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.
... concerning his son, who came to being out of the seed of David according to [the] flesh ...
According to Paul, Jesus was descended from David. Unfortunately there is only conflicting evidence for this claim. The plain reading of Luke and Matthew give different lists of ancestors for Jesus, both supposedly coming from Joseph. I'll show you a few of the conflicting differences.
(15) And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; (16) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:15-16)
(23) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (24) which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,... (Luke 3:23-24)
I ask you to just read what it says. According to Matthew, the father of Joseph, Mary's husband, is Jacob. And Jacob's father is Matthan, and Matthan's father is Eleazar. Yet according to Luke, the father of Joseph is Heli, whose father is Matthat, whose father is Levi. This list of different names carries on for some time.
Now one christian response is that the men could have two different names, and thus Jacob (from Matthew) is another name for Heli (from Luke), and Matthan is Matthat, and so on. But this doesn't work. If this logic was true, then the amount of names between King David and Joseph, the husband of Mary, would be the same, e.g., in Matthew there would be 28 names between David and Joseph, and in Luke there would be 28 names between David and Joseph. But this is not the case: Matthew has 25 names between Joseph and David (not including Joseph and David); and Luke has 40 names between Joseph and David. Therefore it cannot be the case that there are two different names for the same guy.
Another argument that christians like to use is that Luke's genealogy is really the lineage list of Mary and not Joseph. Therefore, in Luke 3, the name "Joseph", as Jesus' father is just there for show, as an empty gesture, or to fulfil some made-up legal law that the father must be mentioned and not the mother. Thus Heli is the father of Mary and not Joseph. But there is a significant problem with this: it's not what the text of Luke says. The christians who use this argument make so much of the words "as was supposed" and make up arguments that say that Jews would never allow the names of women to be in the genealogy records. But what does the text clearly say? Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph, but Joseph was the son (not son-in-law) of Heli. No mention is made whatsoever of Mary in the context of the genealogy. No link is made in the whole "new testament" between Mary and Heli. This argument is made not based on the text of the new testament, but on the belief that the gospels must agree. The texts of Luke and Matthew clearly disagree on the genealogy list.
But the fact is that two things essentially destroy the notion that Jesus is the seed of David based on the gospels.
This isn't meant to be a total refutation of Matthew and Luke, so I'll leave that to articles such as Genealogical Scams and Flimflams at http://thejewishhome.org/counter-index.html or http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/marys-geneology.html.
To conclude all this, all that needs to be said is that Paul makes the claim that Jesus is the seed of David. There is no good evidence of that, so it's just a baseless claim.
(16) For I am not ashamed of the good news of christ for it is the power of Deity [leading] to salvation for all the believers; to the Jews first, and to the Greek; (17) for in it, righteousness of Deity is revealed from faith to faith, even as it has been written, "But the righteous [person] shall live by faith." (Romans 1:16,17)
So what is Paul saying here? He is saying that the Lord's righteousness is shown through a person's "faith" - the greek word πιστις pistis. And he uses Habakkuk 2:4 as some form of support for his claim. Now what does Paul mean by pistis or "faith"? As you read further in Romans, Paul is preaching to the reader that righteousness, being in a right standing before the Almighty, doesn't come from obedience and actions ("deeds of law", keeping the Laws given by the Lord to Moses). Through this we can conclude that Paul isn't talking about "faithfulness or reliability in actions and deeds". He is talking more about a faith, a mental conviction, in Jesus and his death and "good message". So to summarize, to Paul, the Creator's righteousness is seen in a mental conviction about Jesus as the "christ". What does he use to support his claim? Habakkuk 2:4!
Now is Habakkuk 2:4 speaking simply of a mental conviction? Does it have anything to do with Jesus? To answer this, I'm only going to focus on the Hebrew version of Habakkuk and the words used in Habakkuk 2:4. Even if I do say a passing statement on the context, I'll leave more of a treatment of that for my critique of Hebrews 10:35-39. But until then, here is a translation of Habakkuk of 2:4.
Look here: his soul is swollen [in pride], not upright in him; but the righteous [person] shall live for his 'emunah.
The question is this: what is 'emunah? Now people put a lot of importance on the way a word is first used in scripture. Here it is:
And Moses' hands [were] heavy, and they took a stone, and set it under him, and he sat upon it; then Aaron and Hur held up his hands, with this [one] at one [hand] and the other at one [hand], and his hands were 'emunah until the going down of the sun. (Exodus 17:12)
Here, the word 'emunah refers to being steady and firm and faithful. We are talking about an action here, where arms are actively steady. The context shows no sign of belief. The only two references to 'emunah in the books of Moses also have nothing to do with belief: the one already mentioned, Exodus 17:12; and Deuteronomy 32:4 which says that the Almighty is a Deity of 'emunah and without iniquity. This last references means that the Deity of Israel is faithful, firm, and reliable in his dealings with humanity. This is also seen in the following phrase "without iniquity", doing no wrong. So at least in the Torah (another name for the five books of Moses), the word 'emunah refers to a reliability, a faithfulness in action, not necessarily "belief" or a mental conviction. In fact, generally in the Hebrew Scriptures, the main meaning of 'emunah is more "faithfulness", or "fidelity, reliability, steadiness, or firmness", rather than simply "faith". And faithfulness speaks more of action than a mental conviction. I'll give you an example to show why the natural and biblical meaning of 'emunah doesn't agree with Paul's usage of a mental conviction devoid of actions.
We know that these days marriages are more likely to last when the spouses are faithful in their actions to one another which are in agreement to the marriage covenant, rather than simply having a belief or a mental conviction. Faithfulness speaks of a reliability that is only evident really seen in a person's actions and words, not simply a mental conviction.
And just to confirm the fact that we are talking about an externally active reliability in a person's action, the Hebrew Scriptures say that all the commandments of the Almighty are 'emunah (Psalm 119:86). Yet it is the obedience to these commands that Paul is speaking against!
So we have Paul and Habakkuk speaking of two different things: Paul is speaking of a mental conviction, particularly about Jesus as the "christ"; and Habakkuk is speaking of faithfulness, a consistency in action, not a mental conviction.
Now some may argue that Paul is quoting from or referring to an ancient greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint, or the "LXX". For a discussion of this, see my critique of Hebrews 10:35-39. To at least give you a short conclusion here, the LXX does not support Paul's interpretation and, in fact, goes in an interesting different direction. Others may say that modern Jews translate the word as "belief" or "faith". But it must be understood that the more modern Jewish conception of faith and the Pauline conception of faith are two different things. And with this in mind, I'll tackle this from a different angle.
Let's imagine that the word "emunah" could be translated as "faith". Would we still come up with the same conclusions as Paul? What is Paul's conclusion? Looking at Romans 1:16-17, Paul's "faith" means accepting the "good news of Jesus", i.e., believing that Jesus is the christ who bore the sins of humanity and who "God" resurrected from the dead (Romans 10:6-11). What is the more modern Jewish conception of "faith"? Here, we can kill two birds with one stone. Lets look at what it means when it says that Abraham believed in, had faith in, Deity, and it was considered to be "righteousness" (which simply means a righteous deed or thing).
Remember, Paul's faith is a conviction - even a constant, persisting conviction - that says Jesus is the christ. Essentially, it is a conviction that something is, that a fact exists: the fact being that Jesus is the christ. But what was Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6? If we use the same sort of faith that Paul was talking about, then Abraham's faith would be that the Being that had led him all these years was Deity. But that is not the sort of faith Abraham had. He already knew that the person who he was talking to was the Creator/Possessor of heaven and earth (Genesis 14:22) and the Deity of the universe. The "faith" that Abraham had was that he trusted IN the Person who he already knew to be who he said he was. His trust had nothing to do with some belief that the Almighty was who he said he was, but that the Person who Abraham already knew to be the Almighty would do as he promised. The trust of Abraham was in the promise because he already know the person from whom it came. This is not the same as a belief that Jesus is who he said he is.
Applying this understanding to Habakkuk 2:4, one Jewish way of undestanding it would be that a righteous man would live because of his trust in the promises and faithfulness of the Deity he already knew to be who He said He was. This is different to Paul's notion of believing that "Jesus is Lord". Christians will try to argue with this, saying that the gospel of Jesus is believing in Deity's promise, but, if you think about it, their essential claim is really that Jesus is who he says he was, which is something totally different to the Jewish understanding of faith or trust.
To give an analogy to show the difference between Paul's faith and Abraham's trust, it's like the difference between saying that "I believe that the man who raised me is my father", and saying that "I believe that my father will do what he promised me". In the first one, I'm affirming my father's very identity; in the other I already know my father's identity, and in that already-existing relationship, I trust in my father's word. Two different things.
So no matter how you flip it, Paul's idea of faith is both contrary to the biblical view of 'emunah-faithfulness, which destroys the very notion that Paul is trying to expound from scripture, and the Jewish understanding of faith/trust. It will be seen later that he also takes the verse out of context and twists it to agree with his own agenda.
Paul either quotes Psalm 62:12 or Proverbs 24:12 to say that the Almighty deals with people according to their deeds. This is one of the rare times that Paul actually gives the real meaning of a verse.
For the name of the Deity is being blasphemed among the nations because of you [Jews], even as it has been written. (Romans 2:24, NB, I add the word "Jews" to give the understanding given by the context, which agrees with christian commentators)
Paul here is saying that, somewhere in the scriptures, it is written that the name of the Almighty is being blasphemed amongst the nations, implying that it is done by gentiles, because of the Jews' hypocrisy in claiming to hold to the standard of the law whilst breaking that same law (see Romans 2:17-23). We have to ask where in scripture it says this, since Paul claims that it has been written there.
The commentators amongst christianity normally give two possible biblical sources which are supposed to back up Paul's claim.
One place that christians think Paul is referring to is Isaiah 52:5, which says the following:
(3) For GOD has said this: You were sold for nothing, and without silver you shall be redeemed. (4) For my Lord GOD has said this: My people went down to Egypt firstly to sojourn there, and the Assyrian oppressed him [i.e., my people] without cause. (5) And now what do I have here - declares GOD - since my people has been taken away for nothing? its rulers howl - declares GOD - and continually, all the day, is my name blasphemed. (Isaiah 52:3-5)
Now this passage is talking about Israel being taken captive by another country, whose rulers howl in pride over taking and capturing the people of Israel/Judah (the "rulers" should apply to those who are oppressing Israel whilst in captivity since Israel would have no real rulers for itself in captivity). So the context is talking about Israel's mistreatment in a foreign land, the blasphemy that results, and the Lord's promise of redemption.
Is this the same message of Paul who says that the name of the Lord is blasphemed amongst the gentiles because of Israel's hypocrisy as he states in Romans 2:17-23???? No such thing is in this context. In fact, the whole context speaks of different times and different situations, things that were not happening to Israel in Paul's time. So, if he's using this verse, then he's taking it out of context - it says nothing about Paul's point.
Other christians say that Paul is referring to Ezekiel 36:22, which states the following:
(16) Moreover the word of GOD came to me, saying: (17) Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and by their doings; their conduct before Me was as the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity. (18) Therefore I poured out My fury upon them for the blood which they had shed upon the land, and because they had defiled it with their idols; (19) and I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; according to their conduct and according to their doings I judged them. (20) And when they came to the nations, to which they came, they profaned My holy name; in that men said of them: These are the people of GDO, and have come out of His land. (21) But I had pity for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, to which they had come.
(22) Therefore say to the house of Israel: My Lord GOD has said this: I don't do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations, to which ye came. (23) And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am GOD - declares my Lord GOD - when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. (24) For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. (25) And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your impurities, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (Ezekiel 36:16-25)
You know, I learn a whole lot by firstly quoting these passages, and then going through the passage to check its translation and how understandable it is. I see what is said and in what way it is said, and that, in itself, equips me to answer Paul.
Remember what the charge of Paul is: Jews are hypocrites for preaching the law and yet not keeping it, and for that reason, the name of Deity is blasphemed amongst the nations. Now let's compare this to what Ezekiel is saying IN CONTEXT!!!
What is the crime of Israel according to this passage in Ezekiel 36? Look at verse 18: they had shed blood, which points to murder, and had committed idolatry-proper. Now I use the words "idolatry-proper" because christians have a tendency to say that any sin is idolatry in a way because it is the act of making your own human will or desire, or that of some other human, superior to the Lord's. But the idolatry that the Israelites were committing was literal idolatry, where you make figures and graven images and you worship them. In verse 18, the Hebrew word translated as "their idols" refers to images literally carved or formed out of materials (see strongs number 1544 and Deuteronomy 29:17 and 2 Kings 23:24). This is not the hypocrisy that Paul speaks of.
In what way was the Lord's name blasphemed, according to Ezekiel 36? See verse 20: in that the gentiles would say that this is supposed to be GOD's people yet they aren't even in their land. This is not what Paul is saying. Paul said the nations blasphemed because of the Jews' hypocrisy, whereas Ezekiel is saying that the blasphemy resides in the fact that the Lord's people are not in the land that the Lord had given.
[ASIDE: The way that the notion of blasphemy is used in scripture is not as simple as some say. One form of blasphemy can be to directly insult the Creator with one's words (see Leviticus 24:10-16). But here, in Ezekiel, we can see that blasphemy can also refer to an act that diminishes the Lord's holiness or sanctity. That means an action that disrespects ("disses") the Most High.]
It should be apparent that Ezekiel makes it clear that it is not the nations who are profaning or blaspheming the Creator: it is the Jews that are doing it. Whenever Ezekiel speaks of profaning the holy name, he says "YOU [the Israelites] profane the name". And as I have shown before, it is the fact that the Israelites are not in their land that causes the profanation.
This fact is also made plain in the way the Lord gets his respect back, or sanctifies his name: he brings the Israelites back to the land of Israel! And note that is after the people are in their land that the Almighty cleans up their ways and conduct, which includes getting rid of their idols. Look at the order of Ezekiel 36:24-25. He doesn't say "I'll clean you up and then put you back in your land". He says "I'll bring my respect back by bringing you back to the land of Israel, and then I will make you clean".
Now what does all this have to do with the message of Paul? To be blunt, nothing. Paul's complaint against Israel has nothing to do with the murder and idolatry spoken of Ezekiel 36. The claim of the Jews' sacrilege spoken of in Romans 2:22 is not the idolatry of Ezekiel 36. And there is no point trying to link the shedding of blood in Ezekiel to Jesus' saying that being angry with someone is equivalent to murder, which makes it figurative. Paul's claim has nothing to do with the Jews being in exile outside of their land, which is the main subject of Ezekiel 36.
So what has Paul done? If he was referring to Ezekiel 36, this is what he's basically done: he has taken a phrase - not even a whole verse, but rather a simple phrase - out of context, ripped it from its natural surroundings, and formed it into his own heart's desire. Again, he doesn't expound or explain or use the true meaning inside the words of scripture, which is exegesis; instead, he puts his own message into a phrase of scripture. This is called eisegesis.
I'll let you read this passage. I'm not going to quote the whole of it. But to summarize, Paul tries to build the argument that if the religious Jews, who are circumcised according to the law, sin and break that law like the non-Jews, who are uncircumcised according to the law, then the Jews, circumcised people, are regarded as non-Jews, uncircumcised people. Therefore, according to Paul's logic, if non-Jews, the uncircumcised people, then do the things that are right and good according to the law of the Jews, the circumcised people - Paul calls it keeping the righteousness of the law - then they should be considered as Jews. Therefore, Paul concludes, it is not a physical circumcision that makes one a real Jew. Rather, what makes a person a real Jew is what's on the inside, the "spiritual" heart circumcision.
If you found that all confusing, I'll simplify it even more. To Paul, it's what's inside that counts, not what's on the outside. A real Jew is not necessarily one who is circumcised but a person who has a "spiritual" circumcision. If a Jew doesn't keep the law, he isn't a Jew. If a gentile, a non-Jew, does the things that are right and good according to the law, then he is a real Jew. If you think I'm mistaken, let me just quote the relevant bit of what Paul says.
(28) For the Jew is not one who is openly apparent; neither is the circumcision that which is openly apparent in the flesh: (29) But the Jew is the one who is concealed; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28-29)
So all you need is the circumcision of the heart to be a concealed, secret, but real Jew.
The question that I would have is where Paul gets this idea. Does it agree with what the Hebrew Scriptures has to say? And if it doesn't agree with the Hebrew Scripture, can it have any truth? Well, to answer that last question first, since the five books of Moses and the rest of the "old testament" is the basis of truth, if Paul contradicts it - meaning that he contradicts truth - then he must be teaching error. If he makes a claim that has no basis from it, then nothing much can be said or trusted about it. So lets take a look.
From start to finish, the Hebrew Scriptures lets you know the purposes of literal, physical circumcision. Reading Genesis 17, circumcision is the sign of an agreement between the Almighty and Abraham's descendants, especially the descendants of Isaac and Jacob. It is a link between those descendants and the land of Israel. And, based on the context of this chapter, even the hypocrisy of a circumcised Jew described by Paul wouldn't cut off that descendant from the covenant, the link between a people and the land. It takes something much more serious. The circumcision given to Abraham was not the spiritual circumcision that Paul is talking about. A non-Israelite male, a person who is not the descendant of Abraham that doesn't bear this physical mark has no part of this promise and covenant based on Genesis 17, regardless of whether they act the part.
That's the start of circumcision and it is physical.
In the prophecy of Ezekiel concerning the future Third Temple, he describes the state of the only men who would be allowed to minister in the Temple. This is what he says.
(6) And you shall say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, Thus has said Lord GOD, You have done enough with all your abominations, O house of Israel! (7) In your having brought the sons of the foreigner, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house ... (9) Thus has said Lord GOD, No son of the foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of all the sons of the foreigner that are in the midst of the children of Israel. (Ezekiel 44:6,7a,9)
As you can see, even in the future, circumcision of the flesh, the outward circumcision is important. Please take careful note: nobody is ignoring the importance of having one's heart in the right condition, i.e., circumcision of the heart; but the physical circumcision is a necessity. Someone who tries to enter the temple having a supposedly circumcised heart but having no outwardly fleshy circumcision would be excluded.
So from end to beginning, and from beginning to end, the physical sign of circumcision is important and does make a great difference.
But christian commentators like to point to Jeremiah 9:25-26 to prove the point for Paul. It says as follows:
(24) Behold, the days come - GOD declares - that I shall deal with all them that are circumcised in their foreskin. (25) Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.
Let's look at what we can plainly understand. The Almighty is punishing all who are supposed to be circumcised whilst having some form of foreskin. The next verse explains that the nations listed are to be punished as well including Israel because Israel acts just like the nations, i.e., they are uncircumcised of heart.
What can we derive here? Based on the text, as far as it comes to punishment, everyone gets punished for sins. No one would disagree with that. We can see here how the circumcised are like the uncircumcised. But remember that Paul asserts something else: that if a non-Jew keeps the "righteousness of the law", his status of being uncircumcised should then change to being circumcised and they become the real Jews/Israelites. Let's see if there is a basis for this in the Hebrew Scriptures. Errrr .... There's no sign of that anywhere. We see righteous gentiles. But we see nowhere in scripture the concept of spiritual Jews who are uncircumcised in the flesh.
In essence, what we have is Paul making a baseless assertion. One side of his argument, as far as it impacts the Jews and in a certain way, has some basis; and that is only if we focus on one aspect of having the physical circumcision. If we look at the whole purpose of circumcision and the role the physical circumcision has to play in the future, then Paul's argument on this side gets weaker and weaker. You find that although the Jews are punished for their wrongs, they are punished as Jews and accepted again as Jews based on a special covenant. But the other side of his argument with regards to righteous gentiles somehow being "real" Jews has no foundation whatsoever. The gentiles are dealt with according to their own covenant, i.e., universal divine law.
And some may say, "well if it's true in one way, then it must be true in the other way". The question to ask here is: who says? And who makes the rules? Our logic? Even a christian would argue against that sort of thinking. But in this case, where it suits their agenda, then Paul's argument based on logic (and it is purely logical, not a word from the Almighty) makes the rules, even when the Almighty gives no basis for it at all. For the Jews who actually know the law and respect it as the word of the Almighty, Paul's logic has no foundation, no basis in divine authority.
An analogy of this would be someone who is part of a kingdom in which there are certain commandments from a king and a passport of citizenship. And there is an outsider who knows of the kings and the laws, but has no such passport. The citizen of the country breaks some of the laws, and the outsider likes the laws and keeps them. The citizen of the country gets punished for his crimes based on the laws of the land. But the outsider, who is not a citizen, and thus is not entitled to the benefits that a citizen would get, is appreciated but that's more or less all the outsider gets. Without that passport, the outsider remains an outsider. And with the passport, the citizen remains a citizen. The passport makes all the difference. Marriage and the marriage agreement/certificate would be a similar analogy that sows the weaknesses of Paul's logic.
The same is true for circumcision. It is a sign of a special relationship. The sins that Paul lists does not literally make a Jew into a non-Jew because he is still part of that relationship and would be punished within that relationship. There is only a similarity between a rebellious Jew and an ignorant non-Jew. And a non-Jew doesn't become a Jew, a part of that special relationship, by just acting the part but not taking on the sign of that special relationship. The "spiritual" part of the relationship makes a real difference in that relationship.
This is shown even clearer in the fact that this "spiritual" circumcision, the circumcision of the heart, is only spoken of in the Mosaic Law, and - there and everywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures - only in reference to those in that covenant relationship, Israel (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:26).
Now this is not to say that the righteous acts of us non-Jews mean nothing, since the Almighty praises all righteous people (e.g., Psalm 1:6). But circumcision is a passport that leads to much more responsibility and blessing within a specific relationship, a relationship which Paul has to belittle and view in a very narrow way in order to spiritualize it in a way that has no biblical basis.
People may say that Paul was actually speaking from inspiration and that his words were coming from Deity. But Paul gives no such claim. He seems rather to be arguing his case, his agenda. And such claimed inspiration has to agree with scripture, which it doesn't.
Paul quotes Psalm 51:4 to say that the faithlessness of some people makes the judgment of Deity more clear and decisive. It is a fair rendition and usage of the verse in Psalms.
Following this Paul begins his argument, supposedly based on numerous scriptures, that all are υφ' αμαρτιαν huph' hamartian, "under sin", meaning either under the power of or condemnation of sin. Let's see how he tries to do this and test each prooftext according to its context.
Here, Paul apparently quotes Psalm 14:1-3 or Psalm 53:1-3. Let's compare his depiction of what the Bible has to say, with what the Bible actually says.
PAUL: (10) ... There is none righteous, no, not one. (11) There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one.
