countries today where they are alive before they are hung, but the hanging is a form of execution that actually puts the criminal to death? Extremely doubtful! But let's, at least, look at the Israelite/Jewish tradition of hanging and see what information we get.
First, look at the text of Deuteronomy 21:22a.
And when there shall be on a man a crime with a judgment of death, and then he has been put to death, and then you hang him on a tree ...
The proper translation of the text is "he has been put to death", the past tense, something that has happened already. It is not "he is to be put to death" as the King James version has it. It is not "he is put to death by hanging" as the Bible in Basic English has it. The sequence of the verse is: 1) the person is judged as guilty; 2) then he is put to death; and 3) and THEN he is hung. So he is not killed by being hung. He is dead beforehand, and then he is hung, as if to display him to those around.
Well, someone may say, as is common in our Western civilisation, "but that's just your interpretation; where's the proof?" And I could put forward the same Septuagint (the LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) that many christians love and revere, which has the same structure as the Hebrew.
LXX: εαν δε γενηται εν τινι αμαρτια κριμα θανατου και αποθανη και κρεμασητε αυτον επι ξυλου
TRANSLATION: But if it happens, in a certain one [is] a sin of the judgement of death, and he die and you hang him on a tree ...
So according to this version, like the Hebrew, a man is judged as guilty, killed, and then hung on a tree.
I could put forward the fact that a 2nd century translation by a person who converted to Judaism called Onkelos translates the passage the same way:
And when in a man there is guilt with a judgment of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hanged him on a pole ...
I could even add the ancient tradition of the Targums codified in the early centuries CE which say very much the same thing. Here is what the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says along with the Jerusalem Targum.
When a man hath become guilty of the judgment of death, and is condemned to be stoned, and they afterwards hang him on a beam, [JERUSALEM. And you hang him on a beam,]
What about Rashi and the ancient rabbis?
"... you shall [then] hang him on a pole": Our Rabbis said: All who are stoned [by the court] must [afterwards] be hanged, for the verse (23) says, a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God. [Thus, we find that the sin of blasphemy is connected with hanging,] and a blasphemer is punished by stoning. [Consequently, our Rabbis taught that all those stoned must be hanged.]- [Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin. 45b]
Here Rashi quotes the ancient tradition that was codified in the Talmud but was in existence before then since it was written in the Mishnah centuries before that (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6.4). In fact, it is the oldest records and traditions of the Jews that is the most telling piece of evidence. They are the ones to whom the law was given, so they would know how executions were done and where hanging would take place
What is even more astounding is that we have christian commentators who love Jesus and Paul and accept the new testament as God's word admitting that the ancient Hebrews understood this as talking about the hanging of someone already dead!
The Hebrews understand this not of putting to death by hanging, but of hanging a man up after he was stoned to death; which was done more ignominiously of some heinous malefactors. We have the examples of Rechab and Baanah, who, for murdering Ish-bosheth, were slain by David’s commandment, their hand and feet cut off, and then hanged up. (Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge commenting on Deuteronomy 21:22)
The hanging of them by the neck till the body was dead was not used at all among the Jews, as with us; but of such as were stoned to death, if it were for blasphemy, or some other very execrable crime, it was usual, by order of the judges, to hang up the dead bodies upon a post for some time, as a spectacle to the world, to express the ignominy of the crime, and to strike the greater terror upon others, that they might not only hear and fear, but see and fear. (Matthew Henry's Commentary of the Whole Bible commenting on Deuteronomy 21:22)
So it is widely known that this was the method of Jewish execution, i.e., stoning to death and then hanging. We can also look to the oral law code of Judaism and see that the Jews only used four methods of execution, putting to death, and no more: stoning, burning, strangulation, and decapitation (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:1). Thus crucifixion is not a biblical or Israelite form of execution. This can even be seen in the written law itself which only overtly talks of stoning. Now understand that the Mishnah was not invented only around the first few centuries CE. It is the composition of traditions that had been held by the Israelites for centuries, going back to Moses. And even for those who doubt this, it is unlikely, nay impossible, that laws in the Mishnah only existed in those first centuries. They must have had a history beyond that. There is no evidence that the Jews made up those laws out of thin air just for that time.
Thus, based on all this, crucifixion-hanging is historically, biblically, and culturally totally outside the context of the Torah. In fact, it may even be forbidden!
So, putting this all together, crucifixion is not what is meant in the text of Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Just because the text mentions hanging, it doesn't necessarily mean that any sort of hanging will do. The text and the historical interpretation of it points solely to a man who is already dead being hung, not a man hanging until he is dead. And the text says that the man must be guilty to be a "curse" or slighting/belittling of God. Jesus was not guilty so this text doesn't apply to him. Therefore, Paul's interpretation is again totally without biblical basis.
Also note that Paul is using his distorted interpretation of these verses to prove what is in Galatians 3:14, that the blessings of Abraham will be possessed by the nations because of or through Jesus' taking the curse in some substitutionary way. Yet it is clear that Paul's usage of these verses is incorrect, and thus his conclusion has no basis in scripture and therefore has no power or divine backing.