THE PSALMIST, DAVID: (1) ... The fool has said in his heart: 'There is no deity'; they have acted corruptly, they have abhorrently done deeds; there is none that does good. (2) GOD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see: is there anyone who understands, that seeks after Deity? (3) All have turned away, they are together spoiled; there is none that does good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:1-3, [Psalm 53:1-3 is similar enough])
Now, as you can see, Paul leaves out quite a bit, but his intent is clear: this is the first "quote" he uses to prove his point that no one at all is righteous (Romans 3:19,23). Now does this passage really say that there is no one at all that is righteous? Is such a concept even realistic in the so-called "old testament"???
Taking a general biblical approach first, it will be seen that there are righteous individuals throughout history. Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 6:9; 7:1). Job was a man of integrity and upright (Job 1:1,8). When Abraham debated with Deity about saving Sodom, his argument would have been pointless if there was no such thing as a righteous person on the earth (Genesis 18:23-33); his first statement - "would you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" - would have been pointless, since according to Paul, there is none righteous! Yet according to Abraham's understanding, there were righteous people in the world who should not be judged as the wicked. Exodus 23:7 prohibits the execution of innocent and righteous people. But in order for a law to have any purpose, then the situation must exist for the law to have an application. For example, if there are no such thing as roads, there is no point in my commanding people to drive on the right side of the road. Why not? Because there are no roads for me to ride on! There's no point in me forbidding a person to draw a square circle because there is no such thing. So in order for Exodus 23:7 to have any validity, there must be such a thing as a righteous person. There is a well known psalm which says "if the foundations be removed, what can the righteous do?" But this question makes no sense if there are no righteous people. So again, there must be righteous people for this verse to make sense. According to Psalm 5:12, the Almighty blesses the righteous. A biblical proverb says that the name of GOD is a strong tower which the righteous can run to for protection. In Isaiah 57:1, righteous people are being killed. Ezekiel 18:5-9 gives the description of a righteous man showing that a man can be righteous.
Time and time and time again, the Jewish Bible speaks of righteous people, and the obvious assumption of the whole 24 books (or 39 books according to the christian canon of the "old testament") is that there are righteous people, righteous because of what they do, as opposed to what they believe (see Ezekiel 18:5-9 comparing it with Deuteronomy 6:24-25).
As will be shown later, the problem with Paul and his christian disciples throughout history is that they mistake righteousness for absolute moral perfection, a concept unknown to man in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Scriptures relate the fact that only the Almighty is perfect and that creation is not. Ecclesiastes 7:20 makes it plain that there is not a righteous man on earth that always does good and never sins. But remember what it says in contrast to what it doesn't say. It does not say "there is no righteous man on the earth". It says that there is no righteous man who lives absolutely perfectly. So righteousness, in the human sense as far as the bible says, is not absolute perfection which is impossible. There were righteous people throughout history as the bible says, and each and every one of them contradicts Paul's conclusion. And if he and his christian disciples require more than what the bible demands, what the Creator himself says, then we can reject their human error and just lean on the word of the Lord which grants righteousness to all who would live a life committed to obedience.
So that was the general biblical approach, which shatters Paul's argument before we even get into the verses that he uses. And this biblical context already shows us that Paul is wrong, so there is no need to go further through each of the scriptures he "uses". But still, we can take a look at each one and see if they give any sort of different message.
So focusing on Psalm 14 and/or 53, what do we see? Do they say that all mankind is wicked and not righteous? The very first verse of Psalm 14 tells us who the Psalmist is talking about: "the fool says in his heart, there is no Deity". The next sentence can only then refer to that category of people, i.e., the fools who ignore divine authority. The second verse shows that the Lord looks down on man to look for a worthy person, but then it refers back to the category in the first verse, the fools, and concludes that none of them is good. It isn't talking about every single person on the planet. This is made even more plain when verses 4 and 5 which continues to speak of the fools and the wicked who eat up "My people", refering to the people of the Lord, and then sets apart a group of people called "the righteous generation", which means a group of people living at the same time who are righteous. Now it is important to note that not every people or every individual in the world did, in those days up until our time, oppress Israel. So contextually, Psalm 14 is talking about a people or people group who have come and taken hold of Israel. That people which had done so are seen as wicked and foolish, whilst there is still a group of people, most likely Israelites, who are righteous. So the context of Psalm 14 contradicts Paul's message.
If we take a look at Psalm 53, we can see that there is a more overt statement that reinforces what has been said before about a people oppressing Israel.
(6) There, they were in great fear - there wasn't [such] a fear; for Deity has scattered the bones of him that encamps against you; You have put them to shame, because God has rejected them. (7) Oh that he would give, from Zion, the salvations of Israel! When God returns the captivity of His people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad. (Psalm 53:6,7)
So the chapter isn't simply talking about every single individual person all around the world and saying that we are all evil: the passage is talking about an enemy nation or enemy nations that are besieging or holding captive Israel.
And just to make a point that I shall repeat, it must be realised here that Paul is using poetic texts to make a literal point. This means he is using something that could be either figurative and/or hyperbolic (exaggerated) as though it were literal. That is a potentially unbalanced approach. And it is also the opinion of the ancient Jews that the passage is prophetic, but does not refer to the whole world in opposition to the Jews, but rather it refers to certain nations that have oppressed and exiled the Israelites (see Rashi's commentary of Psalm 14). So if we take it as prophetic, there are righteous people. And if we take it poetically, there are righteous people. Whichever way you take it, it contradicts Paul's notion that there are no righteous people.
So what has Paul done here? He has taken verses out of context and has edited it so that you cannot see who the Psalm is really talking about, and then twisted its meaning to say something it never meant.
Let me give you Paul's little quote of Psalm 5:9.
PAUL:Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; they were deceiving with their tongues...
Remember that Paul is trying to make the point that both Jew and Gentile is under the power and condemnation of sin and that there is none that is righteous.
Now let me quote the actual verse from King David, Psalm 5:9, but this time with its preceding verse to give even a tiny bit of context.
(8) O GOD, lead me in Thy righteousness because of them that lie in wait for me; make Thy way straight before my face. (9) For there is no sincerity in their mouth; their inward part is a yawning gulf, their throat is an open sepulchre; they make smooth their tongue [with flattery]. (Psalm 5:8-9)
My simple question to any one who is reading is this: who does verse 9 refer to? Who has no sincerity in their mouth, whose insides are like a gaping hole, whose throats are like open tombs, and who flatters with their tongues? Do we have any clue? We do! The verse before tells us that David is talking of them that lie in wait for him. Again, this does not refer to every human being on the planet. It doesn't even refer to every single Israelite or Jew; just those who opposed David.
Any conclusion that tries to state that no man is righteous based on Psalm 5:9 is further ripped to shreds when we look at the final verses of Psalm 5.
(11) And all those that take refuge in You will rejoice. They shall always shout for joy, and You shall protect them; let them also that love Thy name exult in You. (12) For You shall bless the righteous; O GOD, You surround him with favour as with a shield. (Psalm 5:11-12)
So David ends up speaking of those who take refuge in GOD, showing their trust in him. He speaks of those who love the name of Deity. And his final verse speaks of the righteous person, who is blessed with the Lord's favour!
So once again we see the words of scripture countering Paul's words. Or we see Paul use a Psalm to say that there are no righteous people in the world, and yet in that same psalm, there are righteous people in the world. It seems that Paul has taken another verse out of context. [Get used to the phrase "out of context" throughout this series on Paul: this will not be the last time you see it!]
PAUL: ... the poison of asps is under their lips.
Paul quotes a phrase from Psalm 140:3 which says as follows:
(1) ... Deliver me, O GOD, from an evil man: preserve me from a man of great violence; (2) [those] that devise evil [things] in [their] heart; every day they are gathered together for war. (3) They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. (Psalm 140:1-3)
Always keep in mind the aim of Paul in using these texts: he wishes to show that everyone is a sinner, condemned by sin.
But what is the writer of this Psalm, apparently David, saying? David is asking for protection from deceptive and destructive people. Yet once again, the writer isn't talking about every single human being, neither does it seem to be his intent to speak about the sinful condition of humanity. There is a similarity between this text and the previous one, where it seems to be talking about a group of people who oppose the writer. David has a specific group of people in mind and it is not mankind.
Again, a person who read the whole Psalm will see the error in using this to say that no one is righteous, as Paul would have us believe. Look to the end of the Psalm where it says,
Surely the righteous shall give thanks to Your name: the upright shall dwell before Your presence. (Psalm 140:13)
In the very same psalm we have David talking of the righteous and the upright. We have people living before the presence of the Almighty. It seems like even He disagrees with Paul's conclusions. You can't say that there are no righteous people when the same chapter you quote from says that there are righteous and upright people.
There is only one way that Paul can come to his conclusion based on this verse: he takes the verse out of context.
PAUL: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: ...
Paul then quotes a section of Psalm 10:7. In order for you, the reader, to see what the psalm is actually talking about in context, I would have to quote the whole thing. So I ask that you please read the whole psalm yourself, that is Psalm 10. Here I shall just give some quick quotes to let you know who the subject of the song is.
The song starts with the question as to why the Lord is so far away whilst the wicked persecute the poor (vs. 1-2). So immediately we have two groups of people: the wicked; and those who the wicked oppress, who are therefore not the wicked. The psalm continues by focusing on the wicked person and his ways. This wicked person proudly says to himself that the Lord will not seek out anything that he does, since there is no deity anyway, no divine government on earth (v.4). It is this wicked person whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (v.7). Look at some more descriptions of this person in the following verses.
(8) He sits in the ambush spots of villages; in secret places he slays the innocent; his eyes are on the watch for the helpless. (9) He lays in wait in the secret place as a lion in his lair, he lays in wait to catch the poor; he catches the poor, when he draws him up in his net.
So this person seeks to capture the innocent, a group of people that shouldn't exist in Paul's mind. I mean, who is innocent if no one is righteous?
Regardless of that point, the fact is that this psalm still doesn't aim to speak of all humankind. It is speaking of a certain despicable kind of person. It sets this wicked group apart from those who they prey upon, so it cannot be used to speak about all people. So Paul's use of the verse to prove his point actually does nothing to help him. He wishes to use his broad paint brush and smear everyone with condemnation, to say that no one at all is righteous and thus we are all guilty and helpless under sin's power. The chapter describes one set of people without condemning everyone as Paul does.
So once again, Paul takes a verse out of context.
(15) Their feet are swift to shed blood. (16) Destruction and misery are in their ways. (17) And the way of peace have they not known: (Romans 3:15-17)
Paul here quotes Isaiah 59:7-8 which is one of the best verses he has used so far. Paul only quotes a few sentences but he didn't butcher the verses of Isaiah. The verses, on their own, do show a picture of evil acts. But the question we should ask is if the people and place that Isaiah speaks of is so devoid of good people, then why does it say this two chapters away?
(1) The righteous one perished, and no man set it to heart, and pious men are taken away, with none understanding that the righteous one is taken away from the evil to come. (Isaiah 57:1)
That is the niggling fact that has and will always hinder Paul's doctrine of universal sinfulness and that none is righteous. Wherever he stakes a claim in one place in scripture that there is no righteous person and that we are all evil devilish creatures turning away from Deity, full of deceit, laying in wait for blood, not knowing what the word "peace" means, the Hebrew Scriptures say, "some people are righteous", "not everyone is wicked", "there are those who obey the will of the Lord" and "you can choose the way of righteousness".
Rather than going deeper into this passage, which is needless, and concluding my thoughts too early, let's finish this one off by just stating the obvious: Paul takes a verse out of context and twists it to say what it doesn't say.
Paul's final quote in his little prooftext frenzy is from Psalm 36:1 which, according to Paul, says:
PAUL: There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:18)
Now Paul's rendition is slightly different to the verse in Psalms, which says,
The declaration of Transgression to the wicked, in the midst of my heart, [is that] there is no fear of Deity before his eyes. (Psalm 36:1)
So this is what transgression says to the wicked: there is no fear of Deity in the eyes of the wicked. He does what he likes! So again, the psalm is talking about a certain type of person. The psalm continues in the same vein as Psalm 10, which Paul quoted before, describing the ways of the wicked man: the words out of his mouth are iniquity; he plans his crimes while he's relaxing on his bed; and he doesn't reject evil.
But is there anything in this scripture that would make us think that the psalmist is trying to speak about the whole human race? Again, let me quote:
(11) O draw out Your lovingkindness to them that know You; and Your righteousness to the upright in heart.
I just want to alert you to the fact that if we compare the description of wicked people to this verse, then they don't match. A wicked person is not "upright in heart". A person who is described as "there is no fear of Deity before his eyes" cannot be called "one who knows Deity" as this verse says. So, again, this verse is not talking about a group of people who are not wicked and thus are righteous. In life, and in Torah, there is no such thing as neutral.
So once again, the passage that Paul quotes refutes his conclusions. He has taken another verse out of context and twisted its meaning to include all mankind when it never did.
To Paul, all these out-of-context verses point to the fact that the whole world is guilty. But when all these verses are read in context it is apparent that the whole world is not guilty. There are righteous people and wicked people, so not everyone is to be condemned. Yet some naive or well-indoctrinated christian will say that if a person sins once then they will always be guilty of sin or be a sinner, they are no longer righteous. It has already been shown that this is a fallacy, and will be shown again and again throughout these articles. According to scripture, righteousness is based on what you do. Ezekiel clearly tells us that if a person turns away from his sins and tries to live according to what is right in the eyes of Deity, his sin will not be remembered against him, and he will live according to his righteousness. That same prophet echoes what is said in the law (Deuteronomy 6:24-25), that a person who abstains from wrong things and lives according to the right ways, then he is righteous, including that person who sinned: once he aims to live the righteous lifestyle, his sins are forgotten and he is considered righteous. That is the word of the Almighty, not the logic of man, like Paul's words.
Also, Paul's reliance on poetic scriptures must be noted. He keeps on taking poetic scriptures and twisting them into a hyper-literal sense to apply to everyone, yet none of these passages in context are really a divine declaration or condemnation on all mankind in the midst of a narrative (more literal) portion of scripture. All we really see from these passages that Paul uses is that Paul has a powerful knack for ignoring what scriptures say for the sake of his own agenda.
According to Paul,
εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται πασα σαρξ ενωπιον αυτου
By (lit. out of) deeds of law, all flesh shall not be declared righteous before him. (i.e., no flesh, no one at all shall be considered righteous before Deity - Romans 3:20)
For all those who don't know ancient greek, I hope it doesn't confuse you to see that greek sentence there. I'm just trying to stay as true to the supposed language of Paul as possible so I don't get charged with twisting his words.
Lets first understand what Paul is saying in this verse. After going through all those mistreated prooftexts, he believes that he has shown that the law shows that the whole world is guilty and thus he has built his platform for verse 20. He says that by deeds of law, that is by doing those things which the law commands, no one can be declared righteous before the Almighty. And what does it mean to be declared righteous? Basically, Paul is saying that according to the standards of the law of Deity, no one can be said to be righteous; no one can be said to be living according to all those laws.
But here we meet with one of the greatest contradictions between Paul's doctrine and the teaching of the whole Hebrew Bible. As we have seen previously, the Tanakh (another name for the Jewish Bible) is not afraid to call people righteous. One of the most obvious undercurrents of the Jewish Bible is that there ARE righteous people. Paul says that no one can be declared righteous, and the Jewish Bible calls people righteous. That is a contradiction.
Just consider this in a really plain way:
Now can you see how unreasonable that is? Simple understanding shows this to be so wrong. When you do what your father says, then according to his standard, you are right. If you do what a national law commands, then according to that law, you are innocent and righteous. That makes sense. Even if you break a law, such as breaking the speed limit in your car, or dropping litter where it is forbidden to do so, as soon as you pay for your crime, according to the law, and then continue to try to keep the law, you are still generally regarded as a law keeper.
If that is the case using simple understanding and our own experience, then how much more is this true when a person takes the time to read the Hebrew Bible without the indoctrination of Paul?
Before I carry on, I just need to explain something for those who are hyper-literalists. There are people in this world who will only accept an argument if that argument contains a proof that says a specific word they are looking for. For example, think of the case of a mother who is devoted to her thieving son, so devoted that she always argues his innocence. After being caught stealing again, it is discovered that this time there is an eye-witness to the crime who has given a written statement. In that statement, the eye-witness uses phrases like "the boy took the man's property without asking" and "he snuck in, while the man wasn't there, and opened the cabinet and took the silver". The mother looks at the statement and then shouts out triumphantly that again her son is innocent of the crime. And why? Because not once in the statement did the eye-witness use the words "theft" or "steal". But anyone with just a little sense and no bias would recognise that although the words "theft" and "steal" aren't there, the son is still guilty. Why? Because the acts contained in the eye-witness statement fulfil the criteria and definition of stealing which is to take something without consent or permission. Once that definition is fulfilled, there is no need to say the word explicitly.
In the same way, there are some people who will look throughout scripture and see that the specific words "righteous" or "just" (synonymous to righteous) are only used on specific people a few times and would therefore say, "that shows that only a few people are righteous". But they trip themselves up by being so rigid (we'll, for now, overlook the fact that their premise has already be contradicted in the Jewish Bible by the very fact that Paul says no one at all is righteous and the scripture says that specific people were righteous), since there are many people who fulfil the definition or criteria for being righteous and thus don't need to have that specific word applied to them. And what is that definition? To be righteous is to continually and repeatedly do those things that agree with a standard of morality and justice. It is to do those moral and correct things generally throughout one's life in a repeated and reliable way. That is the definition of being righteous, and it is this definition that we will be looking for throughout scripture.
The Law itself shows us what brings righteousness and what makes a person good.
(24) And GOD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear GOD our Deity for our good always, and that he might preserve us alive, as [it is] this day. (25) And it shall be righteousness for us, if we observe to do all this commandment before GOD our Deity, as he has commanded us. (Deuteronomy 6:24,25)
(15)See, I have set before you today life and the good, death and the evil, (16) because I command you this day to love GOD your Deity, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his decrees; and then you shall live and multiply; and GOD your Deity shall bless you in the land to which you go to possess it. (17) But if your heart turns away, and you don't obey, and you get drawn away, and bow down to other gods, and serve them, (18) I make it explicit to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not spend many days upon the land, to which you go over the Jordan to go there to possess it. (Deuteronomy 30:15-18)
As can be seen, according to the Almighty, the way of righteousness, good, and life is found in the keeping of his laws. This is confirmed in other places in the Hebrew Scripture.
(9) How shall a youth make/keep his conduct pure? by guarding it according to your word. (10) With all my heart I have sought you: don't let me stray from your commandments. (11) In my heart I have treasured up your saying, in order that I may not sin against You. (Psalm 119:9-11)
And it is by doing the law, keeping its commandments in your actions, that you obtain righteousness.
(5) And a man, when he be righteous, and do justice and righteousness - (6) He hasn't eaten upon the mountains, and he hasn't lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and he hasn't defiled the wife of his neighbor, and he hasn't come near to a menstrous woman; (7) And he hasn't mistreated anyone, he restores his pledge for a debt, he has seized nothing by robbery, his bread he gives to the hungry, and the naked he covers with a garment; (8) He hasn't given [lent out money] for interest, and he doesn't take the increase, he withdraws his hand from injustice, he executes true judgment between man and man; (9) He has walked in my statutes, and he has observed my decrees to act truthfully - he is righteous, he shall surely live, declares Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 18:5-9)
Seeing that according to the Jewish Bible, "godly" acts and devotion to the Almighty are the basis of being declared righteous, we can see the following in that light.
(9) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with Deity.... (1) And GOD said to Noah, Enter, you and all your household, into the ark; for I have seen you righteous before me in this generation. (Genesis 6:9; 7:1)
Before I continue, I'm just wondering if you see what I see. Paul says that no one shall be declared righteous before Deity, and here we have Noah declared righteous before Deity. It looks like the scriptures have already refuted Paul. Some may say that this was before the law of Moses, but a little bit of study will show that there was a law before Moses (see my article series on "The way of righteousness for non-Jews"). And righteousness, according to the Hebrew Bible, is based on what you do, not necessarily on what you believe. Anyway, I'll just carry on.
(1) There was a man in the land of 'Uz, Job was his name; And that man was perfect and upright, and fearing Deity, and eschewing evil. (8) Then GOD said to the Accuser, Have you set your heart upon my servant Job; for there is none like him on the earth, a man perfect and upright, who fears God, and eschews evil? (Job 1:1,8)
(4) And I will cause your seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and I will give to your seed all these countries; and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves. (5) Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:4,5)
And also the mediums and the necromancers and the divining idols and the images and all the disgusting things that were seen in the land of Judah and Jerusalem Josiah destroyed in order to carry out all the words of the Law that were written in the scroll which Hilkiah the priest found in the house of GOD. And before him, there was not a king like him who returned to GOD with all his heart and all his soul and with all his resources according to all the Law of Moses, and after him there didn't arise one like him. (2 Kings 23:24-25)
What does all this show? That there were righteous people, people who kept the commandments of the Lord, throughout history.
Even consider David! People like to focus on his bad points, the grave error he made in his life, as though it left an unwashable stain on his life. But what was the Almighty's opinion of David?
(34) And I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him leader all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes... (38) And it shall be, if you obey all that I command you, and walk in my ways, and do that is upright in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with you, and build you a sure house, as I built for David, and will give Israel to you. (1 Kings 11:34,38)
And I tore the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it to you: and yet you have not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in my eyes; (1 Kings 14:8)
What is amazing is that kings after David were compared to him with regards to devotion and obedience to the Almighty. All this goes to show the principle that a righteous man is not necessarily a perfect one, since it is written that "there is no righteous man in the land that does good and never sins" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). This verse doesn't say that there are no righteous men at all, but rather there are no righteous men who have never in all their days done something wrong, i.e., absolutely perfect humans; but yet, they are still called righteous, even if they are not perfect!!! This contradicts Paul's usage of the word "righteous" as "perfect". As with king David, being righteous is about striving to do the will of the Almighty, including truly repenting when one does wrong. That is a righteous person!
All this goes to show that scripture plainly says: that there are people who were declared righteous before Deity; righteousness is simply obeying what the Lord says; and that Paul's words are nonsensical and scripturally baseless to say that by doing deeds in accordance to the law, doing what the Lord says, no one can be called righteous.
Now some christians may say that Paul is not saying that there is no righteousness in doing what the Lord says and keeping his Law. They will continue that it is just wrong to keep the law in order to be righteous since only faith can bring righteousness because Jesus brought the end of keeping the law for righteousness. But this view is problematic in so many ways. Firstly, it is the most obvious sign that they follow Paul, a man who never spent any of his life with the living Jesus as the "new testament" describes him, but received revelation from some spirit being he claimed to receive revelation from, who claimed to be the spiritual Jesus. According to the living Jesus there was much benefit in keeping the law, doing those deeds of law. He said that he didn't come to do away with law but to keep it.
[NOTE: "fulfilling the law" is not the same as "fulfilling prophecy", a horrible error that christians make. To fulfil prophecy is to cause the events foretold to happen, and thus there is no more need for fulfilment because it has happened. To fulfil a law is to comply with the standard set in that law, and there will always be a need to fulfil that law in future because the standard will remain for as long as the law is set. In the case of the commandments of the law, they are all set to last forever. To give a concrete example, Jeremiah prophesies that after 70 years from the destruction of the first Temple the Israelites will be released from Babylonian exile and return to their land of Israel. The fulfilment of this prophecy would be that 70 years after the destruction of the first Temple, the Israelites are set free from their exile in Babylon and come back to Israel. After that, there is no more need to fulfil the prophecy because it's done, finished and completed. But there is a law that says at the end of the 14th of the 1st Hebrew month, people who are circumcised according to the tradition of Abraham and Moses, i.e.,Israelites, should celebrate the Passover, and this should be done for all time. So if an Israelite celebrates the Passover at the end of the 14th of the 1st Hebrew month, he has fulfilled the law; but, unlike a prophecy which would then be over, the law would still have to be kept, fulfilled, the next year at the same time. Or the law that says that sabbath should be kept weekly, when a person keeps it as they should one week, then they still have to fulfil it the next week. So Jesus' fulfilling the law doesn't mean the typical christian understanding of "when Jesus fulfilled the law, that means he filled it to the brim so that it doesn't have to be kept anymore" which really twists the meaning of "fulfil the law". They swap the meaning of "fulfil a prophecy" with that of "fulfil law" even though the law never claims to be prophecy. Christians can really make their bible mean what they want it to.]
Anyway, back to the subject. Jesus said that he never came to abolish the law but to keep it. He said that whoever keeps all the law would be great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19). In the greek version of Matthew, Jesus even says that people should do what the rabbis teach, although not follow what they do (Matthew 23:2-3). When asked how a person should get eternal life, Jesus was told that in order to receive eternal life a person should essentially keep the law, to which Jesus agreed (Luke 10:25-28). The well-known story of a young rich ruler is told a lot amongst christians, although there is a lot of irony in that. Why? Jesus is asked how a person may obtain eternal life, and Jesus' first answer is, "keep the commandments"! Of course, the story goes on and the ruler's love of riches becomes apparent, but still the first answer of Jesus has not disappeared (Matthew 19:16-22)! [Pauline christians normally scoff and say that Jesus was only saying that because really it is impossible to keep the commandments (according to Paul); it's just strange that, of all people, Jesus never said that himself!!!] So at least according to the living Jesus, it is possible to obtain eternal life, and therefore also righteousness, by keeping the commandments of the law. In addition, the "new testament" itself has people being called righteous before Deity and blameless in commandment-keeping (Luke 1:5-6), which still contradicts Paul's point.
So that was the first point against some christian logic.
The other point is that, as I may have said before, the problem with Paul's conception with righteousness, which has been accepted apparently uncritically by his followers, christianity throughout the ages, is that he mistakes righteousness for absolute perfection. But that is not the definition of righteousness for human beings as has been shown in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible shows that devotion to the Almighty by one's just actions is the means to being called righteous. The Almighty isn't a unreasonable tyrant who asks the impossible of his creatures and then punishes them for "falling short of his glory". I won't go into that argument any further since I'll go deeper into that point later.
The fact is that christians say that it is wrong to keep the law in order to be righteous. But we have the words of the law saying that that is the very purpose of keeping the law: to be righteous (Deuteronomy 6:24-25 cf 4:1-8). It is through the observance of this law that Israel would gain wisdom and understanding. So this claim of some christians which they derive from Paul ("Jesus is the end of law-keeping in order to be righteous for believers" Romans 10:4; to rely on the law is to have a curse upon you, Galatians 3) is basically against what the law says for itself; it's basically against what the Almighty said about the law, through his closest servant Moses.
Let's move to the next part of Paul's verse.
The whole of verse 20 is as follows,
Because by deeds of law no flesh shall be declared righteous before Him, for by law is knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)
The whole of this verse gives an eye-opening picture of Paul's doctrine. We already know that the first half means that keeping the law doesn't make anyone righteous before the Almighty. Paul isn't talking about legalism as some would have us think. There are two definitions of legalism, only one of which apply to this verse. One definition of legalism is the strict adherence to the letter of the law rather than its intent. But Paul isn't talking about strictness here, and reading through the writings of the Pharisees and their modern counterparts - Orthodox Judaism - and the Sadducees and their modern counterparts - the Karaites, it is difficult to prove the claim that they were legalists based on their own methods and ways. There's no point in trusting an accurate and full description of these groups to the "new testament", which seeks more to prove its own validity and the lacking of any other way of thinking.
The other definition of legalism is based firmly in christian theology. This definition says that legalism is where you keep the law in order to get "salvation", to be saved from the guilt and pollution of sin and from eternal damnation and death to get eternal life. This still isn't exactly what Paul is talking about since he is talking about righteousness, not salvation. Rather than go into a deep theological or philosophical debate as to what Paul is talking about, let's just use his words to get meaning.
So Paul is not talking about legalism per se. All he is saying is that the law can't make a person righteous, and the next sentence tells us why: because the law can only give knowledge of sin. That means that the law can only let you know how to identify sins, wrong actions and thoughts and the ins and outs of such wrong things. It can show a person how much they have sinned and how far they are away from righteousness .... and that's all! According to Paul, that is all the law can do: it can't make a person righteous because it can only show you your sin! Christian commentators of old time, especially the "respected" Martin Luther, compares the law to a mirror: it shows you that you are dirty (due to sin), but that is all; it doesn't clean you, it doesn't free you from filth; it just shows you your dirt (or it shows you that you're dirt).
The question we can ask is whether this is true. Rather than ask Paul, who has his own opinion, what does the scripture say about the Law of Moses? What does the Law say about its own capabilities? What does the Jewish Bible say about what the Law can do for people?
If you've read this article up to this point, then you would have already seen that the Law itself contradicts such a limited and decrepit view. It is true that by knowing the law you can know the sinful acts to avoid and you can find out if you have sinned. But is that all? I'll summarize what I have shown above and also add some more biblical facts to help us see the truth about Paul's way of viewing law. So I'll show you some of the things I've found that the Jewish Bible and the Law of Moses says about the power of the law.
If one simply reads through the Jewish Bible, allowing its words to speak for themselves rather than through the lens of their own preconceived notions, through their religion, or through their own culture - since it is a Hebrew/Jewish book - it would be plain to see the importance of obedience to the Almighty and his Law. Through Abraham's obedience to the Creator's laws, he and his descendants would be blessed, have a special relationship with Deity, would get the land of Israel, and the whole world would be blessed through them (Genesis 26:3-5). Through Israel's obedience to the law, and the eternal covenant that came with it, they were and still are a people preserved and treasured by Deity above all nations (Exodus 19:5). Through the law, they were made and kept holy and pure (Leviticus 11:44; Numbers 15:40; Psalm 119:9). The law is key to Israel's chosen status (Deuteronomy 26:18-19). The law gives life, good, and righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:24-25; 30:15-20). The kindness/mercy/devotion of the Most High is attached to those who keep his commandments and their descendants (Exodus 20:6; Psalm 103:17,18). The commandments bring happiness and blessing (Psalm 119:1). The commandments bring light and direction (Psalm 119:105). Through obedience to the law, wisdom and understanding are obtained (Psalm 119:100). In fact, obedience to the law is much preferable to the Lord than blood sacrifices or other forms of sacrifices (1 Samuel 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-23), which is why repentance, a return to obedience, is the essential ingredient to forgiveness, with or without any form of offering (Ezekiel 18). Thus through the obedience to the law, forgiveness can also be obtained, since the law gives the ways to draw close to Deity. Essentially, the law teaches a person about the true Deity that should be served and the things he really wants (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).
You see, Paul and his followers help harbour such a lame and grossly inaccurate view of law, a pessimistic and vain view. To them, the law's only purpose is to see your shortcomings. That's it! Through the law is the knowledge of sin, how you can go wrong. But how can you read laws like "love the Lord your Deity with all your heart" and "love your neighbour as yourself" and "make sure that the orphan, foreigner, and widow are protected and their rights upheld" and "when you harvest your field, leave some of the harvest in your field for the poor" and "judges should pursue righteous justice" and "don't follow the majority to do wrong" and get the impression that obedience to the law only shows you your shortcomings and your sin??? Words like these give something to strive for as a goal that can be reached as is seen in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 which says:
(11) For this commandment which I am commanding you today, it is not too wonderful for you, and it is not far removed from you. (12) It [is] not in the heaven [for you] to say: "Who shall go up for us to the heaven and take it for us and make us hear it that we may do it?" (13) And it [is] not across the sea [for you] to say: "Who shall go across for us to the other side of the sea and take it for us and make us hear it that we may do it? (14) For the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart [for you] to do it.
The law was given in a way that it could be kept and those who do it would be blessed and be happy in a good and righteous life. It's a righteous aim that can be reached; not one full of disappointment and sin, but rather one of opportunity and possibility. We'll come back to this scripture again soon in Paul's writings.
All this goes to show that the claim that "keeping the law makes no one righteous because it gives understanding of sin" is utter nonsense when one looks throughout the Hebrew Bible and sees that it gives so much more. It does make a person wise and righteous, and through it is much more than knowing what sin is, but also knowing one's Creator and the way that he has given to be righteous in his eyes, which is possible.
Paul speaks of a righteousness outside of, apart from the Law which comes by believing in Jesus as messiah and sacrifice for sin. This righteousness is supposed to be spoken of in "the Law and the Prophets", namely the Jewish Bible. But Paul gives no evidence for this claim that stands up, and the Hebrew Bible speaks of no such righteousness, a righteousness which is not based on deeds of obedience to some law. So we just have his word for it, and without the basis of the truth of the Torah and the Jewish Bible, it is worth nothing.
A question that can be asked is the meaning of the following phrase of Paul:
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Deity. (Romans 3:23)
The answers I have heard fall along the lines of "we have sinned and missed out on God's perfection". But with the help of christian commentators, a clearer picture can be obtained when looking at the words of each part. "all have sinned" is easy to understand: everyone has done something wrong. "and come short" means that everyone was lacking or deficient in some way. This means that in Paul's eyes everyone has failed in some way. "the glory of the Deity" is the difficult part. What does the "glory of Deity" mean? What is "glory"? The greek word, δοξα, doxa, in the christian scriptures, can mean "a good opinion of someone, praise, honor, glory", or "splendour, brightness". Seeing these definitions gives us a few options as to the possible meanings:
So because the god of Paul demands absolute perfection, something impossible for humanity, in one way or another, humanity is cut off from a good relationship with Deity.
Again, a cursory glance through the Hebrew Scriptures shows that each one of these understandings is incorrect. The root idea of being cut off from a good relationship with Deity also is contradicted by the history of Israel and the world as recounted in the Jewish Bible. The Law shows that the Almighty loved the patriarchs of the Israelite nation (Deuteronomy 4:37; 10:15) and the nation Israel itself (Deuteronomy 7:7-9), which shows a relationship. He makes covenants with people like Phinehas and David who he delights in for different reasons, or maybe the very same reason. And what is that reason?
GOD takes pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy. (Psalm 147:11)
It even says about his special people, Israel, and the humble:
For GOD takes pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. (Psalm 149:4)
The scriptures also state a fact that was a reality back in the days of Solomon and even now:
For whom GOD loves he corrects; even as a father the son in whom he delights. (Proverbs 3:12)
Even David could say, according to the plain meaning of the psalm:
(10) For You shall not abandon my soul to the grave: You shall not allow your pious [servant] to see the pit. (11) You shall let me know the path of life: fulness of joy is with Your presence; pleasures are at your right hand for evermore. (Psalm 16:10-11)
According to the psalm, David is speaking of himself enjoying pleasures forever with the Almighty. Although ripped out of context by the apostles and their christian followers, applying it only to their "jesus", the simple reading shows that a pious servant of the Almighty can enjoy his presence, most likely, in the world to come, the hereafter.
The notion that because people have done something wrong in their lives and thus are forever cut off from Deity undermines the divine teaching about repentence and reconciliation spoken of in scripture (Deuteronomy 4:26-31; Jeremiah 3:22; Ezekiel 18 and 33; Zechariah 1:3), which says that when a person returns to the Almighty, he will return to them and their sins will be forgotten and the relationship will be restored. Read the whole of Psalm 103 and realise how silly the idea is that any one sin in a person's life forever cuts them off from a good relationship with Deity. Read the life of David and the good things the Almighty always says about him and realise how senseless is the notion that a sin in a person's life restricts them from ever having any praise, commendation, or good opinion from Deity. From the beginning of time, repentence has been the way to draw close to Deity after sin, and righteousness and obedience have always led back to a good standing before Deity. Such a teaching also makes a mockery of GOD's mercy and his cleansing sin even in the Hebrew Scriptures. With this sort of thinking, it's as if a person is never really truly forgiven by the Almighty, which flatly contradicts the Jewish Bible. Don't get me wrong! We do sin and it does negative impact our standing with the Almighty. But by recognising the error and doing all we can, all we've been told by the Person we've wronged, to rectify our mistakes, the relationship can be healed and possibly made even stronger!
So even this seemingly innocuous verse by Paul that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Deity makes no sense in a contextual reading of the Hebrew Bible.
Paul makes the following claim:
(2) For if Abraham was declared righteous due to deeds, he has grounds to boast, but not before Deity. (3) Because what does the scripture say? "But Abraham believed in the Deity and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:2-3)
So what is Paul's message? If Abraham was called righteous because of what he did, then it only gives him the right to boast about himself and his own deeds; the Almighty has nothing to do with it because it is man's deeds that bring righteousness. So in Paul's eyes, if man does good, the Almighty gets no glory out of the deeds of man. So what is Paul's solution? Well, scripture really tells us that Abraham simply believed, had a mental conviction or a conviction of the heart or both, and then the Almighty saw that conviction as "righteousness". There were no deeds involved. Abraham only had to believe and he was declared righteous.
But does this really show us in what way Abraham was righteous? Is this what set him apart in the eyes of Deity?
If one would just take a look at what the Torah says about Abraham's life - and it's important to see what it says as opposed to what we may want to believe about what it says - there was a feature, a character trait, that really marked this man as special. From Genesis 12:1 to Genesis 25, what really sticks out about Abraham was not his faith, but rather his obedience. From the beginning where the Almighty tells Abraham to leave his father and family, his land of birth, and go to a land that he didn't know, to his being asked to sacrifice his only beloved son, Abraham shows the amazing strength of character to obey the Almighty. If there is anything that marked his life, something that showed up more than once, in fact a good number of times, it was Abraham's obedience.
Think about it: being asked to leave his family, everything he knew, and his land of birth, to go to a land that he didn't know, to his being asked to sacrifice his only beloved son, Abraham shows the amazing strength of character to obey the Almighty. If there is anything that marked his life, something that showed up more than once, in fact a good number of times, it was Abraham's obedience. And as I have shown before, when the Almighty tells Isaac why he was given the promise and blessing of Abraham, He says the following:
(3) Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you, and to your seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father; (4) And I will make your seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give to your seed all these countries; and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; (5) Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:3-5)
So when the Almighty himself summarises the reason why the land, blessing, and promise would be given to Isaac and his descendants, he never spoke of faith or belief. He only spoke of obedience.
Now compare this whole life of obedience to the one statement, the one verse, which states that Abraham believed and it was seen by the Almighty as an righteous thing to do. The verse doesn't even clearly say that Abraham believing made him righteous. It says that Abraham believed and his believing was regarded as a righteous thing. Plus, just taking this verse on its own robs it of its contextual meaning. It's not as if Abraham believed in anything. The Lord had said to Abraham that his own offspring would be numerous when, at that time, Abraham had no children and his wife was barren. Abraham trusted the Lord in what he had promised, and that was seen as righteous. There is little to say that faith, in and of itself, directed to anything, is a righteous thing, or that it makes a person righteous. Paul's usage of this verse is superficial and cut off from context; he neglects the whole lifestyle of Abraham.
Even a plain reading of the "new testament" book of James kicks out Paul's idea of deeds having nothing to do with a person being declared righteous. It must be understood that this is what Paul is saying: if Abraham was declared righteous due to deeds, then he would have cause to boast of himself, so therefore justification (being declared righteous) must be apart from, having nothing to do with, deeds! This is confirmed when Paul says:
... therefore we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law. (Romans 3:28)
And yet we have James saying, in agreement with the general tenor of the Hebrew Scriptures:
(19) You believe that there is one Deity; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (20) But do you want to know, O vain man, that faith apart from deeds is dead? (21) Wasn't Abraham our father declared righteous by deeds, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (22) Do you see that faith worked with his deeds, and faith was completed by deeds? (23) And the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed the Deity, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (24) You see then that a man is declared righteous by deeds, and not by faith only. (James 2:19-24)
Because of the christian necessity to make all their scriptures, the new testament, agree, they try to paint a different picture of this, as though James is really trying to say the same thing as Paul. But it is easy to see how James' statement, "do you want to know ... that faith apart from deeds is dead?" and "a man is declared righteous by deeds" contradicts Paul's statement "we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith apart from deeds of law". We have seen that "deeds of law" is simply obedience to what the Creator says in one way or another.
The point of all this is to say that Paul tries to make out that if righteousness comes from our deeds then the Almighty gets no praise or honour; we have it for ourselves since it is our deeds. Simple logic shows this thinking to be erroneous when we just think what the source of our deeds are: if it is obedience to the Lord, then he is the source of such obedience and thus our righteousness. He gave the righteous law and/or command, and thus keeping it and doing its deeds glorifies the One who gave such a law. He also tries to say that righteousness can only come apart from deeds, yet he ignores the common theme of Abraham's whole life, what the Almighty had to say about him, and even what men who seem to have more right to be called Jesus' followers say about the subject. We've already seen that the recorded words of the living Jesus contradict Paul's. And regardless of the words of Jesus and his followers, the Hebrew Scriptures contradicts the fundamental ideas of Paul. All these other sources show that righteousness comes from deeds, especially deeds of the law of the Lord.
All in all, Paul doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
Paul continues,
(4) Now to one who works is the reward not accounted according to grace, but according to what is owed. (5) But to one who doesn't work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)
Paul here is talking about Deity as one who declares righteous the ungodly, the wicked. In his attempt to show us that we cannot be made righteous by works and deeds, he says that the Almighty justifies those who have no reverence or respect towards Him, and have sinned against Him and thus are ungodly.
Now there is a serious problem with Paul's logic here. Once again, the Hebrew Scriptures contradict him to his face. Paul says that Deity justifies the wicked. What does the Almighty say about himself? Let us compare:
PAUL: "[Deity] who justifies the wicked."
THE ALMIGHTY: "... I don't justify the wicked." (Exodus 23:7)
This is a plain contradiction to what Paul is saying. Remember that his claim that we are all guilty and are unable t become righteous because we always come short, this whole claim has no basis in the Jewish Bible. In the Jewish Bible, repentance, prayer, and doing what is right, forsaking wrong deeds, are ways of being righteous and getting forgiveness and justification. So we are not all wicked as Paul would have us believe. And those who the Hebrew Scriptures call wicked, the Almighty does not justify them. So Paul says Deity justifies the wicked; and the Almighty says he doesn't. I don't believe Paul has a leg to stand on here. I've seen christian commentators try to explain this, but their explanations are not cogent, weighty, or logical: the plain word of scripture, the words of the Lord himself, contradicts Paul's doctrine.
Paul continues by quoting the Psalms:
(6) Even as David also says of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works, (7) saying, "Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; (8) blessed is the man to whom the Lord will in no way impute sin." (Romans 4:6-8)
Paul here is trying to give us the impression that even David spoke of obtaining a state of being righteous without doing any deeds. But if one took the time to actually read this psalm of David, would we really get the impression that David did no deeds to obtain righteousness?
In fact, let us just take Paul at face value for now. What does it say? Basically, a man who is forgiven by the Almighty is blessed. Note that these verses, on their own, without Paul's eisegesis, tell us nothing about how this man is forgiven. The verses do not say that the Lord imputes no sin with or without the deeds of man. These verses on their own tell us nothing about the validity of Paul's claim.
Focusing on the psalm of David that Paul quotes, which is Psalm 32, what is said about this blessed man to whom the Almighty imputes no sin?
(1) Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. (2) Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord doesn't imputes iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
So David isn't speaking about wicked or ungodly people as Paul is. He is speaking of someone who is forgiven, in whose spirit/character there is no deceitfulness. Now how would we know that this person doesn't have any deceitfulness in his spirit? By the way he acts, not simply some hidden faith! Psalm 32:5 is a sign that David is speaking of his own blessedness, and the blessedness of anyone who would read/pray/sing this psalm with the same mindset (since the Psalms were not simply a biography of David's life, but songs for others to sing or speak or pray). It says,
My sin do I ever acknowledge to you, and my iniquity have I not covered up. I said, I will make confession because of my transgressions to GOD: and you truly forgave the iniquity of my sin. (Psalm 32:5)
Here we see that after David does something, namely, he confesses his sin to the Almighty, then he becomes that blessed man at the beginning of his psalm, whose sin is forgiven. So he does this act of confession, which is alluded to in the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 4:27; 30:2-3, 10-20), and the Almighty forgives him. Verse 9 points to the need for obedience as opposed to rebelliousness! David says nothing about righteousness without works. David's continued motif in the Psalms is that obedience is a blessed thing (Psalm 1) and that sacrifices won't always do away with sin, but only, always, and fundamentally, obedience to the laws of the Almighty is the right way to go (Psalm 40:7-9).
So, again, Paul reads things into the Jewish Bible that aren't even there, and his argument is baseless!
The main arguments of Paul in this chapter are as follows:
Now the problems with Paul's arguments are as follows:
Paul says the following:
(16) Because of this, [it is] out of faith so that [it may be] according to grace to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not only to that which is of the law, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham who is father of us all (17) - as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations" - ... (Romans 4:16-17)
Paul puts forward the idea that the promise to Abraham that he would be father of many nations is fulfilled by his applying the promise to both those who are circumcised under the covenants of Abraham and Moses, and those that are uncircumcised who simply have faith in Paul's doctrine.