Brothers, I speak according to man, yet still, a covenant of man having been ratified, no one shall make it void or add to it. (Galatians 3:15)
Taking this verse on its own, it can be seen that Paul's thinking is purely self-serving. Why? Because, according to him, even in human terms, a covenant that is confirmed cannot be made void or added to. Yet passages like 2 Corinthians 3 and Ephesians 2 and Hebrews 7-10 show the law covenant vanishing away and being made void! For "believers" the law has no effect on them since they are dead to it (Romans 7:1-6). Thus, when Paul wants it to be, a covenant cannot be made void. And when Paul doesn't want another covenant around, its "glory" is being rendered idle and void, and a veil is over people's eyes so that they cannot see that it is done away with (2 Corinthians 3:14).
So here we see Paul's double standard: there is an "old" covenant given by God himself which is done away with, and a new one which takes its place; yet with man, when a covenant is confirmed, no one can make it void or supplement it!
But the promises were uttered to Abraham, and to his seed. He doesn't say "and to [his] seeds" as upon many, but rather as upon one, "and to your seed", which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16)
Hmmmm....
Paul makes himself an easy target by interpreting scripture in the most extraordinary and alien way. He notes that Deity makes a promise to Abraham's seed. Paul says that this is a single "seed" and not plural, or many, "seeds", and thus it refers to one man: Christ.
The problem with this interpretation is obvious if one reads the story of Abraham. A knowledge of Hebrew is an advantage, but not necessary to see Paul's mistake. But the fact that Paul makes this mistake throws doubt upon his knowledge of Hebrew and thus his claims about being a Pharisee.
Let's start with the Hebrew.
The Hebrew word that bibles translate as "seed" is a word very much similar to our English word "sheep". Our word "sheep" can refer to one sheep or to many sheep. You'll notice that we don't say "many sheeps." It just doesn't make sense in our language. The same is true for the Hebrew language and the word for "seed" or "offspring". There is "a seed" and "many seed", but in there language, there is not "many seeds".
You want examples. Well I'll give you some examples from .... errr ... let's use some examples from Abraham, for instance. It happens to be the same place from which Paul gets his quote, so it just fits to see how the word is used there. Now remember, Paul's contention is that "to your seed" means "to one person", and that person is "christ". Now please excuse the list that follows, but it's needed when dealing with some.
(14) And the Lord said unto Abram, after Lot was separated from him, Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; (15) For all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. (16) And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall your seed also be numbered. (Genesis 13:14-16 - "seed" is numerous as the sand)
(13) And he said unto Abram, Know with certainty that your seed shall be a stranger in a land which is not theirs, and they will make them serve, and they will afflict them four hundred years. (14) And also that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they go out with great substance. (Genesis 15:13-14 - "seed" held captive in Egypt and is referred to by "them" and "they")
(10) And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. (Genesis 16:10 - "seed" will be too many to be numbered)
(7) And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. (8) And I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.' (Genesis 17:7-8 - "seed" is referred to in the plural when it says "I will be their God")
(12) And God said unto Abraham: 'Don't let it be grievous in your sight because of the lad, and because of your bondwoman; in all that Sarah has said to you, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called yours. (13) And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is your seed.' (Genesis 21:13 - Isaac's seed/descendants has been linked to Abraham and Ishmael is Abraham's seed)
(15) And the angel of HaShem called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, (16) and said: 'I've sworn by myself, declares HaShem, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, (17) that blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; (18) and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have hearkened to My voice.' (Genesis 22:15-18 - the seed is many like stars and sand, but still referred to collectively as "his", as the nation Israel is called many times, e.g., Exodus 4:22)
(7) HaShem, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: To your seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. (Genesis 24:7 - Abraham refers to the earlier blessing in Genesis 17 which refers to plural "seed", to "them" getting the land.)
So Paul tells us that "seed" refers to one person: christ. But look at the eight passages I quoted! Every single passage attached to the promise, which is seven of them, all refer to multiple offspring, many seed, not just one person. Whenever it says "to your seed", it is always speaking of many people. There is only one clear occasion that it refers to one person, and that is Ishmael: it has nothing to do with the promise to Abraham; and it doesn't say "to your seed". And in every single case, there is no mention of a "messiah", a "christ", or an "anointed one"!
Summary: In Genesis, the seed to inherit the promise is always many, not one; and "christ" is nowhere mentioned!
So again [how many times have I said or will I say "again" - Paul is a repeat-offender when it comes to the misuse and abuse of the Hebrew Bible], we see Paul putting into a passage of holy scripture something that was never there.
(17) But this I say: a covenant having been ratified before by the Deity to Christ, the law, coming into being 430 years after, couldn't de-ratify [it], in order to render void the promise. (18) For if the heirship/inheritance was of law, [it is] no longer of promise. But the Deity bestowed [it] to Abraham by means of a promise. (Galatians 3:17-18)
Now Paul is still going on about the covenant/promise which was given to Abraham. In his eyes, the law of Moses couldn't take away the authority of that covenant; it couldn't get rid of that promise. The promise came before the law, and according to Paul, even in human terms, you can't invalidate a covenant that has been ratified and authorised. So the promise to Abraham stands, in spite of the coming of the Law. In Paul's eyes, the law contradicts such a promise, or it makes the promise of no effect because the law with only grant the promise if the law is kept perfectly. No one can keep the law so no one can get the promise. But Paul is saying that since the believer is redeemed from the law, he can still get the promise. So now an emnity is set up between law and promise.