Now those who know where Paul is quoting from will wonder how in the world the man would come to such a conclusion when one looks at the context of what he's quoting. Where is Paul quoting from? He is using Genesis chapter 17, in particular, verse 5. Here is what it says with a little context.
(4) [As for] me, see, My covenant [is] with you, and you shall become the father of a multitude of nations. (5) And "Abram" shall no longer be called [as] your name, but your name shall be "Abraham" because I have made you father of a multitude of nations. (6) And I shall make you fruitful with abundant abundance and I shall make you into a nation, and kings shall come forth from you. (7) And I shall establish My covenant between me and you and your seed after you for your generations for an everlasting covenant to be the Deity of you and 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 Deity.' (9) And Deity said to Abraham: 'And [as for] you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations. (10) This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. (11) And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and you.(Genesis 17:4-11)
Now people should wonder why Paul would take a small segment of a verse like this from a chapter like Genesis 17. Why? Because Paul's argument is concerning circumcision and the law and their being overshadowed and replace by faith! Yet what is the subject of Genesis 17? The covenant between the Almighty and Abraham, a covenant marked by physical circumcision. Not one section of this chapter says anything about "children of faith" or "seed of faith". It is all about those who get to bear the covenant in their flesh by means of circumcision being part of that covenant of Abraham. That is why it is so .... almost ludicrous .... that Paul would use this passage to make that interpretation.
In fact, nowhere in Abraham's story does it say that his promised seed are those of faith. The very Hebrew word for seed refers to natural offspring, not disciples or followers. So the promise to Abraham is always concerning his own seed primarily. This is particularly noted in Genesis 15 where Abraham is afraid that inheritance will go to a servant of his house. But the Lord corrects him and says one from his own flesh shall be his inheritor, straight after which the Almighty shows him the stars of heaven and says that his seed will be as numerous as those stars, a promise fulfilled in Moses' day (Deuteronomy 1:10) where he refers to those words said to Abraham.
The promise that starts in Genesis 12:1-3 makes it plain that he will be a blessing to other nations, but his blessing and promise is primarily for him and his biological offspring, the nation that shall come from him, as is expressed in the chapters and books that follow Genesis 12.
Going back to Genesis 17, we see another startling difference between Paul's doctrine and the passage's natural message. In Paul's vision, Sarah seems to have very little place, if any. Abraham is the father of all due to his faith and Sarah is .... the spare wheel no one uses? But in Genesis 17, as Abraham becomes a nation, so does Sarah. As kings come from him, so kings come from her. Yet, again, nothing is said about faith. Why? Because the blessing that Deity gives is generally natural and physical! I'm not saying that that is the only element to this blessing, but textually speaking, it is difficult, if not impossible, to take the segment that Paul uses in its entire context and get the message Paul does.
In essence, Paul takes scripture out of context.
Just as a small aside, some may complain, wondering how then this promise is fulfilled. They will have in their minds that Israel is the only nation descended from Abraham and wonder how that could be a fulfilment of Abraham being father to many nations. What they may not have considered is just how many sons and grandsons Abraham had, and how many of them turned into nations. There is Ishmael, Edom, as well as the sons of Abraham's wife after Sarah died, Keturah. How many sons did she have? In fact, it seems that all the Arab nations descend from Abraham.
(18)... [Abraham], who against hope believed in hope, so that he might become father of many nations according to that which was spoken, "So shall your seed be" [Genesis 15:5]. (19) And not being weak in faith, he didn't consider his body now dead when he was about a hundred years old, neither the deadness of Sarah's womb. (20) He didn't stagger at the promise of Deity through unbelief, but was strong in faith, given glory to Deity; (21) And being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was also able to perform. (22) Therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness [refering to Genesis 15:6]. (Romans 4:17-22)
This is just a minor point, but looking at the verses that Paul quotes, there seems some inconsistency in his depiction of history. He says that because Abraham didn't consider his own aged body and the deadness of Sarah's womb, therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness, i.e., that belief was seen as a righteous thing (not that Abraham was now seen as righteous because of that one thing).
The reason why this is so questionable is that Paul is pointing to a defined state of Abraham's belief whilst referring to Genesis 15; but Abraham, at that time, didn't appear to have any clue that the seed would come from Sarah's womb. This can be said because in the very next chapter of Genesis, chapter 16, Sarah is unsure that the promise extends to her, so she advises Abraham to take Hagar as a wife and to have seed through her, to which Abraham agrees/consents. He listens to what Sarah says and takes her advice. This is not the actions of a person who believed that Deity could re-animate Sarah's dead womb.
So Paul's logic doesn't really follow and is not in accordance with scriptural history. But this was only a minor point against Paul.
Paul touches upon a very significant subject in these two verses, in which he says the following:
(6) For Christ - we were yet weak - still, at that time, died on behalf of the impious/ungodly. (7) For scarcely would one die on behalf of a righteous one; also on behalf of a good person one might possibly dare to die. (8) But the Deity exhibited his own love to us that while we were still sinners, Christ died on our behalf. (Romans 5:6-8)
Now these verses are extremely loaded where it concerns the difference between the christian and Jewish view of forgiveness and atonement. Here we have Paul putting forward the idea that Jesus died on "our" behalf, meaning, in our place. He is literally saying, where we should have been punished with death, Jesus received that punishment. Not only this, but this was done while "we" were still in the state of being "ungodly" and "sinners".
Essays could be written on the ways that this message of Paul contradicts the message of the Tanakh on so many levels. But in order to maintain a certain length to this general article, I will only summarize the main weaknesses with Paul's doctrine.
First I'll deal with the first claim of Paul, that Jesus died on our behalf. The plain message of scripture is that each person is responsible for their own sins and the punishment for that sin. There is no mention in the law of Moses or the rest of the Jewish Bible of a man dying in the place of another. In fact it says the opposite:
Fathers shall not die for sons and sons shall not die for fathers. A man shall die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
The soul that sins, it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
In the Law of the Lord and in the Jewish Bible, the clear message is that everybody is responsible for their own sin. The principle shown by the above verses is that of personal accountability. Vicarious atonement - "a human life for a human life" - has no place in the Hebrew Scriptures! Christians will use unclear or out-of-context passages to support their view, but, after investigation, such proof-texting falls down, especially before clear and overt scriptures like these.
So Jesus couldn't die on our behalf, and his death would have no impact on the guilt or innocence of anyone else.
What about him dying whilst we are "ungodly" and "sinners"? Now if we are going according to the normal usage of words, we hit upon a problem here. Basically, Paul is saying that Jesus is the sacrifice for ungodly people. Now the Greek word in the new testament translated ungodly is ασεβης, asebes, meaning "without reverence, irreverent, impious, ungodly". In the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, it is normally used in the place of the Hebrew word רָשָׁע, rasha' which means a wicked person, a moral criminal, a wrong-doer. The question should be whether Deity accepts the sacrifice of asebes, rasha', ungodly and wicked people.
The book of Proverbs gives the answer:
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to GOD ... (Proverbs 15:8 - see also 21:27)
The reason why this verse is so relevant is that in the Hebrew version, the word for wicked is rasha', and in the Greek, the word for wicked is asebes: exactly the same word Paul is using to say that his sacrifice of the wicked is acceptable!
You see, in the Jewish Bible, if you are ungodly, then there is no point in offering sacrifices because they won't be accepted! Repentance is the core necessity in the Jewish Bible. See Isaiah 1 where the people offer all sorts of different sacrifices and prayers, and yet it was all useless because they hadn't changed their hearts and actions! In fact, the Almighty was sick and tired of all their services because repentance, a return from wrong actions to doing what is right, wasn't there. And there was no point in looking to Jesus figures, because, according to the last point, everyone is responsible for their own sins: some "righteous" person couldn't take the punishment for a wicked person!
That is the fundamental weakness of such thinking as Paul's. Paul has Jesus dying for unrepentant people. In the Tanakh, you must be repentant before the sacrifice! Or even at the sacrifice! But in the new testament view, humanity in general was ignorant of Jesus' very existence! And the majority of those who did know Jesus saw no sacrifice in Jesus' death. Basically, Jesus' death has no place or basis in the Law or the Hebrew Scriptures. Its root concepts are foreign to the methods and processes given in the Hebrew Bible, as if a man could die in another's place in the eyes of Deity.
The essential fact with Paul's logic is that he has twisted things so badly that even people who are repentant and wanting to change are, in his eyes, classed amongst the wicked and ungodly. Those who live their lives according to Torah and strive to please Deity are also seen as wicked by Paul and his disciples throughout time. Thankfully, the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible does not give such condemnation. And since the Hebrew Bible is the foundation of truth, and Paul's logic is foreign to it, then no one really needs to fear Paul's condemnation, nor that of his modern day acolytes.
For more information, you can see my Salvation and forgiveness article found at http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/Tanakh/Salvation_and_forgiveness.htm.
I'm just gonna put this in front of you just to let you think about it.
(1) Or are you ignorant, brothers - for I speak to those who know law - that the law rules the man for so long a time as he lives? (2) For the wife under a husband is bound, by law, for the lifetime of the husband. But if the husband die, she is made void [discharged] from the law of the husband. (3) Therefore if there be another man during the time of the husband, she shall bear the title "adulteress"; if the husband die, she is free from the law so it won't be that she becomes an adulteress with another man. (4) So too, my brother, also we have died to the law through the body of Christ to the end that we may be[long] to another who was woken from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to the Deity. (5) For while we were in the flesh, the influences of sin which are through the law were actively working in our body-parts in order to bear fruit for death. (6) But now, we have been made void [been discharged] from the law, being dead in that which we were held fast by; so too we serve in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:1-6)
Just read this and think about Paul's process of argument. What is the analogy? What is the reality that the analogy is describing? Does it really fit?
Whether you've done that or not, I'm gonna show you the analogy in simple terms with the reality that it is trying to describe so that we can come to some conclusions about what it is trying to say.
ANALOGY: As long as husband is alive, the wife must stay faithful to his law/rule until he's dead. After that she can marry another without guilt.
So this is the analogy. Question: Who dies? The husband! And who gets freedom by the husband dying? The wife!
OK, now let's look at the reality that the analogy describes.
PAUL'S REALITY: The believer [in Jesus] is dead to the Law (v.4) so that the believer can "marry" someone else, someone who has risen from the dead, i.e Jesus. The believer has been discharged from the law, since the believer is dead (v.6).
Now, that is the "reality". Question: who dies? The believer! And who gets freedom by the believer dying? The believer???
Wait there! The analogy is talking about the HUSBAND dying so that the WIFE can be discharged to marry someone else. But the "reality" has the BELIEVER being dead so that the BELIEVER can be discharged to marry someone else!?!
Now I believe you should be able to see the difficulty. One has the one person dying so that another can be free. In the other, we have someone dying in order for that same person, who is dead, to marry someone else. In order for an analogy to work, it has to be comparable with the reality it is trying to reflect. Paul's logic doesn't do that. To put in another way, in order for the analogy to work, the husband that should reflect the analogy, the law, should die; but instead, Paul kills the wrong person!
In essence, he is making no sense.
He compounds his error by seeking to deliver his readers and followers from the law, since it is old and decrepid in comparison to his "newness of spirit". Remember, he is saying that the believer is dead to the law. As you know, dead people don't uphold or keep laws. In fact, to be true to Paul's analogy, believers are discharged from being faithful to the law so that they can be married to Jesus! And this is odd considering the fact that in the same book of Romans, chapter 3 verse 31, Paul says that he doesn't make the law void, but rather, he upholds it! Yet he is saying that believers are dead to it and no longer need to be faithful to it. There is little difference between making the law void, and making void a person's commitment to it, which is what Paul's analogy ultimately points to: the discharging from, the making void of that relationship. The Greek in verse 2 and 6 of chapter 7 means to render idle, both refering to a nullifying of a relationship.
Now some may argue that they somehow fulfil the law by believing in Jesus. But there's a severe problem with this logic created by Paul himself. He is not advocating a righteousness that has anything to do with law! He is promoting a righteousness that only comes from belief in Jesus. It's as if Paul is saying that righteousness is the end goal, no matter how you get to it; thus you can get it [according to Paul, only theoretically] by law, or you can get it by faith. Now, assuming that this is true - which it isn't - Paul is by no means upholding law since he is still advocating a break away from it. His message never promoted law-keeping, but rather became foundational to both Jews, that is Jews that became christian, and non-Jews to move away from law-keeping and regarding large portions of it as abolished, redundant, surpassed, done away with, etc, which undermines the whole thing.
So looking at Paul's words here presents me with a mixed up picture of having one's cake and eating it too: essentially forsaking the law and yet claiming to fulfil it.
(7) Therefore, what shall we say? Is the law sin? May it not be so! But I didn't know sin except by means of the law; for I didn't know also the lust unless the law said, "you shall not lust". (8) But the sin, taking opportunity by means of the commandment, accomplished within me all [sorts of] lust. For apart from law, sin is dead. (9) But I lived without the law for some time, but when the commandment came, sin became animated, (10) and I died and the commandment that [should be] for life was found to me [to be] for death. (Roman 7:7-10)
Paul here is speaking of supposedly the human experience. To him, once law is brought into the picture then the desire to break it arises within him. To him, without law, there wouldn't be sin! Although Paul says that the law is holy and good, but sin uses that to kill people by making them do bad things and consigning them to death by the judgement of Deity by means of the law. In the context, Paul says that there is no good thing within him and thus it is impossible to keep the law, a law which gives life and strength to sin (1 Corinthians 15:56). Now this is only the personal sense, namely, Paul seems to be speaking personally.
Yet in Romans 5:13, Paul makes a similar claim that before the law, sin couldn't be "imputed". The word "imputed" is a translation of the Greek verb ελλογεω, euloge-o, which means "to put to a person's account; to lay a charge against someone". In this context, it means when there was no law, no one could be called a law-breaker, i.e., a sinner. Why? Because there was no law to break! But yet sin, somehow, existed. And Paul is clear to point out that he means "before the law of Moses" because, in Romans 5:12-14, he makes it a point to say that death came from sin, but although there was no law between Adam and Moses, death was still around!
Unfortunately, for all of Paul's arguments and logic, on both counts he is dead wrong.
With regards to the notion that sin could not be imputed before the law of Moses, a glance through the book of Genesis would set a person straight on such a notion. You see sin was "imputed" by the Almighty to the inhabitants of the earth in the days of Noah which is why the earth was destroyed by a flood (Genesis 6:5-7). According to Genesis 13:13, the people of Sodom were called wicked sinners, and in Genesis 18-19, they are held to account and killed because of that sinful status by Deity. The sons of Judah, Er and Onan, were killed because they did evil in the sight of Deity. Abimelech in Genesis 20, and Joseph in Genesis 39 were both afraid of the sin of adultery and knew it was a sin against Deity to commit such an act. All these are clear evidence that sin not only could be, but actually was charged against certain people and acts.
So on the first point about sin not being imputed, scripture shows Paul to be dead wrong!
With regards to the second point, Paul gives his own experience with sin and law. In his eyes, the holy law of Deity gives sin life and strength. But for others, the holy law of Deity gives a person strength to escape from sin by knowing and doing what is right in the eyes of Deity. Just read David's psalms, Psalm 19 and 119 and compare its glorious words about the law with Paul's essentially condemning words. It is the words of David that show the law to be holy, good, and righteous. It is the words of Paul that make it flawed, condemning, and essentially the cause of death.
Let me just show you a comparison between the words of Paul, and the words of the Law itself and David.
PAUL:... and the commandment that was meant to be for life was found to me to bring death. (Romans 7:10)
For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which came about because of the law worked in our body parts to bring forth fruit that brought death! (ibid. 7:5)
The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. (1 Corinthians 15:56)
Compare with the words of the Hebrew Bible:
(19) I make the heavens and the earth witnesses against you today: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse, and you shall choose life so that you may live, you and your seed, (20) to love GOD your Deity, to obey his voice, and to cling to him, for he is your life and the length of your days ... (Deuteronomy 30:19-20a)
(8) The law of GOD is perfect, restoring the soul. The testimony of GOD is sure, making the simple wise. (9) The precepts of GOD are upright, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of GOD is pure, giving light to the eyes. (10) The fear of GOD is clean, remaining forever. The judgments of GOD are truth, all together they are righteous. (11) They are more desireable than gold, than much fine gold. They are sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. (12) Also, your servant is warned by them. In keeping them, there is great result. (Psalm 19:8-12)
(1) Blessed are they who are upright in conduct, who walk in the Law of GOD. (45) I shall walk in liberty for I have sought your precepts. (92) If Your law had not been my pleasure, then I would have perished in my affliction. (93) I shall never forget your precepts, because, by them, you have given me life. (165) Those that love your law have much peace, there is no stumbling for them. (Psalm 119:1,92,93,165)
Now, there is a stark contrast between Paul's view and the Hebrew Scriptures' take on the commandments. Where Paul sees essentially death, the Jewish Bible preaches essential life. Paul struggles within himself because he thinks there's no good thing within him. But the Jewish Bible teaches that there is the potential for good in creation, a good that obedience to the law brings out. Paul makes the flesh seem evil, but in the Hebrew Bible, even the flesh cries out for Deity (Psalm 84:2). As shown in the small sample above, love for the Almighty shown by keeping his law is life-giving, cleansing, liberating, life-changing, and essentially beneficial. In effect, the total opposite of Paul's words!
You see, the weakness with Paul's words is that he assumes that it is true for any law-keeper, or for any person in general. But the fact is that it isn't! King David is proof of that. The law helps destroy sin by aiming at both the action and the thought behind the bad things; it does not give it strength. It is not the law that gives sin strength, no more than the framework and structure of the house give strength to the forces that which to tear it down.
And to be direct and personal: the problem is not with the law - it's with Paul! The law doesn't make the "sin" inside Paul come alive: his own weaknesses do! In cases like this, maybe he should have kept them to himself. If he couldn't, maybe he should have visited the ancient version of a psychiatrist or counsellor. Unfortunately, his followers take on his weaknesses and feel convinced that they share it. Well, the law is a remedy for that sort of thinking!
Paul makes the next two "positive" statements about the law:
(12) So too, the law then [is] holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good... (16) But if I do that which I don't wish to, I agree to the law that [it is] good. (Romans 7:12, 16)
Paul here seems to be saying something good about the law. It would appear that he's paying the law compliments by showing its "positive side". When he does a wrong thing, this only shows the law to be right. Those who love Paul will pounce on these few verses and say that he didn't disparage the law.
But let me give a small analogy of what Paul is actually doing. Fred goes to the doctors and finds out he has a serious illness. Shocked and dismayed, he asks his doctor for a remedy or some sort of cure or medication for his illness. The doctor gives him a bottle of pills and says that he must keep taking them regularly in order to survive the disease. He goes home and starts taking the pills. Then he receives a phone call from another doctor from another clinic who says the following:
"Hi Fred. I just had to call you because I've got some new information about the medication that old doctor gave you. That pill that you're taking is a great pill, fantastic, top of the range. In fact, the fact that you're sick shows that it is a great pill. But there's only one problem: it will kill you! In fact it can never cure you. There's a chance it was even given just to make sure that you were sick! In fact, it is known that the sickness will use the medication itself to make sure you die!
Now Fred, who is suffering with this serious illness, would be shocked! The good things that the second doctor says about the pill would mean absolutely nothing. It matters diddly squat (i.e., not at all) that the second doctor said that the pill is great and fantastic. The fact is the pill is ensuring Fred's death, signing his death warrant, and dooming Fred's health and life! The words of the second doctor make the words of the first doctor into a lie. The pill essentially won't help him survive the disease: it will make sure that the disease ends him!!!
To put it bluntly, the second doctor did nothing to make the drug sound good. Those few words he gave does nothing in light of the context. He has basically said that a drug that should cure is actually a poison, and nothing can be as insulting as saying that something that was meant to give life actually brings death.
Paul does the same thing, going against the constant theme of the Hebrew Scriptures and saying that the law which "if a man does it, he shall live because of it" actually is the cause of death! There is little point in arguing that Paul is really saying that it isn't the law that brings death but sin. The fact is that such thinking still makes the law ineffective and powerless, as opposed to what the Lord himself said about the law in the Hebrew Scriptures, and makes it a tool sin uses to kill!
In essence, Paul is just paying lip-service to the law.
In this analogy, what should Fred do? The fact is that wisdom would tell Fred to check with the first doctor and his sources and clinic before he took the advice of the second doctor. In the same way, a person should check the sources first, the Hebrew Bible and its plain meaning. They'll then see the error and nigh-hypocrisy (if not full hypocrisy) of Paul.
(16) But if I do that which I don't wish to, I agree to the law that [it is] good. (17) But now I no longer accomplish it, but the sin living in me. (18) For I know that in me (that is, in the flesh) dwells no good thing, for to will is present to me, but to accomplish the good thing, I don't find. (19) For I don't do the good I wish, but the evil I don't wish, that I habitually do. (20) But if I do that which I don't wish, no longer am I accomplishing it but the sin living in me. (Romans 7:16-20)
Paul here seems to be shifting the burden of guilt for his wrong doings to "the sin living in him": "it's not me, it's the sin!" That is an accurate paraphrase of verse 20. Then he says that in him, in the flesh, there is no good thing, and calls himself one bearing much suffering, distress and hardship, tortured and persecuted in verse 24 (translated as "wretched" in the KJV). Sin seems to take on a life of its own, making Paul do what he doesn't want to do, as if, without Jesus, he doesn't really have a choice.
Once again, Paul's words and views can be contrasted with the scriptural view of sin and choice. I'm not going to repeatedly quote scriptures that I have used numerous times before, but it just answers so many arguments Paul is spouting. In Deuteronomy 30, the message is clear that not only has a choice been placed before the people, but they have the power and ability to make that choice! Moses says that they cannot complain that the law is somehow beyond them since it is near to them in order that they can do it. He adds further that good and evil have been placed before them and plainly makes it known that they can choose which way to go and what actions to do (Deuteronomy 30:11-20). Again referring to Psalm 119, the psalmist says a significant number of times that he has chosen or taken the way of truth and righteousness (Psalm 119:30,111,173).
There is no point in saying that somehow Israel was somehow superior to the nations in this ability to choose, because from Cain, in the first chapters of Genesis, to Nebuchadnezar and Nineveh in the books of the later prophets and writings, the same choice was offered! Cain was told that if he would do well, do better, then they would be acceptance, elevation, and forgiveness; he was told that sin is waiting at his door, but he can rule over it (Genesis 4:7). Nebuchadnezar was told that he can break off from his wicked ways and do righteousness and kindness (Daniel 4:27). Nineveh was told of an upcoming judgment from the Almighty and turned away from their evil deeds, repented, and were saved (Jonah 3).
The notion that we are helpless slaves, "sold under sin" (Romans 7:14), is contradicted by the plain narratives and commands in the Hebrew Bible. Despite the negative things the Hebrew Scriptures may say about man, it always shows that righteousness is possible and that it is only a choice away. Even the flesh, which Paul condemns as a source of sin that is opposed to his "spirit" concept, can yearn for Deity (Psalm 63:1; 84:2). The fact is that in the Hebrew Bible people are responsible for their choices because they are able to make that choice. They are not forced or compelled by some "other" force dwelling within them. Each one of us has conflicting desires within us, but merit comes from exercising the choice that the Almighty gave us, even in the face of those conflicting desires. That's what makes us responsible. The flesh simply does the ultimate will of the owner of that body, be it righteous or wicked.
But just to reiterate, the scriptures show that we are not slaves to sin. Righteousness is possible, and it is just a choice away!
Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 to make the simple point that although Abraham had more than one son, it was Isaac through whom the special seed and promise should come to pass. This is one of those rare moments where, in this point alone, Paul actually seems to go with the plain understanding of scripture. But that is until we come to the next verse.
That is, the children of the flesh these [are] not children of the Deity, but the children of the promise are regarded as offspring (Romans 9:8)
What happens a few times in Paul's writings is that he says something that actually seems to go with the plain understanding of scripture and doesn't contain much of his agenda-driven "interpretation", i.e., imposing his own doctrine onto scripture. But then he continues and reveals that really he was using it for his own devices. This is one of those times.
Once Paul makes the statement that it wasn't all of Abraham's offspring that were chosen, only Isaac, he then proceeds to say that only those offspring who continue the promise are really counted as true offspring, implying that he means those Jews in his own day that accepts his views about Jesus: they are supposed to be the true children of Deity.
But here we hit upon a snag, a problem. Paul's analogy only goes so far. In real biblical history, it is true that Isaac was chosen from all the other sons of Abraham, and that Jacob was blessed instead of Esau. But after Jacob, who was chosen or, more properly, singled out from amongst the brothers to receive Abraham's promise? None! They each became the different tribes of Israel and the promise was fulfilled through all of their children when they possessed the land and became the chosen and peculiar people of the Lord. Now although the birthright was Joseph's, the promise was shared through the 12 sons of Jacob and their descendants. So the "children of promise" concept may have worked back in the days of Abraham, but they have no real applicability in the days of Paul, especially with his application of relying more on faith in Jesus than following the law of the Lord as given to the children of Israel in the days of Moses.
Essentially, Paul has no right to pick and choose who are the children of promise centuries after that time, especially when his words conflict with the history given to Israel.
It should be noted that Paul here is making a launchpad for his predestination message which follows which says that some are chosen before they're even born, devoid of that person's choice in life. Let's see how this goes.
The first thing that needs to be done with this little section is just to read it for what it says. This is important to deal with its claims.
(11) For when they [Esau and Jacob] were not yet born and not having done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose according to [the] selection of the Deity should remain - not from works but from the One that calls, (12) it was said to her that "the greater shall be a slave to the lesser" (13) even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau". (Romans 9:11-13)
Now just look at the natural flow of these verses, taking all the words into account! What is Paul saying? Before Esau and Jacob were even born, a selection was made by Deity between Esau and Jacob without them having a choice in the matter or doing anything. Now note that Paul has said that this happened before they were born. It was for this purpose that the Almighty said that the older brother shall serve the younger, that Esau would serve Jacob. But Paul adds that it was written that the Lord hated Esau and loved Jacob. And all this is done to show that it is not about works, good or bad deeds, but just about "the One who calls". This is confirmed by the verses that follow this little passage as well.
Now it is true that one statement was given before Esau and Jacob were born, the one that says that the older shall serve the younger. That was definitely done before they were born (Genesis 25:23) and has no bearing on Deity's relationship with someone. Someone can be born into royalty and another into poverty and both have equal chance of having a good relationship with Deity.
But the next quote, the quote that says that the Lord hates one and loves the other, this was given centuries after Jacob and Esau were long dead (Malachi 1:2b-3a)! There is no statement about the sort of relationship the two brothers would have with Deity before they were born. Yet the way Paul quotes one and then the other with little difference between is very misleading and can cause a person to think that the Lord also hated one and loved the other before they were born. What bearing does this verse have on the topic?
The context of Malachi 1:2b-3a makes the interpretation of the verses quite open. The passage is talking about the nations descended from Jacob, that being Israel, and Esau, that being Edom, and thus the Lord may be saying that he loves one nation and hates the other. But it could also be understood in the way that the Lord actually loved Jacob and hated Esau. But the main thing about this small section of Malachi is that it doesn't tell you when the Lord loved/hated either.
Plus, some may argue that Paul is just giving the one verse as a prophecy and the other as a fulfilment. But I would just ask those who make this argument to just read the verses. You'll find that one says "serve" or "be slave", and the other says "love/hate". One has nothing to do with the other, and Malachi says nothing about Esau serving Jacob. So such an argument lacks any real basis because the link between the two quotes is not strong at all in that way.
The main point of Paul is that Jacob was loved and Esau was hated independent of any deeds. But Malachi doesn't give this notion at all. The way Deity felt about either son before they were born has no part in Malachi chapter 1. Paul is actually giving a baseless and empty interpretation of Malachi, and here's why.
If one reads scripture they will take note of what the Lord loves and hates. Every single time it is an action, character trait, or a habitual way of living, a lifestyle. For example, in the book of Proverbs, the Lord hates seven things and each is an act (Proverbs 6:16-19), and, in Psalms, he loves justice (Psalm 33:5). There is a trend in scripture of the Lord responding to the deeds and ways of individual humans and groups. There is not one sign of the Lord expressing any of these positive or negative responses/"feelings" before a deed is done or a person is born.
To apply this to the verse in Malachi 1, it becomes apparent that, since there is no sign that the Lord had any "feeling" towards either person before their birth, there is another reason why the Almighty would love or hate the individual brother. If you read about the lives of Jacob and Esau, many reasons could be given as to why the Almighty would love Jacob and hate Esau. Jacob chose to desire the right things, even if he didn't always go the best way about getting these things. He obeyed the Creator and did as he was told. Esau had a powerful gift from birth in being the firstborn and having a birthright, but he despised it. And for what? For a bowl of soup! And when he found out later that his brother had taken his blessing from their father, Isaac, he swore to kill him. If you look at the actions of each nation throughout history, there are still signs as to why the Lord would still be faithful in his love for the nation descended from Jacob, and why he would despise the nation descended from Esau.
In essence, Paul has taken Malachi 1:2b-3a out of context since it has no bearing whatsoever to his argument. It says nothing about Esau serving Jacob, and gives no credence to Paul's notion that either brother was loved or hated before birth, whether we are talking about the brothers as individuals or as the nations that came from them. In fact, since his main point is how the Lord chooses to act with people regardless of their deeds, the general tenor of scripture and the history of the brothers and their nations refutes part of what Paul is saying. How? Because the Creator's love or hate of them was based on their actions, not on a choice before they were even born, which goes against Paul's point exactly!
Paul continues:
(14) So what shall we say? Isn't there unrighteousness with the Deity? May it not be so! (15) For he says to Moses, "I shall have mercy on whomever I have mercy and I shall have pity on whomever I have pity. (16) Therefore not of the one who wishes nor of the one who runs, but of the mercy-showing Deity. (Romans 9:14-16)
Again, take in what Paul is saying. What he says here may also be applied to the previous point. Paul is saying, based on his version of what the Almighty said to Moses in Exodus 33:19, that it's not about what a person does that matters to Deity. It doesn't matter what you do! The Lord does what he wants when he wants to irrespective of the deeds or will of man. The Lord's words to Moses proves that, right?
Honestly, to some extent, on this point alone, there is some truth to this. I mean, we're talking of the Almighty Unchanging Creator who is beyond space and time. So in some ways, it doesn't matter what we do: he does as he wills (whatever that means on his level of "existence")!
But that's only to some extent! What about with this particular point? So far, Paul seems to be mixing two points: being chosen and being acceptable. I say that because so far he has talked about Esau and Isaac in both ways, and these ways are separate from one another. A person can be chosen for a particular task and be unacceptable to the Deity, and another can be not chosen for something and yet, in his station, live a life acceptable before Deity. So being part of a select group is not the same as being acceptable before Deity.
But what sort of text is Paul using here to buttress his point? Does it have to do with being chosen or with being acceptable before Deity? Since it is speaking of mercy and compassion, it has to be the latter: being acceptable.
So if Paul's point is that it doesn't matter what you do, Deity forgives who he wants to regardless, then does the context of Exodus 33:19 bear this out? The actual verse in Exodus says the following:
(18) And [Moses] said: Please, let me see your glory. (19) And [the Creator] said: I shall cause all my goodness to pass before your face, and I shall call out with the name of GOD in front of you; and I shall grant favour to whom I grant favour, and I shall show compassion to whom I show compassion. (Exodus 33:18-19)
The verse itself doesn't sound much different to Paul's version does, apart from the fact that Paul is actually saying "whomever", and the verse is just saying "whom". Paul just adds a bit more uncertainty as to who is getting the favour and compassion. Now it wouldn't be best for me to give an interpretation of this verse because there are just so many interpretations from different sides. We need to see what we can and cannot get from this verse.
What we can get from the verse is that the Almighty is speaking to his servant Moses, who has asked a favour of him, and that favour is granted. In the midst of this, the statement in question is said. Now what should be plain is that all the Almighty says, in essence, is that he does something nice to the person he wants to do it to. In this case, it is Moses. But what also should be plain is that there is no sign in this statement that it includes the notion "irrespective of what man does or wants". To clarify, the Almighty did not say, "I do what I want and it don't care what you do or want". It simply says "I show kindness to the person I show it to". This verse says nothing about whether man's will or actions have any impact on what kindness the Lord shows him. So it cannot do anything to support Paul's point. Paul is making a claim; this verse doesn't say anything about that claim; and so this verse cannot help Paul's cause at all. And it doesn't.
In fact, when it comes to mercy and compassion, it is obvious that man's action to play a role in how it is given. In the context of Exodus 33, the Almighty is showing compassion to Moses by answering his prayers and showing him his glory. So he shows his kindness to a righteous man. In the context of Torah, the relationship between Israel and Deity depends on Israel (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 11,28,30; Jeremiah 3:12,13; 2 Chronicles 7:13,14) to the point where the nation can choose to do what the Lord says and be blessed, or disobey and be cursed. In the context of the whole Hebrew Bible, the Almighty shows mercy to people dependant on what they do (Ezekiel 18,33; Proverbs 28:13). So these show that the Almighty's mercy can and does depend on man's will and acts, which contradicts Paul's words.
So Paul's contention that mercy and compassion are given irrespective of deed is false. Also Paul takes a verse out of context to make a point, since the verse in context gives no support to what he's claiming.
Paul continues:
(16) So therefore, it is not of those who wish nor of those who run but of the mercy-showing Deity. (17) For the scripture speaks of Pharaoh that "for this, this, I raised you up so that I may demonstrate in you my power and that my name may be declared in all the earth. (18) So therefore, whom he wishes he has mercy, and whom he wishes he hardens.(Romans 9:16-18)
Before I begin, it's necessary to reiterate the point that Paul is trying to make, i.e., that it doesn't matter about the will, desire, or actions of man; the Almighty does what he wants. He has mercy on who he want and, here, he makes stubborn whomever he wants, regardless of whether a man does good or evil. Paul's argument here is that the Lord set up Pharaoh up in order to make him stubborn, irrespective of whether that king of Egypt had done good or bad. This was preordained even before the guy was born.
But look at what the scripture actually said:
(14) For in this time, I'm sending all my inflictions to your heart and upon your servants in order that you may know that there is none like me in all the earth. (15) For now, I could have stretched out my hand and struck you down and your people with an epidemic, and you would have been destroyed from the earth. (16) However for this reason I have caused you to stand firm [other translations say "preserved you alive" or "maintained you" or "caused you to remain"]: in order to show you my might, and so that my name may be recounted in all the earth. (Exodus 9:14-16)
Now look at the verse in context! The Almighty is talking, saying that he could have destroyed Pharaoh and his people already. But there is a reason why Pharaoh still exists. Because the Almighty is using him to make his might known throughout the world! But what does it mean, to cause to stand firm? Well in this context, we only have to use the previous verse to help us understand the current one. In this case, we find that the Lord could have destroyed Pharaoh already, whilst he was still king. But rather than the Almighty destroying Pharaoh earlier, he has let or kept the king of Egypt continue in power. So this is about the king remaining in power, nothing about a plan that occurred before birth. In fact, there is nothing overt in the text that would make a person think that this was some pre-ordained plan. Well, at least, no one without an agenda to see predestination in the text.
The text and the context is rather clear: although the Lord could have killed the king of Egypt already, he has let him continue to live and stay in power so that the world may hear about his power and unique-ness. The notion that the Lord is speaking of some pre-ordained purpose before Pharaoh was born doesn't fit the context or the flow of the sentence very well.
Also let's talk about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Was this done irrespective of his will? Did the Almighty simply force himself on Pharaoh's will? Or did the Creator pre-programme him and the situation? Is this borne out by the story? If you actually chart the progress of the plagues that the Lord sent to Egypt and the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, you will find that for the first five plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart first, and only after that it is said that the Almighty hardened Pharaoh's heart. So although the Lord said that he will harden Pharaoh's heart, this process was only started after Pharaoh rebelled of his own choice. Thus, it appears that the Lord's hardening of Pharaoh's heart was a judgment against Pharaoh, rather than the Lord pulling Pharaoh's strings from the beginning. It is a consequence of Pharaoh's own rebellion.
Therefore it cannot be said that what the Lord did had nothing to do with Pharaoh's will or actions. It was Pharaoh's own rebellion which brought about the judgment in the hardening of his heart and then his downfall.
To summarize, Paul's point is that the Lord acts regardless of what people do or think. But Exodus shows that the Lord responded to what Pharaoh did and thought. Thus, in the end, it actually ends up refuting Paul's case rather than helping it. So, in the end, this is another case of Paul taking a verse out of context.
Unfortunately, the situation doesn't get any better with Paul's rendering of scripture as we shall see in his next quote.
(22) And [what] if the Deity, willing to demonstrate the wrath and to make known his power, bore with much longsuffering a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction (23) And so that he would make known the richness of his glory upon a vessel of mercy which was prepared-beforehand for glory? (24) Us whom also he called not only from out of the Jews but also out of nations, (25) as also in Osee he says, "I shall call the not-my-people my people, and the not-beloved beloved... " [quoted from Hoshea 2:23] (26) "... and it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, You [are] not my people, there they shall be called sons of living Deity." [quoted from Hoshea 1:10] (Romans 9:22-26)
This is the beginning of another of Paul's lists of so-called scriptural proofs and supports for his claims. What we need to do here is to be wary of what he is quoting and where he is quoting it from in order to see if his words actually fit with what the original passages are saying.
So what is Paul saying here? He is making a claim that people who are not Jews are now the people of the Lord. He uses a verse in Hoshea (in the Greek, it sounds like O-say-eh or O-see-eh and is spelt similarly, "Osee"). Now from what I read of christian commentaries of this verse, there is a general, majority view that Paul here is using these verses in Hoshea (or Hosea in xtian versions) and applying them to gentiles, i.e., where it says "I shall call the not-my-people my people", the "not-my-people" is the gentiles who the Almighty, according to Paul, now accepts as his people and children of living Deity.
I would implore you, the reader, to take up the book of Hoshea and read it from the beginning with the mind to let it, the book of Hoshea, speak for itself. The prophet wrote quite clearly, so I don't think you should find much difficulty. Take account of context, both in regards to time and the text itself, and you will find a startling yet obvious truth! What is this truth? It is the answer to the question of who Hoshea is talking to and who he is talking about.
I'll summarize these two chapters of Hoshea to answer that question. In the time of the kings of Judah and Israel, the Lord came to Hoshea telling him to marry and have children with a whore, because he wants to show how the nation of Israel has turned to whoredom with other gods, turning away from following Deity (Hoshea 1:1-2). So a context has already been set: we are dealing with the bad ways of the nation of Israel. Seeing that we need to find out if the subject of the topic changes to speak of the gentiles, we need to read on.
This whore, called Gomer, has a son. The Lord tells Hoshea to call the boy Jezreel since, in the end, he is going to end the kingdom of Israel (ibid. verse 4). So the conversation subject is still the same: Israel and what is to befall it due to its sins. The whore then has a daughter who the Lord names Lo-ruhammah (meaning, no compassion); and the Creator gives the girl this name because he's going to have "no compassion on the house of Israel" (ibid. verse 6). Again, we are talking about Israel the nation. We can know he is talking about Israel the nation because in the next verse he compares his negative treatment of Israel to the better treatment he'll give to the land of Judah. So we're talking about countries of a specific people group called Israel, the nation.
Now all this time, the Almighty has been speaking to and about the nation Israel. So we come to the final son Gomer has, and the Lord calls him Lo-ammi (not my people) because he says "you are not my people" (ibid. verse 9). Since the subject hasn't changed from the beginning, we can know that he is still talking about Israel, saying that they are no longer his people. Now continuing in the christian english version (since the Jewish version starts a new chapter here), it says the following:
And the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea which can not be measured nor numbered. And it shall be that the place where it was said to them, you are not my people, it shall be said to them: children of the Living Mighty One! (Hoshea 1:10 in xtian versions)
Note the receipient of the blessings in this verse: the children of Israel; and to them it is said that "you are my people" and "children of the Living Mighty One". This is, again, made plain by the fact that the next verse speaks of the land of Judah and the land of Israel gathering together and having one ruler. In order for it to point to someone else, the text has to be ripped unnaturally from its textual context, and all meaning made fuzzy and arbitrary (based on individual [or group] choice and selfish desire). And guess what! By spiritualizing clear texts like these, Paul and his followers commit that dishonourable act to and against the word of Deity. For them, it seems like it doesn't matter what the words say, but what they want it to mean.
There are two ways in which this act of only hearing what you want applies to what Paul and his followers throughout history have done to these "proof texts". They can be described in two twists of an analogy:
It's like a man having two sons, one called Jerry and the other called Michael. The man dies and leaves behind his last will and testament that states plainly: all the house goes to my son, Michael. And Jerry, wanting to possess the house, says that his name is now changed to "Michael" and claims ownership of the house and attempts to kick the original Michael out of the house, or at least belittles his claim to it. But people outside the house still call Jerry by his original name, "Jerry", but when Jerry wants to, when he wants to be linked to something he wants that should belong to Michael, he claims again that his name is "Michael" and claims what should belong to the original Michael. That is theft, both of identity and property. Yet Paul and his followers do the same here. But that's only if - and that's a big "if" - they are paying attention to the biblical context.
If they aren't paying attention to the biblical context and just taking verses and statements out of context, then what they are doing is like Jerry, in this analogy, hearing the will say "to Michael: I leave all the house to you", and yet, because he wants the house, totally ignoring the words "to Michael" and just taking on board the words "I leave all the house to you". Thus Jerry selectively hears the words and understands it as "I leave all the house to you, namely Jerry".
In either case, it is a gross mistreatment of the word of Deity.
Now I only dealt with Hoshea 1:10 which Paul quotes. But he also quotes chapter 2 verse 23. Question: has the subject of Hoshea's prophecy changed between chapter 1:10 and chapter 2:23? Well, the passage continues by going back to the analogy of Gomer being like Israel in her whoredom, and her children pleading with her. It shows the abuse she is treated to in her harlotry, still in that Gomer-Israel analogy, and the Lord alluring Israel back to him, a state compared to when she came out of Egypt (ibid 2:15 in xtian versions). No part of the whole passage shows any sign of changing subject: from beginning to end, at the very least of these two chapters in question, it starts with Israel and it ends with Israel.
So what can I say? There is absolutely no sign that Paul has tried to explain the verse as it is written. Rather, he seems to simply use the words of Hoshea out of natural context for his own purposes as a support for claims that have no strength or basis in the biblical passages he rips to shreds.
Unfortunately, the disappointment continues.
Paul then gives the following quote:
(27) And Esaias cries out concerning Israel, Even if the number of the children of Israel [is] as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved. (28) For he is finishing and cutting short a word in righteousness, because the Lord shall make on the earth a word cut short. (Romans 9:27-28)
For all those wondering what "a word" is in verse 28, it is most likely a word of prophecy, i.e., the prophecy being fulfilled and its period of fulfilment cut short.
So we have Paul quoting Isaiah 10:22-23. Let's look at what that says.
(22) For though your people, Israel, be as the sand of the sea, a remnant amongst it shall return; destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness. (23) For [it is] a destruction and it is being decreed; Lord GOD of hosts is doing [it] in the midst of all the earth.
Now if you read both of these versions, Paul's and the translation of the Hebrew, you will see that they don't say exactly the same thing. Paul speaks of "cutting short a word in righteousness". Isaiah says nothing about this. In fact, Isaiah speaks of the opposite: overflowing with righteousness. One speaks of a cutting short and the other speaks of abundance. So Paul isn't quoting Isaiah properly here.
This is due to the fact that Paul is relying, at this point, on the Septuagint, also called the LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. And it is well known that the LXX is notoriously bad when it comes to translating the book of Isaiah as can be seen here. I'm not gonna bother with some claim that the LXX may have used other Hebrew versions since that is a claim based on no real fact. It's best to use what we have. So Paul is working using a lousy translation.
But not only is Paul guilty of using a bad translation, he is again guilty of a method he makes use of so often that it seems to be his normal mode of operation. What is that method, in case you don't know? Well, if one were to look at the whole of Isaiah 10, you will see that it has very little, if anything, to do with what Paul is talking about. The constant theme of Isaiah 10 is the Lord using Assyria to discipline a nation that worships idols and the events and judgments that flow from doing that. Both before and after verse 22 and 23 in Isaiah 10, Assyria, or Asshur, is mentioned and referred to, once with the Lord telling the people how he is using that nation (vs 5-11), then how he will punish them (vs 12-19), what will happened to Israel in those days (vs 20-23), and lastly how the people of Judah should be comforted in the fact that Assyria will not touch them (vs 24-32). As can be seen, this has nothing to do with Paul's claims. The time setting is all wrong. Assyria didn't exist in Paul's day.