Now, it has already been shown that the notion that the law demands perfection and cuts off anyone who does less, such a notion is foolishness. So we can scrunch that theory, like toilet paper, in the palm of our hands, and throw it in the garbage.
But I would just ask you to read the promise given to Abraham. It is repeated a number of times to Abraham in Genesis 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 22, and even after that. It was not simply that "the nations would possess his blessings" (Galatians 3:14). The Lord is going to give that childless man a nation of descendants through a promised son, that being Isaac. And those descendants will be given the land of promise, Canaan. The Almighty knew that Abraham would teach his children righteousness (not simply a belief, but a whole active lifestyle) so he maintained a close relationship with him, Abraham, and his descendants, and those descendants would be a blessing to others.
Now if a person reads the history as written in the Bible from Abraham to Joshua, through Moses, then they would see something that kicks Paul's theory in the teeth: the law and covenant of Moses is actually part of the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham and not a hindrance to it! For example, see Exodus 3:16-17; 6:6-8; 33:1-2; Leviticus 26:39-42; Deuteronomy 1:8; 6:10-18; 29:9-14; 30:19-20; 34:4. In fact, the promise is part of the law, and the law is part of the fulfilment of the promise. It is by being part of that covenant, the covenant of Moses, that allows a person, a Jew, to have a part in that promise!
So Paul makes no sense here, and shows an ignorance in what the books and the law of Moses has to say.
This verse needs to be quoted as a whole because everything in it is important.
Then why the law? It was added because of violation/transgression - until the seed should come to whom it [the blessing of Abraham] was promised - being instituted by angels in the hand of a go-between.
There's not much you can say about such a statement, huh? Well, there is something that could be said. Like, for example, the fact that scripture doesn't say this. Scripture doesn't say that the Law was given simply because of sin. And, just to follow Paul's logic and rule, the law gives sin strength (1 Corinthians 15:56). So Paul adds more disgrace upon God by claiming essentially that God saw that sin was on the earth, and therefore gave sin more strength by giving humanity a law it could not keep, and then inflicted humanity with curse and punishment for breaking that law for thousands of years!!! What's worse is that God himself said that the law itself was the cure, when he said that it brings righteousness and blessing, when instead it could only bring curse and more sin, according to good old "saint" Paul. There's no point in using the "doctor" analogy of sometimes adding to the illness in order to cure it. For a doctor to lie to a patient and then to subject the patient to torture when the patient's body responds naturally would consign that doctor to prison for malpractice.
God says why the law was given. It was given to set Israel apart as his chosen possession (Exodus 19:5-6). The law was given for good, righteousness, and life (Deuteronomy 4:1,5; 6:24-25; 10:11-12; 11:8-9; 30:19-20) and a lot more. The Jewish Bible gives no overt sign that the law was "added" simply because of transgression but rather to bless Israel and the world, since Israel would be that light to the nations.
And what if the law was given because of transgression? It is very apparent that that was the cure, not an added burden to carry until someone else could come to carry the load. There was evil, so God gave the instrument for good in showing people, showing the whole world, how to act properly and his rulership by means of his people, his priests, Israel!
I just need to caution the reader that there are christians and christian commentators who will say that the law that was added was the so-called "ceremonial" law, the law of sacrifices and rituals. But Paul makes no reference to this section of the law in this letter to the Galatians; he speaks of the whole institution of God which was given through Moses. This can be seen in the fact that Paul quotes non-ceremonial sections of the Law, such as Deuteronomy 21:23 (hanging from a tree), chapter 27:26 (curse to those who don't uphold the law), and Leviticus 18 (living in the law), all of which are not in ceremonial sections of the law. These christians and commentators also make an artificial separation in the law which gives the same importance to honoring one's parents as respecting the sabbath (Leviticus 19:3), and has in the same locality sections concerning sacrifice, the law of priests, and loving one's neighbour as themselves. Also, it has the law against blasphemy slap bang next to the law concerning holy days and how priests should take care of the bread in the tabernacle (Leviticus 23-24). Such an artificial cutting and editing and labelling of the law isn't really natural to the message of law, at least in the way these sorts of christians use it.
And what about the statement: "being instituted by angels in the hands of a go-between"? The Torah outright conflicts with this baseless notion and shows Paul to be either a liar or giving a false message to people who know no better where it concerns the source of the Law. Rather than using angels, the Almighty gave part of the law to the whole nation of Israel face-to-face and then gave the rest to Moses face-to-face!!! See Numbers 14:14; Numbers 12:7-8; Deuteronomy 5:4; Deuteronomy 34:10.
And this nonsense coming from a supposed student of the great rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)? Something's definitely not right about this Paul character and his claims!!!
The law, then, is against the promise of God? May it not be so! For if a law which had the power to make alive had been given, then certainly righteousness would be of the law.