So basically, he has taken the verses out of context, paying no attention to what the context is talking about, but just using some of its verses to boost his own agenda.
If Paul is simply using this verse to say that a similar case exists in his time where a remnant shall be saved, he still relies on a lousy translation and it does nothing to help or prove his case, since to just say "this happened then and is happening now" is a overly-superficial, out of context, understanding of Isaiah 10:22-23, and doesn't prove any link between the two incidents. So in this case, the usage of such a scripture does nothing for Paul's case
Paul continues his barrage of verses:
And even as Esaias said beforehand, if the Lord of Sabaoth had not left over for us a seed, we would have been like Sodom, and would have been similar to Gomorrah. (Romans 9:29)
Now how Paul is using this verse is uncertain. If he is saying that his situation is similar to what was said in Isaiah's time, then his usage is valid, although it does nothing to add any scriptural authority to his words. It is not as though Paul is using it to back himself up. He is just using his opinion to judge the majority of Israel as being condemned and outcasts. That's his opinion, and Isaiah gives him no authority to make such a judgment. His own opinion doesn't mean very much.
If Paul is using these words to give himself any scriptural foundation, then the rug is swiftly pulled from his feet once a person looks into the passage he quotes from. Isaiah wasn't talking about Paul's time and his, Isaiah's, words were not foretellings of the future, but rather a statement about how his people were in his time. Thus, Paul is still relying on his own opinion to judge and condemn his fellow Israelites, an opinion that has, so far, been seen to be questionable on all levels: biblical, logical, and realistic.
So far, Paul's verses don't seem to be really proving his point. And then he says this:
Even as it has been written: See, I place in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of entrapment and anyone who believes on him/it shall not be disgraced. (Romans 9:33)
This passage or quote is used by Paul to show that although the nations who didn't pursue righteousness still get a righteousness based on faith, Israel, who had a law of righteousness, didn't get righteousness because in relying on the deeds of law-keeping they stumbled with regards to Jesus, who Paul sees as this stone.
Lets ask the first and primary question: where is Paul quoting from? Where is this verse taken from?
What you may be surprised to know - if you didn't know it - is that what Paul has done here is to take verses from two different chapters of Isaiah, separated by around 20 chapters, taken different bits of each verse, and glued them together in some odd unity. Here are the verses.
(13) GOD of hosts, Him you shall sanctify, and he is your fear, and he is your dread. (14) And he shall become a sanctuary and a stone for striking [the foot] and a rock of stumbling for the two houses of Israel, for a trap and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 8:13-14)
Therefore thus has my Lord GOD said: See me, he [who] set in place a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a costly corner, a firmly set foundation, the one who trusts shall not make haste. (Isaiah 28:16)
Now look at what Paul has done: he has taken a part of Isaiah 28:16, and then glued it on to Isaiah 8:14, and then glued the final part of Isaiah 28:16 at the end. This makes up his proof-text, a subtle piece of biblical editing. It cannot be said that Paul was quoting one and then the other separately; he is actually melding two verses into one.
Can such a treatment of scripture be called honest? And if Paul was mistaken, then how can the "holy spirit" have inspired his work? The holy spirit is known to be not the author of error, so who put this error into Paul's work? As far as I can see, either Paul is mistaken and thus his words cannot be inspired by the spirit of the true Deity, or he is editing the words of the Almighty which is an unnecessary and dishonest act which also means his words cannot be inspired by the true spirit of Deity. If the word of the Lord doesn't say what a person wants it to say in the way that person wants it said, that doesn't give anyone the right to chop a section here and add it to a section there, or mix up two verses to make it look as if it is one verse. The way Paul has misused these verses can only be seen as deceptive.
What makes the problem worse for Paul is that Isaiah 8:14 isn't talking about Jesus, or even a messiah. In that passage it is the living Almighty Deity himself who is the stone, and the time of the prophecy is set in the age of Assyrian empire. There is no overt messianic meaning to these verses. But such a thing is said when you simply try to read the passage and what it is saying, rather than having the idea of Jesus in your head and reading that idea into scripture. But in such a case, that person isn't reading scripture: they are simply reading the product of their own ideas whilst scripture remains silent.
Isaiah 28 is an ambiguous text which makes for a difficult text to use for backing up a point such as Paul's, and it still seems to refer to a time around that of Isaiah, not the distant future. Within the context (see Isaiah 28, especially verse 21), it speaks of the Lord rising up as he did when David defeated the Philistines (Perazim - 2 Samuel 5) and like he did when it aided Joshua against the 5 kings in Canaan (Joshua 10). Nothing like that happened in Jesus' day. And there is nothing overtly messianic about the text; there is nothing that shows that it's talking about anything to do with the future Davidic king. So again, Paul is walking directly on quicksand barefooted.
No matter how Paul's usage of these verse can be seen, it all comes out with the same result: being wrong and possibly being despicable.
Paul then makes a startling statement. I'll give it in the Greek first and then the English. Hopefully it won't put readers off.
τελος γαρ νομου χριστος εις δικαιοσυνην παντι τω πιστευοντι
For christ is the end of law unto righteousness for all the believers.
The key word in this verse is τελος, telos, which is here translated as "end". This has been the centre of controversy between christians who believe the law is done away with and is now ended, and those Paul-lovers who think that Paul didn't have such a hard-line, "law-is-totally-finished" view. They both have their understandings of what this word means. Part of my time in christianity included being part of this debate. And the proper understanding of this verse will tell us how people who just accept the Hebrew Bible alone, and not the christian "new testament" should view Paul.
So what does this word, telos, mean? The verbal form of this word, tele-o, means "to end", i.e., to complete, execute, conclude, dicharge a debt. It is from a primary verb, tell-o< which means to set out for a definite point or goal. Thus the word telos means "the point aimed at as a limit, a conclusion of an act, a termination point, a result, impost or levy. That is according to Strong's dictionary. It is further discussed by Thayer who confirms most of this, but adds that in general ancient Greek writings, it does mean the termination point of a state or an act, but not of time or space, where other greek words would be used; but in "scripture", it can include those meanings. One of Thayer's definitions is "to put an end to", which, in his dictionary and in this discussion, is very relevant.
With all this in mind, lets look at the contextual meaning of Romans 10:4. Paul has been saying that law-keeping doesn't make a person righteous, and doesn't give righteousness, but rather faith, faith in Jesus, does. In Galatians, Paul compares the law - we are still talking about the law of Moses - to an ancient type of servant who would lead young children to their destination, e.g., to school. So in Paul's mind, the law leads people to Jesus. In Romans 9:31, Israel follows after the law of righteousness but cannot reach its standards. And in the verse directly before the one in question, Romans 10:3, Paul says that the Jews are ignorantly trying to get a righteousness of their own, rejecting the righteousness of the Almighty. Now if we put this together, Paul is equating Jews trying to get their own righteousness with them following the law of Moses (cf Romans 9:31 with 10:3). So to the Jew, in Paul's eyes, law-keeping is a way of getting righteousness. This then leads us into what chapter 10 verse 4 means.
So what does Paul mean in this verse? Remember, the translation is that "Christ: the end of law unto righteousness for all the believers." The phrase "law unto righteousness" means the law towards righteousness, or "the law in order to have righteousness". In this verse, it means that Jesus is seen as the end of keeping the law in order to be righteous or to have righteousness; and this is the case only for those who have faith, who believe in him. This coincides with so much that Paul has been saying throughout the book of Romans and all his books. Those who have faith already have the righteousness which comes from faith, and thus they do not have to keep the law to get righteousness. This does match how Thayer understood this verse, when he says concerning the word telos,
... i.q. he who puts an end to: ... Christ has brought the law to an end ... (Thayers' Greek Lexicon, under the heading τελος, telos)
Remember, keeping the law to be righteous, or to get righteousness, is now finished for those who believe in Jesus. That is Paul's point.
But why was the law given in the first place? Not only did it maintain the holy, set-apart status of Israel, it granted them life and good, sustained their special relationship with Deity, and it was righteousness for the people (Deuteronomy 6:24-25; Leviticus 18:5). All of this can be seen just by reading the book of Deuteronomy. Later scriptural passages show that it is what a person does and how he lives that makes a person righteous, not simply what he believes (Ezekiel 18:5-9).
There is nothing at all stated in the Hebrew Scriptures that shows that the keeping of the law would come to an end. And understand that it must come to an end if what Paul is saying is true. The law's most significant purpose is to order people's lives according to the will of Deity, i.e., make them righteous. There is no point in saying that some people, like so-called messianic "Jews" - or more properly, christians editing and ripping Judaism's oral law - keep the law just to show that they are grateful to the Almighty, and not in order to be righteous, because, even logically, that is the whole purpose of law: to govern a person's conduct according to a standard, in this case, the Divine standard. In essense, law is meant to make a person righteous. If you are not keeping law to do that, then it is simply an empty gesture, since its main purpose has been terminated.
Again, the Hebrew Scriptures say absolutely nothing about the law coming to an end. In fact, it says the absolute opposite, prophesying that in the world to come, the law will be written upon people's hearts to the point where they keep what it says naturally. Remember, I said they keep the law, not that they believe in the 10 "commandments" whilst believing the entirety of the rest of the law is nailed to the cross. I don't mean those who pick and choose which "moral" law they deem to be applicable today. The law which spans across the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy comprises of hundreds of commands, not just 10. And it is that law which will be kept in the restored world (Jeremiah 31:30-33; Ezekiel 37:21-24). The very last prophet in the Jewish Bible imposed that message upon his listeners/readers amongst his last words:
Remember the law of Moses my servant, whom I commanded on Horeb for all Israel, statutes and ordinances. (Malachi 4:4)
Paul is reaching the message that says that, in one way or another, the law is terminated, that it has come to an end. But this is only in rebellion and defiance against what the word of the Almighty, the Hebrew Scriptures, say for themselves.
Here comes another of Paul's "wonderful" uses of scripture. If you have read this article from the beginning, you'll know that that is sarcasm.
(4) For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for all the believers. (5) For Moses describes the law-derived righteousness, that "the man who does it shall live in it" [Leviticus 18:5]. (6) And the faith-derived righteousness speaks in this manner, "Don't say in your heart, who shall ascend into the heaven?" - that is to bring Christ down - (7) "or who shall descend into the deep?" - that is to bring Christ up from the dead. (8) But what does it say? "The word is near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart" - that is the word of faith that we proclaim: (9) that if ever you shall confess in your mouth Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that the Deity raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. (Romans 10:4-9)
For a more in-depth look at how Paul abuses, no, he rapes, plunders, and pillages that verse, then look at my article called Deuteronomy 30 - a chapter abused. But here, I shall at least give a brief summary of Paul's usage of these verses.
Paul here is trying to show that the righteousness of the law speaks one way and the righteousness of faith speaks in another way. To him, the law speaks in the way that if you manage to do the law, then you can live by it. So basically, you have to work for it. A person who has already read through the beginning of Romans will see that Paul thinks this is impossible as the law just condemns people to death. But then Paul says that the righteousness of faith says, who can do anything? - who can go up or down to retrieve salvation/Christ? Rather it is close to you already, and it is the word of faith that he preaches: all you need to do is have that faith and say it! One way is based on action, the other is based on the fact that we cannot do anything, so it must be done for us and we simply accept it by faith.
The problem with Paul's interpretation of each verse can be seen in the context of each verse. In Leviticus 18, the Lord through Moses is .... wait there, let me just quote it for you:
(1) And GOD spoke to Moses saying: (2) Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them, I am GOD your Deity. (3) According to the deeds of the land of Egypt in which you dwelt you shall not do. And according to the deeds of the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you, you shall not do. And in their statutes you shall not walk. (4) My decrees you shall do, and my statutes you shall observe to walk in them. I am GOD your Deity. (5) And you shall observe my statutes and my judgments which the man shall do and live in them. I am GOD. (Leviticus 18:5)
What is the subject matter of this passage? The Almighty is showing the Israelites that it is HIS laws that should be kept and followed, and not that of other nations, and by keeping his laws, as opposed to those of the surrounding nations, a man would have life. So this verse is one that points more to promise than condemnation. The Almighty was not giving laws that couldn't be kept and thus consigning the Israelites to the same fate of death as if they had kept the laws of the foreigners. By that, I mean that the Lord is saying don't keep the laws of the other nations because they are wrong and lead to death, whereas his laws lead to life. But if he was asking for perfect performance of every single law, something which no human can do, then the Israelites would always fail and thus be punished with death. Thus if they keep the laws of the nations, they would die. And if they try to keep the law of Deity, they would fail and thus die. Thus they would be in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.
Let's be blunt about this idea Paul is trying to convey. It is utter nonsense to supposed that the Deity who "knows our frame, that we are dust" (Psalm 103:14) and who chose Israel out of love for their fathers (Deuteronomy 10:15) would give a law and demand impossible observance, and then punish Israel with terrible curses and death for not keeping what cannot be kept. For someone to knowingly do this is absolute cruelty. The very notion is stupid no matter what seemingly intelligent words you try to put around it. It just doesn't follow from the premise. To say to someone you care for, "I love you and know you intimately, and because of this I'll make things impossible for you and hurt you!" It doesn't matter what level you are in life, such a sentence is nonsensical and illogical based on the definitions of the words. It's almost as illogical as a square circle, so such a notion cannot exist realistically.
To sum this up, the Lord was giving the Israelites a promise and a benefit to keeping his commands and avoiding the ways of the other nations.
To summarize the problems with Paul's interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:10-14, one simply has to look at the context to see that Moses was talking about the law, and that it is near to the Israelites and not beyond them so that they can do it. I'm not going to go into this again. If you want to know more, either go to the article I previously mentioned, or just look at the scripture in context. There is no "Messiah" or "Jesus" in the natural message of Deuteronomy 30. It is all about the Israelites obedience to the law and the blessings that flow from keeping it and the choice and consequences involved. Yet Paul inserts his own words, an alien message, into the text. This just shows that the text itself doesn't really help his case, but rather his agenda twists biblical texts for his own purposes.
Now all this isn't the end of the main problems with Paul's distortion of the texts. I want you to really think about this! Where did Paul quote from to make his case? He says that the righteousness of the law speaks one way and the righteousness of faith speaks another way. But where does he quote from to show the righteousness of the law? He quotes from the Law, namely Leviticus! Now where does he quote from to show the righteousness of faith? From the same law, namely Deuteronomy! A law that Paul protrays as being void of or contrary to faith is quoted to show the righteousness of faith. Now that's a weird one! It just makes the point more serious against Paul that the quote about the righteousness of faith is edited and distorted, and the original context spoke only of law! If Paul was in any way honest and accurate, he would have to call both quotes the righteousness of the law without adding anything to it. But I guess that would be asking too much of Paul!
In essence, Paul is making things up that don't exist. He violates scripture and shows no reluctance to twisting and ripping it for his own self-righteous ends.
(9) that if you confess in your mouth Lord Jesus and you believe in your heart that the Deity raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. (10) For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation. (11) For the scripture says, All who believe on him shall not be disgraced. (Romans 10:11)
Paul here quotes again the final part of Isaiah 28:16 as he did in Romans 9:33. It has already been briefly shown that the passage in Isaiah doesn't say anything about a messiah, and its description is different to anything to do with Jesus. So Paul is simply taking the verse out of context since it has nothing to do with faith in Jesus.
(12) For there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord of all [is] rich to all those that call him. (13) For all who shall call on the name of [the] Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:12-13)
Paul here makes use of a biblical verse, Joel 2:32, to conclude his claims. Now Paul did not say his usual formula of "the scriptures say" or something like that, so there is a question as to whether this is a proper quote or a reference. If Paul is trying to use it as a quote, then it doesn't help him when you look at the context. If you read through the book of Joel in a christian version, looking through all of chapters 2 and 3, you'll note that the words of the prophecy don't match the experience of Paul, or anyone currently in existence. The context speaks of there being deliverance in Jerusalem and Zion, but for many hundreds of years they lay in ruins. And chapter 3 says that in the day such things happen, i.e. those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, the Lord will return the captives of Judah who were exiled in a different land. That never happened. And the Lord negatively judging the nations, in Paul's preaching the exact opposite is happening, with the nations attaining to righteousness when the Israelites couldn't. There is no mention of "messiah" and people call on the name of the Almighty, not the name of the man Jesus. So the message of Joel as a whole is distinctly different to that of Paul.
If it is merely a reference which Paul is using for his own ends, then it doesn't really mean or prove anything.
(14) Then how shall they call to him whom they don't believe? And how shall they believe that which they don't hear? And how shall they hear without preaching? (15) But how shall they preach if they be not sent? Even as it has been written, How timely [are] the feet of those announcing good news of peace, of those announcing good news of good things [Isaiah 52:7]. (Romans 10:14-15)
If you have been reading this article, you won't be surprised about what I have to say next about Paul's usage of this verse in Isaiah compared to its original context.
The original context of Isaiah 52 speaks of the redemption of Israel from those who held the Israelites captive, Judah's deliverance from her physical enemies. Verse 1 speaks of no more uncircumcised and unclean people entering Jerusalem, and verse 8 speaks of the return of Zion. Verse 9 speaks of the Almighty comforting his people and redeeming Jerusalem. The context all throughout Isaiah makes it plain that we are speaking of Israel and literal Jerusalem.
But what is Paul talking about? Jews and Gentiles believing in Jesus and hearing the "good news" concerning him! But this is a totally different message to what Isaiah is giving. In Paul's day up until today Jerusalem hasn't been comforted, and it still a thorn to many a nation. There are still uncircumcised and unclean people walking its streets. The message is not the same. In fact, in total contrast to Isaiah's message, Jerusalem was under the rule of the Romans and due to be destroyed in Paul's day.
I don't need to add much more. It is just another case of Paul taking a verse out of context to forward his agenda.
(15) But how shall they preach if they be not sent? Even as it has been written, How timely [are] the feet of those announcing good news of peace, of those announcing good news of good things. (16) But all have not obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" [Isaiah 53:1] (17) Then faith [is] from report, and report [is] through the word of Deity [or "word of Christ" in some greek manuscripts]. (Romans 10:15-17)
Before I continue with this critique of Paul's use of Isaiah 53:1, a person who knows Romans, or who reads it using a normal christian translation, will note a strange translation of verses 16 and 17, e.g. "faith is from report". This is just to highlight the fact that the very same Greek word is used every time the word "report" is used. This approach differs slightly from translations like the KJV which translate the first "report" as "report", and then translate the following phrase as "faith is of hearing". This definitely helps the reader understand the sentence, but the word link Paul appears to be using disappears. Other translations like the NIV just add more words to try and convey the message, but lose the fight to be a "word-for-word" translation, prefering to convey what they think it means rather than what it says. In the translation I use above, you can just replace the word "message" with "report", since the word simply refers to either the act of hearing or what is heard, namely, in this case, a message or report.
So Paul here refers to the words of Isaiah, as if Isaiah is speaking of what Paul is speaking of. That is how Paul phrases his words. But was Isaiah really talking about not all people believing the good news about Jesus?
Now it must be noted that Isaiah 53 is a hotly contested scripture between Jews and Christians (and yes, I include "Messianic Jews" under that umbrella). I've known both sides of the issues, being once a christian, and now under the umbrella of Judaism. And it is clear that, if we base our understanding of Isaiah 53 on its context from Isaiah 40 to 53, and that of the Jewish Bible, then Isaiah 53 does not speak of any messiah figure, but rather of the nation of Israel being spoken of prophetically and poetically. This is seen by the fact that the only time the Hebrew word "anointed one" or "messiah" appears in this context, it refers to Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), and whenever "servant" is mentioned, it refers either to Israel or Isaiah, since they are the only characters that are in the context that fit the description. And Israel is repeatedly called "the servant" throughout the context. A future Davidic king is absent from the text. See the section of my refutations of so-called messianic prophecies, Isaiah 52:13-53:12, to see my view of this. And even if you don't go there, simply read Isaiah 40-54 and, based on the text, see who the servant is. It can only be Israel in Isaiah 53, the nation spoken of in the singular, as is done frequently throughout scripture.
Thus, what is Isaiah 53:1 really talking about? In the verse before, Isaiah 52:15, it speaks of the nations being startled at the servant. Note the textual signs: nations are spoken of in the plural (more than one), and servant is spoken of in the singular (just one). Thus when the next verse, Isaiah 53:1, therefore says "who believed our report", then it can be known who is speaking. Since "our" is plural (more than one), and we have a choice between the nations (plural - more than one) and the servant (singular - one), then the "our" refers to the nations: the nations are talking in Isaiah 53:1 about Israel. For those who may not know, the chapter and verse division in scripture are not divinely inspired and they were not part of the original texts of scripture. Thus Isaiah 52 flows straight onto Isaiah 53.
So Isaiah is talking about the nations being surprised at Israel's exaltation after they had seen his humiliation, and stating "who believed our report" as a startled rhetorical question like "who would have believed what we heard"? Paul is talking about people not believing the "good news" of Jesus. So once again, the message is not the same; Paul has taken another verse out of context.
There is even a chance that Paul's view of this verse didn't even agree with the christian understanding of what verse 53 was talking about. Some christians see the nation Israel, or Isaiah representing Israel, speaking in Isaiah 53:1, which also doesn't fit with Paul's view.
Now whether you agree with the interpretation of Isaiah 53 that I gave or not, or you accept the christian understandings of Isaiah 53 - even if you think Paul's message was right - this is just one out of many verses lifted and cut off from their natural context in the Hebrew Scriptures. So I'll just move on.
But I say, Haven't they heard? Yes, "their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." [Psalm 19:4] (Romans 10:18)
Paul here quotes the psalm, but the question is in what way did he mean it? Is this a proper quote or him just taking the words and giving them a different meaning?
Lets be very very plain here. Psalm 19 has nothing to do with the "good news" that Paul preaches. It speaks very plainly of the wisdom of Deity as seen in the objects in the sky, namely, the sun and the moon. So Paul isn't even beginning to expound on the content of Psalm 19:4. The psalm goes on to praise the many benefits of the law, something Paul only gives lip service to.
What Paul has done, yet again, is take a piece of scripture out of context and give it a meaning that is foreign to its original setting. So scripture is by no means backing up Paul, no, not at all. Paul's agenda is supreme, and scripture must bow! Now the empty verse in Paul's hands speaks of the "good news" of Jesus being heard throughout the land.
I say again, the Psalm doesn't back up or support Paul at all. Paul's agenda is supreme, and scripture must bow!
And it continues ...