Paul says that neither life nor righteousness can come from the law. All it takes is a little comparison with what the Hebrew Bible says to show the fallacy in this statement.
Without quoting the whole passage, Deuteronomy 30:11-20 shows that the law can be kept and that life comes by accepting Deity and following the commandments and death comes by rejecting Deity and forsaking the commands. Therefore, life comes through the law.
King David says,
I shall not ever forget your precepts, for in them you have given me life. (Psalm 119:93)
So what does the Hebrew Bible say? The law says that it gives life, and a person who followed the law - despite sinning at times and making mistakes - says that it gives him life, it quickens him. And I've already shown before that the Hebrew Bible says that those who keep the law are righteous and that there are such people on the earth (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:24-25; Ezekiel 18). There is a whole psalm dedicated to righteous people (Psalm 112).
So Paul says that law doesn't give life or righteousness. The Hebrew Bible, and those in it that lived by the law, says that obedience to the law - which is possible - gives life and righteousness. So, suprise surprise, Paul's words once again contradict the Jewish Bible making his claims full of falsehood.
(22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (Galatians 3:22-23 - King James Version (1769))
Now it's important to quote the King James Version here because of the mistake that can be easily made in reading it. You see, a modern reader of this version wouldn't see much in the word "conclude". Our modern understanding of "conclude" would weaken the message that Paul is trying to give. The typical christian would easily get the idea that Paul is just saying the following: "the Old Testament has given us the conclusion that everyone is under the power of sin". But someone who read this over a hundred years ago would get a different understanding of this verse. Someone who knew the Greek would also see some editing, some unbalanced treatment, in the way the translators of the King James did their job.
You see, the Greek word translated "concluded" is used in another place in the passage quoted above. And with our common understanding of the word "conclude", the normal reader would be hard pressed to uncover where that other usage is. Let me make it easy for you! The Greek word translated "concluded" in verse 22 is translated as "shut up" in the next verse! It is the word συγκλειω sugklei-o. It means "to shut up together", "to lock down in a common place". The commentator, John Wesley, compares it to being shut up in a prison. In fact, the Old English meaning of "conclude" is "to shut up, enclose, restrict, confine". So a better modern translation would be:
(22) But the scripture has imprisoned all under sin so that the promise may be given to the believers out of [the] faith of Jesus Christ. (23) But before the faith came, we were kept under guard under the law, having been imprisoned for the expected faith to be revealed.
Paul appears to still be speaking of the law when he mentions "scripture". So, basically, because of the law, all are under subjection to, are ruled by, are dominated and trapped by sin and law.
I don't need to nor am I going to requote the same old scriptures in the Jewish Bible to show the falsehood of Paul's words. I've referred to them over and over throughout this series. But I will add the following:
I shall run the way of your commandments, you have enlarged my heart.
And I shall walk around in liberty for I have sought your precepts. (Psalm 119:32,45)
These verses just show how the law is linked with and gives a person such liberty.
As I've shown before, and the true holy Bible shows us, there is no contradiction between law and faith (or, more properly, faithfulness); being in one does not exclude the other.
Now if Paul's words have been baseless so far, then these verses about the law being some "tutor" that you graduate from means little to nothing!
But there is something interesting about these verses, and that is the Greek word translated "schoolmaster" or "tutor". According to Greek dictionaries and the christian publication, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the Greek word translated "schoolmaster" or "tutor", παιδαγωγος does not mean a simple teacher or headteacher. The word literally means "child-leader", i.e., someone who leads a child! That basic meaning should at least make you question a translation that emphasizes instruction or being in charge of the teaching and discipline in a school, namely "schoolmaster" or "tutor". Yes, I'm saying that those english words don't reflect the meaning or thought behind the greek words.
Generally, christian commentators interpret this word as a slave who is put in charge of a child; he takes the child to school and back home; and he watches over the child, restraining him/her from evil and temptation. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and Easton's Bible Encyclopedia, it had negative tones of strictness and sternness, something that young boys did not enjoy. Although the more educated "paidagogues" may have helped the child with some lessons, the essence of the role was not instruction, but control and strict limitation, literally leading the child.
Now let's look at the context! Paul is talking about the law of Moses confining, basically trapping everyone under sin's domination. This "paidagogue" (not the english distortion "pedagogue") would confine and restrain a child and lead them to school, i.e., the "christ". But note what happens! Once the child reaches its destination, whether that mean school or maturity, the "paidagogue" is no longer needed, thus it goes away. So what does this mean for the law of Moses, which is supposed to be the paidagogue? Well, when the destination has been reached, i.e., Jesus the "christ", then it has no more function, and is done away with. In other words, Jesus is the final destination of the law as a means of becoming righteous for anyone who believes in Jesus (Romans 10:4).