But I say, didn't Israel know? First, Moses says, "I shall make you jealous with a no-nation, with a senseless nation I shall make you angry." [Deuteronomy 32:21] (Romans 10:19)
Now this is an interesting one for the following reason: christians actually base their understanding of this verse on Paul; they would defend Paul's understanding of it whilst explaining the meaning of the verse (see Keil and Delitzsch's Commentary of the Old Testament and Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible, both of which comment on this verse). They take the "make you jealous" hyper-literally to mean that Deity would literally make a covenant with another nation and have a relationship with that foolish nation whilst casting off Israel.
Now some may argue with my using the phrase "casting off Israel" since some christians don't believe Israel is cast off. But just understand what they are really saying and its implications. The only way Israel would be jealous is if they didn't have a relationship, that relationship that the nations are now supposed to have with Deity because of Jesus. Now Israel had a special relationship with God from the beginning, a very special one. So they must have either lost that relationship in order to be jealous, or the nations get a better one. Paul's words throughout this chapter has involved being chosen and not being chosen. So it would appear that the nations are now the chosen people and the Jews are not, thus they would be made jealous.
But let's just focus on Romans 10:19 here: Paul is saying that this verse in Deuteronomy means that Deity will have a relationship with a "no-people", a "foolish nation" to provoke the Israelites to anger and jealousy. But what does Deuteronomy 32 and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures have to say?
Firstly let's take note of what Deuteronomy 32 does and doesn't say. It says nothing clearly about how the Lord would provoke Israel using this foolish nation, but there are clues within Deuteronomy itself. Remember that the Lord is punishing the Israelites due to their disobedience and idolatry. Check out Deuteronomy 28 where it says in verse 14, 15, 33, 36, 49, and 50, that if the Israelites would go after strange gods (idolatry) and commit disobedience, then the Almighty will send a strange nation against them who they don't know, whose language they don't know, who would come and smash them to pieces. It does reflect the song that Moses is singing in some ways, and is a clue to what the Lord is talking about when he speaks about using a certain senseless nation to provoke Israel.
But what does the verse/passage say? The very same verse says the following:
They have made me jealous with a no-god; they have made me angry with their empty acts. Then I shall make them jealous with a no-people, with a foolish nation I shall make them angry. (Deuteronomy 32:21)
Now take careful note of what this verse, even on its own, is saying. When does the Almighty make Israel angry and jealous? Only after they have worshipped idols, or "no-gods", things which are not gods, concretely idols. Now even Paul never ever accused Israel of idolatry. At best, he said that they had ignored Jesus or cast him away, but he never accuses them of idolatry. And they were not guilty of idolatry in the times of Paul; this crime is never charged against them as a whole. So if it's the case that this verse is talking about something that is supposed to be happening in Paul's day, then a very important part of it is missing, i.e., the very reason why the Lord would provoke Israel. And if the reason isn't there, then the judgment can't be happening. In other words, Paul has put the cart in front of the horse; he has tried to build the body of a house and forgotten to make sure there was a foundation. And guess what! In this case, there is no foundation. So the house, his usage of this quote, just falls down!
What else does this verse say? It says that the Lord will make Israel angry with a foolish nation. What is a foolish nation? It is a nation that is foolish. You may think I'm being a bit simple here, but it is the simplicity of this that slaps Paul's argument across the face in order to embarrass it. Israel would be provoke by a nation. Now christianity was not and is not a nation, especially now with all these conflicting and feuding denominations. Also, each christian maintains the nationality of their own nations: there are Spanish christians, Turkish christians, Chinese christians, etc. Christianity is not a nation, it is a faith, a belief system! There is no such thing as the nation of christianity, even amongst the majority of christians. There is no strong evidence of such a concept in the new testament, so there is no need to deal with made-up arguments christians may use when confronted with this argument. Their own scriptures don't give them a firm basis in order to make themselves a nation. When you hear terms such as "this country is a christian country", e.g., America is a christian country, they are not saying that some christians have banded together and made a nation of christianity, if such a thing could exist. It just means they expect the country to have christian values. Now a real nation isn't about value. There is more to England and France and Germany and New Zealand than just values, morals, or faith. In fact, there is more to Israel than just values, morals or faith. Christianity has nothing to do with birth or nationality. Using the normal understanding of the word, both in Paul's day and now, the followers of "the Way", Nazarenes, Christians, Messianic Jews, whatever they choose to call themselves, they are not a nation!
Just to finish off the point, just compare christianity to the non-Jews who fear the Deity of Israel but are not christians, i.e., the Noahides. They are a group of people who have the same beliefs and worldview, but they are scattered all over the world. They have a knowledge of the Almighty and faith in him. They would never call themselves a nation because they know what the normal meaning of the word is. The same is true for the people of "faith" Paul is admonishing: they are not a nation! Thus, they cannot be the people, the nation, who the Almighty would use to provoke Israel.
Secondly, the rest of the Torah (5 books of Moses) as well as the prophets help clarify what is meant here and the limits of its meaning. Leviticus 26, like the Deuteronomy 28 which I referred to above, shows the Lord using Israel's enemies to attack it and put it into exile in order to cause the nation, Israel, to turn back to him. Each time he is using the foreign nation to make Israel see its obligation to him. He never chooses and makes covenants with other nations to the same or greater extent to that of Israel in order to make them jealous. No such thing is prophesied in scripture. Such a thing is unheard of throughout the whole Jewish Bible. That Bible never says that the Lord would make a covenant with or choose another people. Every time the Creator uses another people to provoke Israel, it is not by making that other nation his people, but by having that nation trounce, mash up, and horribly defeat Israel and/or putting Israel into exile or under subjection.
So basically, the whole Jewish Bible objects to Paul's distortion of Deuteronomy 32:21. Paul makes it seem as though Moses was prophesying concerning what he was talking about. But this is nowhere near what Moses was really talking about. Again, Paul's agenda wins out.
(20) But Esaias ventures boldly and says, "I was found by those who didn't seek me. I became manifest to those that didn't enquire after me." [Isaiah 65:1a] (21) But to Israel he says, "I stretched out my hands all day to a nay-saying and dissenting people." [Isaiah 65:2a] (Romans 10:20-21)
Paul here is making the claim that even Isaiah the prophet knew and made known the fact that the gentiles, those that didn't seek the Almighty, would find him, whilst Israel would reject him. But I think we should stop right here and quote Isaiah 65:1-2 with some context just to see what is really being said.
(9) GOD, don't be angry greatly, and don't remember iniquity continually. Behold - look please! - your people [is] all of us. (10) Your holy cities have become wilderness: Zion has become a wilderness; and Jerusalem a desolation. (11) Our holy and beautiful house where your fathers praised you has become a burning of fire; and all our coveted things have become waste. (12) Will you restrain yourself based on these things, GOD? You are silent and have afflicted us greatly. (65:1) I granted access to "they don't ask"; I allowed myself to be found to "they don't seek me". I have said, "I'm here, I'm here" to a nation not called by my name. (2) I have spread my hands all the day to a contrary people those that walk in the way not good after their thoughts. (Isaiah 64:9-12 in xtian versions; 65:1-2)
Now when one reads the context, it becomes obvious that Paul's interpretation makes no sense. I've only shown you this small section of Isaiah which starts and finishes speaking about Israel, and no other nation. Zion and Jerusalem belong to the Jews and that is who Isaiah was talking to. There is no split between verses 1 and 2 of Isaiah 65. There is no sign that the Lord has started speaking about the gentiles. In fact, his words are a response to the previous prayer (Isaiah 64:9-12) and he is still speaking to and about Israel.
In fact, if chapters 64-66 are read allowing the natural meaning of the words to speak for themselves, then it will be seen throughout the whole passage, the main direction to which this prophecy is focused is Judah/Israel. The main flow of the passage is for no other nation!
Now some may pounce on the words "I have said "I'm here, I'm here" to a nation not called by my name". They would say to themselves that Israel is supposed to be called by the Lord's name. They would use verses like 2 Chronicles 7:14 which, speaking of Israel, says "if my people which are called by my name" to prove that point. They would then say that since Isaiah is talking about a people not called by the Lord's name, then that must mean not Israel, i.e., the nations! These people would then accept Paul's words and apply these to christians.
But I would ask the reader to just do one thing before jumping into such a crowd. I would ask you to think! Stop and think! First think on one level: the context! The context points irresistably to Israel. Thus the question can be asked if this is wholly literal. Is the Lord literally talking about another nation? Or has he just seen enough wickedness by his own people, in that they are not acting like a people called by his name, that he just calls them that: "a people not called by my name"? This would be the same as a father seeing his son do terrible things and say that this boy is not his son. He doesn't mean it literally, but shows how far the boy has departed from the right way he was taught. Or it could be that the rebellious boy doesn't want to be regarded as the father's son. Thus, due to context, it should be understood that this phrase about not being called by the Lord's name is not about another nation.
But then think on another level: the actual words used in this phrase: "a nation not called"! Understand that it doesn't say "not a nation", but rather "a nation". This is one of the greatest advantages Israel has over nations that would try to usurp this verse: Israel is actually a nation. But the nations are not "a nation"! And, as has been shown before, neither christianity nor christians are "a nation". In their minds they may imagine that on some "spiritual" realm they are a nation, but here, in real life, they are no nation. They are just a group of believers who loosely share the same belief: that Jesus is the promised anointed Davidic king.
Did you know that many nations could respect the sovereignity of a king and still be classed as different nations? So the fact that all these christians accept Jesus as their king does not make them a nation.
All in all, once again, Paul shows himself either to be only concerned with his agenda as opposed to honest interpretation of scripture, or to be a deceiver twisting scripture to entice people into a snare. Either way, the truth of scripture doesn't shine through Paul's misusage of it.
Although this quote has some length to it, I think it needs quoting.
(1) Therefore I say, Hasn't the Deity rejected his people? May it not be so! For also I am an Israelite, from the offspring of Abraam, tribe of Beniamin. (2) The Deity didn't reject his people whom he foreknew. Or didn't you know in Elias what the scripture says how he entreated to the Deity against Israel saying, (3) Lord, they killed your prophets, and they have destroyed your altars, and I alone remain, and they seek my life [1 Kings 19:10 or 14]. (4) But what does the divine response say? I have left behind for myself seven thousand men who haven't bent knee to Baal [1 Kings 19:18]. (5) Therefore also in the now time there has been a remnant according to the selection of grace. (6) And if of grace [it is] no longer out of works, else the grace is no longer grace and if out of works [it's] no longer grace, else the work is no longer work. (Romans 11:1-6)
Paul uses these experiences of Elijah to show that, even in the past, Israel had forsaken the Creator, but the Lord had reserved for himself 7000 men. And this reserving, based on what Paul is saying, had nothing to do with the actions of the men: it was just out of grace, i.e., just on the Lord's decision to give, paying no attention to the lives and lifestyles of the men he had "reserved".
But yet again, Paul's "interpretation" falls in light of the natural context of the experiences of Elijah.
Before I get into why and how Paul's interpretation falls and fails, it is interesting to note a slight change in what Paul seems to be quoting here. Now normally, if you were to have access to the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint or "LXX", you would note that so far, Paul has generally been quoting in agreement with this translation. Yet all of a sudden, with this passage, he seems to be comfortable to paraphrase, ignoring certain words that can help in understanding the verse properly. Also, whilst ancient commentators and translations, including the LXX, put 1 Kings 19:18 in the future tense ("one shall leave 7000"), Paul, followed by his christian followers and translators, put it in the past tense ("I have left 7000)". It's a strange pick-and-choose policy Paul has when it comes to referring to scripture in whatever version or translation.
But getting back to the issue at hand, what is the contextual understanding of the verses that Paul quotes from? Has Paul been explaining scripture or making it say what he wants? Do these verses provide support for his point? First I'll deal with the contextual interpretation of the verse Paul uses, and then we'll look at the very words that is in the verse.
Now Paul's depiction of 1 Kings 19:10 (or 14) where Elijah complains about the way the Lord's sacred institutions have been undermined and about his being left alone alive of those that serve Deity. There's nothing too wrong with Paul's representation of that verse.
But when you continue reading through to the 18th verse of 1 Kings 19, then you will see a sequence of events that the Lord puts into motion:
After all this, whoever escapes the death the new king of Syria will cause, then they will fall to Jehu. And if not Jehu, then Elisha. And from all this, the Lord will leave remaining 7000 men. These men will survive this slaughter. This agrees with the Jewish interpretation, the form of the Hebrew verb, and, amazingly, the LXX with its odd translation of this verse. It flows with the context of what will happen, rather than some abrupt and odd recollection of what has happened already.
In fact, even christian commentators accept this interpretation, even when using the past tense that the King James and other christian versions use!!! (But to no surprise they still think Paul has some validity!)
So the context of 1 Kings 19 shows no sign of grace devoid of works. There is no clear sign in the passage that shows this "salvation by grace". In fact, it is quite inconsequential. But it is the words of the verse that Paul uses that messes up his plans. Why? Because the verse specifies who exactly will remain alive from all these slaughters, and it is not simply anybody. According to the verse in 1 Kings, all who haven't worshipped Baal will be spared. So it is people who have done something who will be saved. If it were just 7000 people irrespective of deeds, then why even mention this deed of refraining from Baal-worship? The very same verse Paul uses to say that these people were "reserved" based on grace alone devoid of deeds shows that these people were set apart from those who were to die by the very deed of refraining from Baal-worship!!!! I guess, based on Paul's logic, it isn't really grace then!?! Thankfully, we don't have to be so limited in our thinking!
The fact is that 1 Kings 19 says nothing to back up Paul's logic that if grace is involved, then works can have nothing to do with it. The verses he uses contribute nothing positive to his point. In fact, they may be spitting in his face whilst he's using them.
(7) Therefore what? Israel searches diligently for this and he didn't chance upon [it] and the selection chanced upon [it] and the rest were hardened, (8) Even as it has been written, the Deity has given to them a spirit of slumber, eyes that they don't see, ears that they don't hear, until this day. (Romans 11:7-8)
When I first began to realise that there was something wrong with Paul, and that his method of scriptural interpretation is highly suspect, I thought that it was only in Romans 9:33 where he takes two verses, chops them up, sticks them together and offers them as if they are one. I held this opinion for years. But when I actually decided to do this deeper look at all of Paul's usages of scriptures, I found this other "quotation" that I had overlooked for some time.
Now remember, throughout Paul's books, especially in Romans, whenever you hear the phrase "as it has been written" or something similar like "and this bible character says..." or "the scripture says", that normally means that a reference or quotation is coming next. Now look again at Paul's quotation. If you looked for those words being contained in the same verse in about the same order, then you would come up with nothing! There is no scripture that contains all these words in this order! And even in the much-adored Septuagint, that "blessed" ancient Greek translation, you wouldn't find such a verse!
So is Paul getting this all out of his head? Actually no! If you do a search for some words from each half of this quote, you will find that there are two verses in the Jewish Bible that carries traces of each part. I'll show you them.
For GOD has poured over you the spirit of deep-sleep, and he has firmed up your eyes. He has covered your prophets, and your heads, and your visionaries. (Isaiah 29:10 - Hebrew version)
(2) And Moses called to all Israel and he said to them, You, you have seen all which GOD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land; (3) the great trials which your eyes saw, the great signs and miracles. (4) But GOD didn't give to you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear until this day. (Deuteronomy 29:2-4)
Also, just for the sake of argument, let me also quote the Septuagint version which Paul loves to use, when he feels like it.
Because [the] Lord has made you drink a spirit of slumber and he shall close the eyes of them, and their prophets, and their rulers, the ones that discern the hidden things (Isaiah 29:10 - LXX version)
(2) And Mouses called all the sons of Israel and he said to them, You, you have seen all which [the] Lord did in the land of Aigupto [that's Egypt] in front of you to Farao and to his attendents and to all his land, (3) the great trials which your eyes saw, those enormous signs and wonders, (4) and [the] Lord the Deity didn't give to you a heart to know nor eyes to see nor ears to hear until this day (Deuteronomy 29:2-4 - LXX version)
Now look at any version of these two quotes, and compare them to Paul's "quotation". Here it is again:
PAUL: The Deity gave to them a spirit of slumber, eyes that they don't see, ears that they don't hear, until this day.
Now you should be able to see the editing and distorting that Paul has done to these two verses which talk of two different things at two different times. I'll focus on wording first and then context.
It should be rather plain that Paul is using both of these passages. If you look at the middle part of Isaiah 29:10 in the greek version and Paul's verse, they both speak of a spirit of slumber, using the same greek words as the LXX to describe this sleepy and comforted to the point of tiredness state. But before and after this Paul departs from every ancient version of scripture. At the beginning he says "the Deity gave to them" whereas the Hebrew and Greek speak of the introduction of a liquid to a human body, the Hebrew saying "For GOD has poured out over you", and the Greek version saying "Because [the] Lord will make you drink". This says a lot more than Paul's version.
But where does he get "the Deity gave to them"? Look at the Septuagint version of the Torah in Deuteronomy 29:4 and you will note that it says something almost similar to Paul's words but it says it in a way opposite to what Paul saying. Both the Hebrew and Greek versions say that the Lord did not give them certain heart or eyes. But Paul says the Lord did give them a certain heart and eyes. Again, this is Paul's editing as opposed to the pure word of scripture. In Deuteronomy, the Lord did not hardened Israel's hearts and eyes, but Paul says that the Lord did!
So it can be seen that Paul has chopped certain texts and combined them, as well as switch words around to make up a verse that doesn't exist. That is called distortion.
But if you also look at the context of both scriptures, you'll see that Paul really had no right to combine the two passages. They are talking about two different subjects and times, both being limited to the time period of the author. In Isaiah's time, he was prophesying about a coming spirit of deep-sleep which was part of a punishment upon Israel because of disobedience (see Isaiah 29:13). In Moses' day, he was speaking those words as he was giving the Israelites the re-iteration of the law, and the covenant at Moab. There is no contextual proof that disobedience was the cause of their not having ability to truly understand what they had seen. The text simply says that the Lord did all these acts in Egypt and that although Israel saw them, the Lord hadn't given them "a heart to know and eyes to see and ears to hear" until this day.
Now the question is this: what does "until this day" mean? It can mean Israel doesn't have these things "until this day" and even now (without any change in the situation). Or it can mean that Israel didn't have these things "until this day" but now they do have these things (showing a change in the situation). The context shows that in this case it means the latter, that they did not have these faculties before, but now they do. This is shown by the following verses which show that the Almighty didn't give them these assets but led them through the desert those forty years in order for them to gain such a knowledge and understanding shown in their knowledge of him (Deuteronomy 29:5-6). It's as if the Almighty is speaking here of the experience that the children of Israel had to go through and all of their trials that needed to be accomplished for them to get that heart of understanding.
So what does this all have to do with Paul's point? Paul is saying that Israel have a spirit of slumber and eyes that don't see and ears that don't hear and a heart that doesn't understand even to his day. But Moses never lengthened Israel's inability to fully perceive the knowledge of Deity up until Paul's day, only until the end of the forty year trek in the wilderness. Isaiah said nothing about the condition of the people in his time period lasting until Paul's day or anyone else's day. Unfortunately, all of the "classic" (in age, not in popularity) christian commentators I read interpret "until this day" to mean even until their and our present time, i.e., the Jews are blinded and dulled to the "good news" of Jesus until now, showing that they have inherited the error of Paul.
Now this in itself, the wording and the context of both scriptures that Paul uses, should show that Paul is guilty of editing scripture to his own whims and personal agenda, and taking it out of context. The Jewish Scripture which Paul quotes do not contextually speak of anything similar to what Paul is talking about. If there were such passages, he would use much clearer scriptures, rather than having to splice verses together that are contextually alien to each other.
(9) And Dabid [David] says, May their table become a snare and a trap and a trip-up and a recompense to them. (10) May their eyes be darkened that they not see and may their back constantly be bent down. [Psalm 69:22-23] (Romans 11:9-10)
Paul is speaking of none other than the Jews, those Jews who rejected his "good news", who he sees as being blinded and made dim-witted as he has claimed in the previous verse (Romans 11:8). Again, the question should be asked whether Paul is expounding scripture or going with his normal mode of operating and taking verses out of context in order to prove a point of his choosing. His christian followers have taken his words very seriously to the point of calling Psalm 69 a messianic psalm, by which they mean that they think it speaks of Jesus. But have they just been led astray by Paul and their own preconceptions?
The only way to know this is to look at the original psalm of David. First we can see if this is messianic, and then we can see if it has any bearing on Paul's discussion.
We can quickly lay to rest any idea that it is talking about the sinless Jesus imagined by Paul and his christian followers. Verse 5 clearly states that the person experiencing everything in the psalm had foolishness and had committed trespasses/sins (Psalm 69:5). So much for the idea of a sinless man!
Let's now see if it has anything to do with Paul's point where he curses Jews that don't believe him or Jesus with these words from the Psalms.
Now although it can be seen that Paul does not quote from the Hebrew version and thus has numerous errors in his translation, there is still a more fundamental problem with Paul's interpretation. The problem is that the Psalm's introduction already tells us who is most likely talking: king David! And if not him, then someone around his time who would give the psalm to be added to David's collection so it could be called a psalm belonging to David. This at least tells us who is talking when words like "I" and "me" are used. There are no overt signs whatsoever that this psalm has anything to do with Jesus when all of it is read. In fact, the psalmist is simply writing a "praise passage" that anyone can sing or pray. There is no specific prophecy in it that would point to a specific time or place. If a person wishes to make more of this Psalm and force some literal quality to it, then it can only speak about the person who wrote the Psalm, namely, David. He is the one that goes through his turmoils, acknowledges his sin, and prays for his foes to be ashamed and defeated.
With nothing in the Psalm to point to Paul or Jesus or the Jews of their time specifically, then it cannot be classed as some deliberate prophecy against them. Rather, Paul takes these words and purposefully curses those he sees as his enemies: those Jews who don't believe. Now Paul is entitled to see as an enemy anyone he wants. Unfortunately he has no scriptural authority behind his words.
To just make a small but still important point, this is just another example of christians wanting a text to speak about their messiah-figure, and then reading those ideas that they already accept into scripture. Some would call this eisegesis, reading ideas into the text; others would call it painting Jesus onto scripture where he's not there. Whatever you call it, it is an unfortunate form of scripture distortion which the "new testament", especially the Pauline letter, is full of. It is always such a shame that such notions have been swallowed whole by so many people of the nations who originally had no link to the Hebrew Scriptures and tradition, and also by those misguided Jews who forsake their rich and divine heritage to embrace so horrible and unjust a way of interpreting scripture.
One more reason to dislike Paul!