It's necessary for you to know and see that there is no hint or sign in the Hebrew Scriptures, the supposed "old testament" that the law of Moses had some temporary role, especially the paidagogue role imposed upon it by Paul. Just read the law of Moses, and see the many times where it says that laws are forever, or everlasting, or perpetual, or "for [all] your generations", or "in all your dwellings". When the prophets spoke of the end of time, they are overtly filled with laws and sacrifices, Levites, priests, and Torah festivals, such as Sukkoth, the feast of booths/huts/tabernacles, as seen in Leviticus 23. Just see passages like Ezekiel 40-47, which speaks of a future temple; Jeremiah 33 which speaks of not only a special desendant of David who will be king, but also the perpetuity of the priesthood descended from Levi, which cannot apply to Jesus since he was not a descendant of Levi according to all his genealogies in the "new testament"! In fact, the "new testament book" of Hebrews uses Jesus to contradict the statements of Jeremiah by having Jesus end and abolish the Levitical priesthood (see more about this when I deal with the book of Hebrews).
One has to consider this: with the Law of Moses, the spoken word of Deity, given through a prophet of much more authority, credibility, and divine connection than Paul, speaking in such eternal terminology, it is obvious that Paul is contradicting its message. In light of this, when it comes to the acknowledged direct word of the Almighty versus the "commentary" of Paul, the facts would tell anyone to run from the words of man and cling to the words of the Creator.
If that isn't clear enought, then let me be as plain as possible: Paul's words are baseless, fundamentally flawed deceptions which should be rejected when seen in the clear light of God's words, the Law of Moses!
(8) But then, when you didn't know God, you were slaves to those things which by nature are not gods. (9) But now, having known God, and more precisely being known by God, how shall you revert again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you wish again to be in bondage anew? (10) You painstakingly observe days, and months, and times, and years. (11) I am afraid of you, that perhaps I have pointlessly put work into you. (Galatians 4:8-10)
I want to make a specific point here. When I was a christian and learning about the Law of Moses, I came across people who were also christian but also believed that Paul has some positive overall view of law. When anti-law christians would use verses like these (Galatians 4:8-10) to say something negative about the law, the pro-law christians would say that these verses are only referring to, not the law, but to gentile ways and practices, namely that it was about people who were gentile by birth and upbringing going back to gentile ways of idolatry.
But as I've been reading through Galatians, I find this view - the view that says that the gentiles believers were going to gentile ways - to be contextually out of place and inaccurate. Why? Because, up 'til now, Paul has consistently been talking about the Jewish law and way of life (chapters 2 and 3). The text afterwards again focuses on the law covenant (Galatians 4:21-5:15). Added to the fact that Paul says very little about their gentile origins, the problem he is facing is people preaching the law as can be seen by his referring to the apostles who obviously taught and lived by the law of Moses (chapter 2). Chapter 3 again refers to the law and apparently seems to be a response against those who teach that a man can be justified, made righteous, by the law. So this gentiles-going-back-to-gentile-ways point of view doesn't really make sense in terms of the context.
The pro-law people then make the claim that Paul's argument was actually against a sect mixing that early "christianity" with Judaism and philosophy. But again, reading through Galatians, there is not enough textual evidence for this notion. It's clear that Paul's issue is thus the law, and the point he is making is that the law is no better than the ancient idolatrous ways of the gentiles, since the law is supposedly weak and mediocre, like the old ways of the gentiles, unable to justify a person, and beggarly when contrasted to Paul's view of what belief in Jesus can do. In other words, Paul is saying to the Galatian christian group, "why revert to a system that is just as useless as your old ways?"
This begins to shed light on Paul's view of law and the reason why people, espcially Jews, should avoid Paul and his followers like the plague, since his teachings make void and insult the law. A Jew should learn the law and what it says first! Even a gentile should do this! Even just reading the written law on its own is an advantage. Because once it is read and learned in completion, in context, then Paul's lies become transparent, and you can be innoculated, protected against his falsehood, being able to see how he distorts its message. Reading the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures will further strenthen and educate enough to see that the natural voice of those writings refutes Paul's words.
Please note that this method may not work for indoctrinated christians since their main aim or their conditioning will generally not allow scriptures to speak, but rather they wish to see Jesus in, or read Jesus into, the Tanakh (another name for the Jewish Bible), or they wish to make sure there is agreement between Paul and the Tanakh. This is either done by saying that Paul's words must be divinely inspired and thus the "old testament" must be read in light of his words; or they essentially silence the Tanakh: whenever the Hebrew Scriptures appear to contradict the message of the "new testament", it will always, always, be the voice of the NT that wins out. In that latter view, the "new testament" is the "true" and "clear" meaning whereas the Jewish Bible is "dark", full of hidden meanings that were only correctly perceived by Jesus and his followers/apostles, chief of whom is the untimely arriving Paul.
Let's hope that at least a few choose to hear the voice of Deity in the Hebrew Scriptures before they automatically assume that Paul and the christian scriptures must be true.
As it's important that you actually read what Paul is saying, I'm gonna quote all the verses.
(21) Tell me, those wishing to be under law, don't you hear the law? (22) For it has been written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a maidservant, and one by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the maidservant was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai leading to slavery, which is [Hagar]. (25) For this [Hagar] is mount Sinai in Arabia, and it corresponds with the present Jerusalem, and is a slave with her children. (26) But the higher Jerusalem is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it has been written, Rejoice, barren one that didn't bear offspring; break forth and shout, the one who didn't experience birth-pangs: for many are the children of the lonely one, more than the one who has the husband [Isaiah 54:1]. (28) And we, brothers, accordant with Isaac, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was [born] after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30) Nevertheless what does the scripture say? Throw out the maidservant and her son [Genesis 21:10]; for the son of the maidservant shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31) So then, brothers, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (Galatians 4:21-31)
It is important to see the picture that Paul has painted about the essence of the law, the Law of Moses. According to him, it breeds slavery and bondage and is a covenant that needs to be thrown out and dispensed with. He even misquotes Isaiah 54:1 to make his point, which I'll deal with shortly after.
So moving past another of Paul's distortions, it has already been shown in this article and verses have been given showing that the law never brought bondage but was a way of life for a people freed from bondage (Exodus 20:2). But just to note: how counter-intuitive, how self-defeating is it for the Almighty to deliver his people from bondage to Egypt just to deliver them into another bondage??? That approach makes no sense and is not good at all.
Some may say that Paul is only attacking these gentiles' view of Law, holding a wrong view that it could justify, that was bondage. But, again, look at Paul's analogy. He is not describing how a person views Torah/Law; he is dealing with the covenant itself. He is not saying that people's view of Law brings bondage; he is saying that the selfsame covenant of Moses given at Sinai brings bondage and slavery. So he is contradicting the very essence of the Law of God given to a redeemed people!
So for all those who think that Paul is pro-Law, this passage refutes them. For Paul, the law and its covenant only breeds slavery (Galatians 4:24)! I don't need to repeat myself concerning Paul's error.
(25) For this [Hagar] is mount Sinai in Arabia, and it corresponds with the present Jerusalem, and is a slave with her children. (26) But the higher Jerusalem is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it has been written, Rejoice, barren one that didn't bear offspring; break forth and shout, the one who didn't experience birth-pangs: for many are the children of the lonely one, more than the one who has the husband [Isaiah 54:1]. (Galatians 4:25-27)
Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 to show the difference between the law covenant and the christian new covenant, the Jerusalem below and a Jerusalem that is supposed to be above. But again, we face a problem.
The context of Isaiah 54 speaks of a wife who was forsaken for a while but who was welcomed back by the husband, i.e., the Lord punishing Israel who he had a covenant relationship with but was allowing the nation to return to him. Pay close attention: there is no new marriage or marriage agreement, just the loving reunion of a husband (the Almighty) and his wife (Israel). So Isaiah 54:1 simply means to refer to Jerusalem (Israel) which was empty and thus "barren", due to punishment, its inhabitants being in captivity and exile, and that it would soon be filled once again with inhabitants and descendants.
There is a possible allusion to Sarah, but it has nothing to do with a "new covenant" or faith in a dead and supposedly resurrected messiah.
Now for those, mainly christians, who would feel somewhat confused, thinking that their special "Isaiah 53" passage, the supposedly great messianic text is just before this verse. In their minds, it's logical that the next verse, Isaiah 54:1, must speak of something related to it, i.e., the higher Jerusalem for believers in their messiah figure. I'm not going to go into the christian misunderstanding of Isaiah 53. I'll just summarize with the following: whenever Isaiah refers to the servant of the Lord from chapter 41 onwards, he speaks of Israel the nation; the only time an anointed one is spoken of, it is the gentile king, Cyrus; Isaiah 53 speaks of the servant of the Lord, and the only candidate in the text is Israel. With this in mind, Isaiah 53, speaking figuratively of Israel, rolls naturally into Isaiah 54 which speaks of Jerusalem figuratively.
So Paul, once again, takes a verse out of context and gives it his own meaning.
(28) And we, brothers, accordant with Isaac, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was [born] after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30) Nevertheless what does the scripture say? Throw out the maidservant and her son; for the son of the maidservant shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman [Genesis 21:10]. (31) So then, brothers, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (Galatians 4:28-31)
As with the last verse Paul took out of context, I don't need to go through different translations. All that is needed is context.
The context of Genesis 21 is as follows. Abraham was promised by God a son and Sarah's servant, Hagar, bore a child for Abraham and Sarah, that child being Ishmael. But God later clarifies that it was Sarah to have a son, and then gives her one, and he is named Isaac. Sometime later, after signs of dissent and disrespect from both Ishmael and Hagar, Sarah says "Drive out this maidservant and her son; for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac".
Sarah was not prophesying. And therefore Paul is not seeking to give us understanding of what the text actually means and says. He is giving his own message and ripping a piece of scripture out to help him. And Paul's message? "Cast out the law covenant and those who live by it, for it has no part in the Pauline covenant!" Again, there is no clear voice in the Hebrew Bible that agrees with Paul. In fact, there is no agreement between the message of the Hebrew Bible and the preaching of Paul on this point and many others.
And also remember what Paul said about the covenants of men (Gal 3:15)! He said that when a man's covenant is confirmed, no one can abolish it. Yet, here, Paul feels his own authority to annul a covenant given by God himself!!! He is only contradicting himself.