I'm not going to quote this section, but in it Paul says that the gentile believers are grafted onto a tree. What tree? I don't know, the text never really says. Israel? It would seem to be so. If we take for granted the idea that Paul was saying that somehow gentiles become part of Israel just by believing, then Paul's claim must be a lie or a claim without foundation or support from the Jewish Bible, which can be seen by the fact that he doesn't quote anything in this section.
Not much more can be said about a foundationless claim.
(25) For I don't wish you to be ignorant, brothers, [of] this mystery so that there may not be amongst themselves those conceited that there has been a hardiness/stubbornness of parts to Israel up until the fulness of the nations shall come in. (26) And in this manner shall all Israel be saved, even as it has been written: The deliverer shall come out of Sion, and he shall turn ungodliness away from Iakob [Jacob]. (27) And this [is] a covenant with me for them whenever I may forgive their sins. [Isaiah 59:20-21a] (Romans 11:25-27)
Another quote from Paul which he is using to show that Israel will turn to his doctrine, i.e., "be saved", when "the deliverer", who Paul sees as Jesus, comes. This deliverer would remove ungodliness from Israel. This may be a sign of the second coming in Paul's eyes.
But have you seen what the actual text of the Hebrew says?
(20) And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those turning away from transgression in Jacob, declared GOD. (21) And me, this [is] my covenant [with] them, said GOD: my spirit which [is] upon you, my words which I have set in your mouth, they shall not depart from your mouth and the mouth of your offspring and from the mouth of the offspring of your offspring, said GOD, from now and unto everlasting. (Isaiah 59:20-21)
Let's note the obvious differences between Paul's "quote" and the actual Hebrew Scriptures. Now according to Paul and the version he uses (this time he does agree with the LXX), the deliverer to come would "turn ungodliness away from Iakob". So it is the deliverer doing the turning. But the actual Hebrew version, the original language says that a (not "the") redeemer shall come to Zion and that's it! In this instance, he is coming to those who are already turning away from their sins, i.e., repenting. So it is the people who are turning away from sin/trespass, not the coming redeemer.
Also, Paul has the line "whenever I may forgive their sins". Neither the Hebrew version nor the LXX has this line. It seems as if Paul just adds it from who knows where. And it is an addition to the passage because he continues talking with the "I" and "me" fashion as the verse properly starts as if the Almighty is speaking. So this is a unscriptural addition by Paul.
So what do we make of this proof-text of Paul? In each of its important points, Paul's "quote" fails miserably. He's wrong when he says that the deliverer removes ungodliness from Zion, since the scriptures say that a redeemer will come to those who are already turning away from sin. And the part about this happening whenever the Lord forgives their sins is not even part of that scripture.
So basically, Paul has nothing to go on here.
Please note carefully what Paul says:
(28) Certainly, according to the good news, [they are] enemies because of you, but according to the selection, [they are] beloved because of the fathers. (Romans 11:28)
A verse full of double talk and serious meaning! The Jews have no merit of their own, but only due to the fathers. But they themselves are enemies, because of and to the gentile believer in Jesus. This verse does nothing to promote peace and paints the Jews as having no good to them except that of their fathers. Paul seems to preach both hatred and love at the same time. So at least on one level, he curses the people chosen by the Most High, regarding them as enemies. But the Almighty said to Abraham, with a promise that was given to his descendants also, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you", or in another way "your friends are my friends, and your enemies are my enemies". If Paul has become an enemy to the Jews, then he may have a greater Enemy to deal with: the Almighty himself.
For the Deity has shut everyone up together into disobedience [impersuadability, obstinancy, rebellion] so that he may have mercy on all.
This seems to be consistent with the apparent doctrine of Paul concerning the ineffectiveness of man's will and the irresistible power of the Creator over man's will. In this verse, the Creator has everyone closed in and trapped in a state of disobedience just to have mercy on them.
I, for one, am thankful that this idea has no basis in the Jewish Bible, and that this is just Paul blowing out hot air and writing vanities.
Just an aside: Some may wonder why I keep on relying on the Hebrew and I don't seem to pay the Septuagint much mind, only using it to say whether Paul's quoting agrees with it or not. There may even be those who think that I should be treating the Septuagint with much more respect.
But to be blunt, there is no reason to pay too much respect to the Septuagint or any other translation into any other language, including English, especially in such important matters as proving biblical interpretation and doctrine. Now although there is some accuracy and a lot of general truth in translations, their eternal weakness will be that they are translations! What are translations? They are the attempt of a translator to bring across what he believes to be the meaning of a word and passage. It is at this point where we hit upon the problem on two levels.
Firstly, although the original words of the prophet in their original language (Hebrew) were divinely given and inspired, the translator does not have this divine guidance! Thus he (whether by himself or in a group of translators and scholars) cannot claim perfection! And thus secondly, and linked to that first point, the translator must use his own knowledge of both languages and his own judgement regarding words with more than one meaning in order to convey the meaning of the words from the original language to his target language. This is basically the same as a commentator who looks at a text and tries to explain its meaning to those he is communicating with. That's why translations will always be on the level of commentaries. They may be authoritative commentaries, but they can still be toppled if they disagree with the natural reading of the Hebrew text and the traditional and cultural understanding of the words by those who have always had and maintained the language, i.e., the Hebrews or the Jews. Just like you don't go to Spain or China to get an authoritative ruling about or interpretation of British laws and texts, you don't rely on people of different nations to get an authoritative understanding of the Hebrew text. And rulings/interpretations based on different translations will always be weaker than rulings/interpretations based on the original language, especially when in reference to or in the context of the original culture.
In essence, the closer you are to the original, the closer you are to truth. The further you are from the original, the closer you are to error. Translations are a few steps and levels away from the original.
For these reasons, the Hebrew copies we have, no matter how young or old people may say they are, will always have a higher authority than a translation, no matter how ancient! This is regardless of the fact that the Hebrew versions were maintained, kept, and copied in a highly scrupulous and painstaking fashion, keeping an extremely high level of uniformity (same-ness) in every copy we have, whereas most translations, including the Septuagint, were not kept with such care, with evidence of several versions, revisions, and editing of those translations. The Septuagint itself has a jaded and ambiguous history and uncertain origin which makes claims about its authority extremely doubtful.
So that's why it doesn't matter too much if the Septuagint/LXX differs with the Hebrew: the Hebrew version will always take a superior place whether it is compared with the Septuagint or Paul's writings or any other translation.
(10) But why are you judging your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we all shall be presented to the judgment seat of Christ. (11) For it has been written, [As] I live, says [the] Lord, because every knee shall bend to me, and every tongue profess to the Deity [Isaiah 45:23]. (Romans 14:10-11)
Now here is a puzzling piece of writing. It's amazing that even in this seemingly innocent area of his letter, Paul still uses an illogical basis to back up his point. Note the logical flow of this:
Now it is illogical for two reasons. Firstly, Jesus can't be the Creator. I'm not going to go into the scriptural and logical reasons here, but the Creator cannot be a created thing. Jesus was, at whatever time, a man, a created thing. Therefore he can't be the Creator. The Creator said that He is not a man (Hoshea 11:9) and that his characteristics are different to that of humanity and all created things (see Why do I believe that the worship of Jesus/Yeshua is idolatry? and my Trinity article's sections Simple Thinking and Other fundamental problems with the trinity). So Jesus cannot be the Creator, and the Creator cannot become Jesus. So Paul's description here cannot logically mean that Jesus is Deity and that everyone will bow to Jesus.
The other problem with Paul's quote is that it has nothing to do with Paul subject. Let me show you why by quoting the verse he uses with a little context.
(21) Declare and draw near! Even deliberate together! Who has made this heard from ancient times? He has declared from then! Is it not I, GOD? And there is no other deity apart from me - a righteous Mighty One. And a saviour? There is none except me. (22) Turn to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I [am the] Mighty One, and there is nothing else. (23) By myself I have sworn - a word has gone out [with] righteousness and shall not return, for to me, every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall sware. (24) Surely in GOD, [one] has said about me, Vindications and might. And to him all that were angered against him shall come and go pale with shame. (25) In GOD, all the seed of Israel shall be justified and be praised. (Isaiah 45:21-25)
The context I quote here is much like the wider context of this chapter 45. Not one mention is made of the Davidic king to come! The only time the word "anointed one" or "mashiach" is used, it refers to a gentile king, Cyrus. Apart from that, all that is being talked of here is the Lord, the Creator, himself, and that particular verse quoted by Paul refers to no one else.
So what business has Paul to use it to back the notion that everyone is gonna get judged by Jesus??? None whatsoever! Context gives him no basis to use this verse for that purpose. So once again, he's taken a verse out of context.
(14) I know and am persuaded in Lord Jesus that no [food] is common of itself except to the one regarding anything to be common, to that one [it is] common. (20) Don't, for the sake of food, demolish the work of the Deity since all things [are] clean, but it is bad to the man eating due to stumbling. (Romans 14:14)
So, to Paul, all foods are pure and nothing is profane/common.
But even a glance over the first 10 chapters of the Jewish Bible should show a person that Paul's statement is wrong. When Noah was loading the ark in Genesis 7, he had to collect different numbers of certain animals, i.e., the clean ones. The ones that were not clean went in two by two, whilst the clean ones went in seven by seven (Genesis 7:2). So, despite what commentaries may say about the implications of these clean/unclean states, there is still a natural statement in scripture that distinguishes between those animals that are clean and those that aren't.
This distinction is made even clearer in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 where animals are called disgusting and abominable to eat, being unclean. Even food that is not slaughtered properly, being eaten whilst alive, is forbidden (see Genesis 9:4).
So scripturally we can confront Paul and those who regurgitate his words and say: no, Paul, you're dead wrong! - The scripture says that certain meats are unclean and forbidden, and you have no authority to change that! It's not just based on the views of a man or the person to whom something is unclean, but is based on the word of the Creator who made these animals and distinguishes between clean and unclean!
So, again, Paul has it wrong!
(2) Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good, to build up. (3) For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me." [Psalm 69:10] (Romans 15:2-3)
Paul is using this verse in Psalm 69 to show how the person he views as "christ" took upon himself the reproaches or the disgraceful expressions/insults of christians.
Now there is no need for me to do any in-depth interpretation of Psalm 69 or Romans 15 to show their difference in meaning. Why? Because Paul has used another verse from this same psalm already in Romans 11:9-10! There it was clearly shown that it cannot refer to a sinless Jesus, since the person writing/speaking in that psalm speaks of his own sin and iniquity (Psalm 69:5). So it has nothing to do with Paul's idea of Jesus or the "christ".
There is no need to say more than this. Paul again takes a verse out of context to make a baseless point.
(8) And I say, Jesus Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the truth of Deity, to confirm the promises of the fathers, (9) and that the nations might glorify God for mercy, as it is written, "Because of this I will confess to You amongst the nations, and I shall give song to Your name. [2 Samuel 22:50; Psalm 18:48]" (Romans 15:8,9)
Now both Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 are lengthy scriptures and are two copies of the same song of David. I just want you to consider how this psalm starts, and the verse in question.
(1) And David spoke to GOD the words of this song in the day GOD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul.... (50) Based upon this I shall give thanks to you, GOD, amongst the nations, and shall sing to your name. (2 Samuel 22:1,50)
For those who wish to check, you can look through the whole passage between verses 1 and 50 which I quoted. All you will see is David speaking about his experiences and the Almighty's deliverance. There is no sign of Jesus in this verse. So Paul, once again, takes this verse out of context.
Just to make sure no one comes up with some strange ideas, I'll just deal with something that a person may say. One may say, Hey! Isn't an anointed one mentioned in the next verse? I would say, yes, sure there is! But it has no connection to what is being said in the verse that Paul uses, since it is David talking about himself! And since there were many anointed ones, including all the high priests, and all of David's descendants who ruled Israel - which Jesus never did - then there is nothing in the verse that distinctly points out Jesus with the exclusion of all others.
So to reiterate, this is another example of Paul ripping a verse out of its context to suit his own purposes.
Paul continues with his verse picking and quotes from Deuteronomy 32:43. What I'll do next is show you how he quotes it both in the English and Greek, and then compare it to the other versions.
PAUL: And again he says, Rejoice, O nations, with his people.
(Romans 15:10)PAUL (in the original Greek): ευφρανθητε εθνη μετα του λαου αυτου
SEPTUAGINT/LXX: ευφρανθητε εθνη μετα του λαου αυτου [exactly the same as Paul's so the translation would be the same]
HEBREW BIBLE (in the original Hebrew):
הַרְנִינוּ גוֹיִם עַמּוֹWORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION OF HEBREW (with no regard to English grammar or ease of understanding): Sing nations his people
Again, Paul is seen to be quoting directly from the Septuagint (LXX) which mistranslates the Hebrew by adding the extra word "with". Not surprisingly, most christian versions, followers of Paul, follow Paul and the LXX in his mistranslation when they "translate" Deuteronomy 32:43. For example:
King James Version: Rejoice, O nations, [with] his people ...
Modern Young's Literal Translation: Sing you nations -- with his people ...
World English Bible: Rejoice, you [pl.] nations, [with] his people ...
American Standard Version: Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people ...
Rotherham Emphasized Version: Shout for joy O ye nations [with] his people ...
New International Version: Sing, O nations, with his people ...
Now I'm not going to quote all of them, but you should get the main idea that the followers of Paul throughout time have simply followed him and the Septuagint version in their translations. As this version has passed mostly through christian hands and there are signs of alteration and editing, one can never be too sure which follows which sometimes, whether the writings of Paul are following the Septuagint, or whether the christian septuagint is following Paul. But regardless, the christians side with Paul and the Septuagint. For those that don't believe me about editing, then please research the different greek manuscripts of the last verses of Daniel 9.
Also not surprising is the fact that the Jews, ignoring the desires of the christians, universally (as far as I know) translate the verse closer to the Hebrew.
Jewish Publication Society 1917: Sing aloud, O nations, of his people ...
Rashi: Let the nations extol his people ...
Isaac Leeser's 19th Century Translation: Speak aloud, O ye nations, the praises of his people; ...
New Jerusalem Publication Society 1986: Acclaim, O nations, his people ...
Artsroll Stone Edition Chumash: O nations - sing the praises of his people ...
Targum Onkelos:
שַׁבָּחוּ עַמְמַיָא עַמֵּהּ
Literal Translation (as close as word-for-word equivalence can be): Praise, o nations, his people ...
Just a little warning about translations of the Targums: beware of christian translations of the Targum. I've looked at the Aramaic of the Targums, and still they have no "with" or "and" in that clause. I say this because I've seen a translation online of the main Targums - those of Onkelos and Pseudo Jonathan - and the translator follows the christian tradition of adding "and" or "with". So just be careful! And a useful piece of information is that although the writing of the Targum may be around or after the 3rd century CE, their oral tradition seems to have been around before that, before 1BCE.
As you can see, these versions see no need to add any words to the Hebrew, and with the Hebrew Version having a much better track record when it comes to preservation and standards of accuracy, this being the version originated with and was preserved by the people of Israel, then this version can be relied on. It has no "with" in Deuteronomy 32:43, and Jews are more faithful in their rendering of the language without adding anything.
All this is to show that in order for Paul's argument and use of this scripture to stand, a lot of weight is needed with that word "with". If it wasn't so, then the christians that followed Paul wouldn't have had to follow in Paul's error. And the problem is that this word is not in the original Hebrew which makes at least a significant difference.
But even if we can barely imagine that the word "with" was stuck on that verse, would it still have any agreement with the message of Paul? So let's add to this analysis the context of Deuteronomy 32:43. What exactly is Paul trying to say in his quote of this verse? Paul started this section in Romans speaking of Jesus being sent to the Jews to fulfil the promises to the fathers, and so that the gentiles may glorify Deity for his mercy upon them. Does Deuteronomy 32:43 and its context have anything to do with this?
In the verses before Deuteronomy 32:43, we see the Almighty destroying his enemies, those who have held captive his people, and atoning for the land and his people. So basically, we have scenes of vengeance, battle, blood, and the redemption of both the land and people of Israel. It has nothing to do with Jesus who did absolutely none of these things, and the gentiles are not rejoicing about mercy that has fallen upon them but about the way the Lord, through battle, has defeated his enemies and redeemed his people Israel.
Now I don't want people spiritualizing my words, since I mean what I say literally. Jesus took part in no battle; Israel was dispersed from the land in a matter of decades after his death, and the land was desolate for centuries. This is the exact opposite of the context of Deuteronomy.
So, essentially, we're back where we have been so often in Paul's writings: we find him taking a verse or clause out of context to make a point that is absent from the context of the Jewish Bible.
Now I've got to add a point here. Normally, when studying a text or an author, you normally have to spot a few serious errors for you to realise that you cannot trust a writer's conclusions or interpretation skills. After 3-5 times of seeing serious errors, you should at least be wary of taking a person at their word.
Yet so far in this study - and I haven't even finished going through even the first major book of Paul - almost every time he has put scripture forward to prove or support his point, he has been guilty of one serious error or another. Either he takes a verse out of context and gives it a meaning that is different to, and normally against, the natural meaning of the original passage; or he mistranslates a verse; or, rarely, he has no problem with taking two verses from contextually different passages, and merging and editing them.
He is supposed to be a Hebrew of Hebrews, meaning a super Jew or the best quality Hebrew, yet he is apparently bound to the greek translation of the scriptures. This shows that he had little knowledge of the original Hebrew Scriptures or he felt that the greek translation suited his purpose better. This further separates him from the original language and tone of scripture, and from those Jews that know their Hebrew Bible and who could and can easily see his mistakes and the inaccuracies of the greek translation.
But regardless of his use of versions, his greatest weakness is the following: his skill at and common practice of taking verses out of context to make distinctly different points from that of scripture. Along with his other erroneous methods, the amount of times he is wrong in his usage of scripture still brings home the point: how many times must a person do wrong for his words to be, at best, distrusted, or, at worst, thrown in the garbage? It is a miracle that his words are even seen as the word of "God" by anyone.
But the fact is that Paul preached to the right people to get his following: the uneducated gentiles. Once he has distorted their view of the Hebrew Bible before they even could fully read a translation of it, they were already trapped. And the same method is used by modern day christians. They will teach a person the new testament first, giving the idea that the Jewish Bible only or fundamentally speaks of Jesus. Once that emotional mindset is fixed in the potential convert's mind, once those tinted glasses are fixed firmly on their eyes, they can only read the Hebrew Bible in the "colour", the interpretation, that is fixed in their minds. And it is so difficult to escape.
And again, Praise the Lord, all nations; and commend him, all the peoples. (Romans 15:11, quoting Psalm 117:1)
On the surface, this is one of the most applicable quotes that Paul has ever done. At the very least, it actually has the nations worshipping Deity, unlike Paul's previous quote. The only significant problem with this quote is that the passage says nothing to prove Paul's point that Jesus is the reason for this worship. If this is not a case of taking a verse out of context, it is definitely either putting a different meaning to a verse than what it naturally has, or Paul is just using a verse that doesn't really back up his statement.
Another way of saying this is that he's taken a verse out of context. Just because it says that the nations worship, it says nothing about it being a prophecy about the "messiah".
PAUL: εσται η ριζα του ιεσσαι και ο ανισταμενος αρχειν εθνων επ' αυτω εθνη ελπουσιν
Translation: It shall be, the root of Iessai [Jesse] even the one standing up to rule nations, upon him shall nations put their hope. (Romans 15:12 quoting Isaiah 11:10)LXX: εσται εν τη ημερα εκεινη η ριζα του ιεσσαι και ο ανισταμενος αρχειν εθνων επ' αυτω εθνη ελπουσιν
Translation: It shall be, in that day, the root of Iessai [Jesse] even the one standing up to rule nations, upon him shall nations put their hope. (Isaiah 11:10)HEBREW TEXT:
וְהָיָה בַּיוֹם הַהוּא שֹׁמֶשׁ יִשַׁי אֲשֶׁר עֹמֵד לְנֵס עַמִּים אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם יִדְרֹשׁוּ
Translation: And it shall be, in that day, a root of Yishai [Jesse] that stands as a flag of peoples, to him nations shall seek/enquire. (Isaiah 11:10)
Don't ask me why the English tradition has made the name of King David's father almost unrecognisable compared to the original sound of the name. It's a messed up story that just shows how tradition is more important to bible translators than bringing us closer to the rich ancient Hebrew culture where bible history takes place.
Anyway, as you can see, Paul mostly follows the LXX translation, although he misses out the words "in those days". There may be a reason why he misses out these words when one looks at the contexts of the passage. Paul here is trying to link the future Davidic king to the nations in his own time. To him Jesus came to make the nations give thanks for the Lord's mercies. But looking at the context of Isaiah 11, you will see that none of that is fulfilled. There is no world peace; ravenous animals and humans don't dwell in peace; the knowledge of Deity does not cover the world; and the exiles of Israel haven't all been brought back to Israel.
Isaiah's prophecy speaks of the future, not Paul's time. Thus, Paul has taken the verse out of context. In fact, the main point of this prophecy is that regardless of whether a person tries to use this to prove Jesus or not, it is unfulfilled! So it does nothing for Paul's point.
To finish off Paul's quotes in Romans, we come to verse 21 of chapter 15 where Paul quotes Isaiah 52:15 as follows:
(20) And in this manner I have been eager to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, so that I don't build on another man's foundation; (21) but as it is written, "To whom nothing was said about Him, they shall see. And they who have not heard shall understand." (Romans 15:21)
Paul is saying that he wants to preach the gospel where no one else has, and then applies the verse in Isaiah to himself where he preaches to those who don't know and haven't heard.
Again, Paul has taken leave of the context. In Isaiah 52:15, it is speaking of a special servant of the Lord who shall startle many nations and cause kings to shut their mouths by showing them what hadn't been seen or heard of before. Now I'm not going to go into a big discussion over this, I'll just lay out the facts. Throughout Isaiah 40-52, the nation of Israel is mostly called the servant of the Lord (e.g., Isaiah 41:8-9, 42:1, 43:10). There is not one single time in this section where the word "servant" is overtly linked to the future Davidic king. In fact, the word meaning "anointed one" (moshiach, or messiah) is only used once to refer to Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), and that's it! This is all about the condition and redemption of Israel. And in chapter 53, the passage goes on to show how Israel will surprise the nations with its ascendancy from humiliation and humble beginnings to an exalted state.
So where in all this does Paul fit in? Absolutely nowhere! In fact, where does Jesus fit in? Same answer! So what has happened? Basically the same thing that has happened throughout the majority of Romans. Paul has taken a verse out of context and used it for his own purposes, disregarding what the original message of the passage was.
So as the book starts, so it ends! Let's see what the next book has to say!
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.