(12) As many as desire to make a display in flesh, they compel you to be circumcised; only so that they should not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. (13) For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but they wish to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. (Galatians 6:12-13)
Paul here is saying that those who want others to be circumcised do so to escape hardship. They want the easy life. They can't even keep the law themselves but they just want others to be circumcised to boast.
This shows the spirit of condemnation which Paul exemplifies to his followers. He, who isn't even present, feels himself righteous and powerful enough, having psychic powers to read people's minds and motives, and judge another's level of righteousness. It is obvious that he would condemn anyone who claims to keep the law because he thinks a person must keep it absolutely perfect in order to be righteous, a thought that it is shown in the Jewish Bible to be totally wrong. And unbeknownst to Paul, people might preach the law for sincere reasons of real conviction, and not merely the pride he imposes on his enemies.
Who knows? Maybe Paul sees in others what is really in himself and doesn't even know it.
(15) For in Christ Jesus neither is circumcision worth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16)
Unfortunately, many take this small and slightly ambiguous phrase to say that it refers to "spiritual Israel", i.e., the believers in Jesus, regardless of links to national Israel, which means it includes gentiles.
Now just to show that I'm not just making unfounded claims, let me just quote a few christian commentators who say the same thing.
The "Israel of God", or as the Arabic version reads it, "Israel the propriety of God"; which he has a right unto, and a claim upon; who are chosen by him, Israel his elect; who are redeemed by him, out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; who are called by his grace, and are styled Israel his called; who are justified in his Son, and by his righteousness; and for whose sake he is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour, to give them repentance and remission of sin; and who are, or will be saved by him, with an everlasting salvation; and is a name that includes all God's elect, whether Jews or Gentiles ... (John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible)
And upon the Israel of God [101] This is an indirect ridicule of the vain boasting of the false apostles, who vaunted of being the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh. There are two classes who bear this name, a pretended Israel, which appears to be so in the sight of men, -- and the Israel of God. Circumcision was a disguise before men, but regeneration is a truth before God. In a word, he gives the appellation of the Israel of God to those whom he formerly denominated the children of Abraham by faith, (Galatians 3:29,) and thus includes all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were united into one church. (John Calvin's commentary of Galatians 6:16)
And upon the Israel of God: The true church of God; all who are his true worshippers. See Barnes "Romans 2:28"; See Barnes "Romans 2:29"; See Barnes "Romans 9:6". (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament)
I'm not going to quote any more sources, even though I easily could because of the amount of christian commentators who parrot the same belief.
A lot of theology has to be read into the phrase in order to come to the conclusion that "Israel of God" refers to a group of people made up of both Israelites and non-Israelites who just have the same belief system. But, unfortunately, it may be very possible that Paul is referring to gentiles as "Israelites". A twisted view like this cannot be fixed with a simple comment, although I wish it could be. Verses like this and in parts of Romans are the source of the views like that of the Jehovah Witnesses and the "replacement-theology" christians claim to be the real Israel, who gets the fulness of all the blessings originally given in the Jewish Bible. But I'll try to summarize the facts that contradict this theology. I'll deal with this in two ways.
In a certain sense - and I say again, in a certain sense - the scriptures do not belong to christians. They don't belong to righteous gentiles or Noahides. They don't belong to Muslims or Americans, or any other people group ... apart from Israel.
The Scriptures, the Jewish Bible, grew and thrived amongst the Israelites, who kept it as national law given by their Deity, the Creator of heaven and earth. The words in the Hebrew Scriptures were mostly written down by Israelis mainly for an Israeli audience. All the great prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were Hebrews, speaking to Hebrews. As universalistic the message of scripture may be and is, it was planted and grown in Israeli soil.
It was not written with a note saying "to the future christians" or "to the future gentile believers in Jesus". There was no cover letter saying "to the future Muslims who will reject it as tainted and distorted". It was and is Israeli national history and heritage, although parts of it include the history of the whole human race and the world and universe as a whole.
So with all this in mind, an Israeli prophet talks or writes to an Israeli audience and prophesies about the main kingdoms of Israel, i.e., Israel and Judah, or at least using words in Israeli culture and terminology, using terms like "Israel", "Judah", and "temple", and "law". Now, thinking simply, the plainest understanding of such prophecies and messages is that they are talking about the natural audience, namely, the Israelites, unless there is something clear, something that distinctly says otherwise.
It's a bit like the American president speaking to his people saying "my fellow Americans, Michigan is now going to become the financial center of Detroit". It would seem alien and abhorrent for a person living in China, who has been born and raised in China, to think that the American president is somehow talking about Chinese people living in Shanghai. It would be even more ridiculous if this Chinese person started claiming that his people were the true "spiritual" Americans, and that Michigan and Detroit were some how codewords for Chinese places or groups of people. If that happened in our day and age, we would call such a person crazy or totally misguided.
Yet, christians do this on a daily basis when they take words from the Jewish Bible and apply it to themselves, when they call themselves Israel, when they have taken that word from a person totally unrelated to them, living in a land totally unrelated to theirs, speaking to his own people.
The point is that the scriptures were given to and belong to the Israelites and their modern day descendants, the Jews and clearly speaks of their land and people groups.
This can go some way to refuting some of the strange interpretations and conflicts christians find themselves in. For instance, they say that Isaiah 53 refers to "the servant of the Lord" as guiltless in some way; but since Israel has done something, anything wrong, then Isaiah 53 can't refer to the nation Israel or to a righteous remnant amongst them. This is despite the fact that numerous times from Isaiah 41 to Isaiah 52, the Israelite prophet, Isaiah, speaking or writing to the Israelite people, calls Israel God's servant (remember the American president analogy given above)!
So, to reiterate, looking at the source and development of the Jewish Bible, it would seem highly unlikely that the scriptures were really meant for another set of people who would adopt the name "Israel". If you have an Israeli speaker, communicating to Israelites, about matters concerning the land of Israel, using the Israelite language of Hebrew and using Israelite terms, then it is more than reasonable to suspect he may be speaking of natural Israel about the people of Israel, and not some distantly removed (both in time, lineage, and space) group of strangers.
For those who at least try to allow scripture to speak for itself as much as possible, those who don't have the approach that Jesus must be read into everything, or the words of Paul are of greater validity or strength than the so-called "old testament", and who believe that the Almighty can communicate clearly enough for his words to be understood by looking at their normal, natural meaning; for those people, I want you to think about what I say next! (I go through all this introduction because there is no point in even attempting to speak to those who are stuck in their ways, and it's better to point them out right now)
According to the first book of the Bible, Abraham was given a promise and a special covenant which was passed down to Isaac, which was then passed down to Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Jacob's descendants bore that name "Israel" as a nation. Israel was then saved from Egypt and given a law for their land and lives which contained the way of righteousness and holiness (i.e., which set them apart in a special way). They, the nation of Israel, then came to occupy the land of promise, given by the Creator to their ancestor, Abraham. They had forged a history and a culture. None of what I told you before is shown in scripture to be figurative or spiritual. Israel was a literal nation. The prophecies given to Abraham about his biological descendants being in Egypt in Genesis 15:13-16 wasn't about spiritual or figurative descendants who were not his physical offspring! The prophecy was about a real, literal seed/offspring. No other nation could claim that prophecy and usurp the name of the descendants of Abraham. That prophecy didn't have a spiritual meaning which would have meant that the descendants of Abraham wouldn't literally leave the literal country of Egypt, the people oppressing them in real life. The prophecy is full of literal meaning.
Jacob's and Moses' prophecies about the tribes of Israel (see Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33), although very picturesque, still refers to the literal tribes of Israel, not some other people group, or a mixture of some who are and some who are not descended from Jacob, yet who all claim to be a spiritual tribe claiming the name. The texts refer to the literal tribes.
And the pattern continues in scripture of prophecies about Israel and Judah, or Ephraim (another name for Israel). Looking at this general pattern, what gives Paul, or anyone, the right to usurp the name "Israel" or "Judah" and give it to people who are not the literal descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Judah, in essence stealing the fulness of their blessings? There is something terribly wrong with this act! Whether Paul really did it or not, his disciples took and spread it! It is just like identity fraud and theft!
I implore you to pray for a listening heart and a discerning, seeing eye, and just read Psalms like Psalm 78, 81, 105, and 115. I hope that you will see a distinct nation of people with a history that includes rescue from a literal Egypt, with a literal Aaronic priesthood. They had their share of sin and punishment, praise and worship. How can any other nation or people take the prophecies and promises that are so linked to Israel's history? Or how can anyone "spiritualize" or make into allegory such a divinely given, well-journeyed and hard-fought heritage and claim it for themselves? The exiles, the captivities, the warnings, and encouragements given through the Lord's prophets; could the gracious Creator and God really allow such things to happen to a nation only for the everlasting blessings promised to their literal offspring (e.g., Isaiah 54:3; 59:20; Deuteronomy 10:15; 30:6) to be given to another people who didn't go through such trials, like the Jehovah Witnesses or gentile christianity???
May it never be so!
Some may say that the history of Israel is an allegory for the present "spiritual Israel", the vast majority of which are non-Israelites. Or that the prophecies pointed only allegorically to "spiritual Israel", the church. But although allegory may teach and can edify in moral lessons, it is no means of proving real identity; it cannot prove anything! If the prophecies are truly allegorical, then they have no meaning and are no source of hope. Why? The nature of allegory is to use one thing to describe another, and a person has to figure out what the real meaning is. Because of this, you can use it to prove anything using similar characteristics or traits. Why? Because with enough thought, any allegory can have a multitude of possible meanings to the point that even your enemies can get meanings to encourage their cause! And since allegories can be used to prove anything (even contradictory things), then they prove nothing! No meaning is certain because there are so many others.
Paul and his gentile disciples have built a castle of soft sand, or, more properly, sinking sand. Allegory can only teach, not prove!
So for anyone to take Israel's names and blessings for themselves, that act can only be understood as a horrible, disgusting lie, the most insidious form of identity theft, and more reason to hate the fruits of the teachings of Paul!
Let's move on, shall we?
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.