How to understand Paul

[Wingnut]

How to understand Paul

Folks love to quote scriptures from Paul.  Invariably these quotes ignore the context or storyline.  
Any quote from Paul, out of context, can be made to say almost anything.

Paul's epistles always tell a story.  Before looking at individual scriptures, get the story flow of the WHOLE epistle of Paul.  This is hard work, but is the only way to NOT misunderstand Paul.  

Let's take Galatians.  
Gal 1:6 seems to be the theme of the book.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"
Gal 1:13-14 would suggest that the "other" Gospel has something to do with the "Jew's religion".
Gal 2:3 suggests that circumcision was the stumbling block of this "other Gospel".

Now comes a seemingly anti-law, pro-faith tirade by Paul (Gal 2:16).
Paul goes to lengths to explain that faith was the original faith of Abraham (Gal 3:29).

And the OT law was like a schoolmaster, to bring us back to the original faith, which was faith. (Gal 3:24).

Gal 4 compares the OT faith to Hagar = Mt Sinai = bondwoman, and the NT faith is Sarah = New Jerusalem above = free-woman.

Gal 5:3 goes back to the issue of circumcision being part of this "other Gospel".

Gal 6:12 says that anyone who accepts circumcision as part of this "other Gospel" will put himself back under bondage to keep every aspect of the law to be saves, since he has departed from a faith-based salvation.

Thus, the next time someone quotes Paul, take the trouble to read the whole epistle and you will see from the context that Paul says nothing of the sort.  Mostly this is not malicious, deliberate misinterpreting of Paul.  The person quoting Paul does not realise that each epistle is telling a story, and the quote only has relevance within the context of that story.  

In the case of Galatians, Paul's seeming attack on the law is ONLY to prove that Christians do NOT need to be circumcised in order to be saved.  It is NOT a general attack on the whole OT law.  Galatians is attacking a "new Gospel" creeping into the NT church saying that Christians need to be circumcised to be saved.

[Kevin H]

Paul has been very hard to read, because as we read his words we are usually reading into them the ideas of the church synagogue split of 135 AD, St. Augustine and Luther. In recent years there have been new discoveries looking at Paul in the context of Paul. Thank you for bringing this up Wingnut. I have found this book (and the lectures that go along with them) very helpful. http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=37

[8thdaypriest]

Gentiles converting to Judaism wasn't "news".  If a Gentile went through the process to learn the law, and then was circumcised, he would be considered a "Jew" and would be allowed to enter the Temple courtyard to offer sacrifice.  This had been going on for hundreds of years - before Paul. 

Many Pharisees who came to believe in Jesus, (because of His resurrection, and the miracles) simply added Jesus to the mix, and continued their teaching of the Law (sacrifices and all) - including the need for circumcision.  I see a version of this in the Hebrew Roots Movement, and Messianic Movement of today.

Personally, I don't see how the requirement for circumcision could be regarded by any Gentile as "good news". 

 

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gentiles converting to Judaism wasn't "news".  If a Gentile went through the process to learn the law, and then was circumcised, he would be considered a "Jew" and would be allowed to enter the Temple courtyard to offer sacrifice.  This had been going on for hundreds of years - before Paul. 

Many Pharisees who came to believe in Jesus, (because of His resurrection, and the miracles) simply added Jesus to the mix, and continued their teaching of the Law (sacrifices and all) - including the need for circumcision.  I see a version of this in the Hebrew Roots Movement, and Messianic Movement of today.

Personally, I don't see how the requirement for circumcision could be regarded by any Gentile as "good news". 

 

Paul was brought up in Judaism.

From this Jewish perspective, "the law" is a big deal.

In the NT the phrase "the law" is used 154 times.
In Romans alone, the phrase "the law" is used 50 times.

Obviously Paul is viewing the Gospel from the perspective of his upbringing at the feet of Gamaliel.  And his education probably involved arguing over all the minutia of the OT.  He brings some of this to the original, simple Gospel of Christ.

[Wingnut]

When someone comes with a pet doctrine, and they have to use Paul to prove it, then my suspicion is that their doctrine is either wrong, or unimportant.

If it were important, the rest of the NT would prove it, in particular, the Gospels and teachings of Christ.

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Wingnut said:

When someone comes with a pet doctrine, and they have to use Paul to prove it, then my suspicion is that their doctrine is either wrong, or unimportant.

If it were important, the rest of the NT would prove it, in particular, the Gospels and teachings of Christ.

I agree Wingnut, but you cannot take Jesus OUT of His Israelite "context". 

Even the Book of Revelation teaches the gospel, but you can't understand that Book without understanding "the Law" - especially Tabernacle imagery, and the Day of Atonement. We can't just leave the Torah behind and forget about it.

[Robert]

13 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Gal 6:12 says that anyone who accepts circumcision as part of this "other Gospel" will put himself back under bondage to keep every aspect of the law to be saved, since he has departed from a faith-based salvation.

Did you know that Timothy was circumcised by the Paul (not be be confused with Saul the Pharisee)? See Acts 16:3.  

Does this mean Paul put Timothy "back under bondage"?

 

[Robert]

13 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Gal 5:3 goes back to the issue of circumcision being part of this "other Gospel".

It wasn't just circumcision the the Judaizers were demanding.  

Acts 15:5  But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to

1] circumcise them, and

2] to command them to keep the law of Moses (i.e., the first, five book of the OT).”

BTW, this "sect of the Pharisees who believed" were Jews who had converted to Christianity, but insisted that ultimately the Christian is saved by the keeping of the law (Pentateuch).  This group were called "Judaizers"!

"Judaizers is a term for Christians who insist that their co-religionists should follow the Law of Moses." Wikipedia

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, Robert said:

It wasn't just circumcision the the Judaizers were demanding.  

This group were called "Judaizers"!

"Judaizers is a term for Christians who insist that their co-religionists should follow the Law of Moses." Wikipedia

Robert, where in Scripture do you find a group that was "called 'Judaizers' " ?

[Ron Amnsn]

18 hours ago, Wingnut said:

How to understand Paul

Folks love to quote scriptures from Paul.  Invariably these quotes ignore the context or storyline.  
Any quote from Paul, out of context, can be made to say almost anything.

Paul's epistles always tell a story.  Before looking at individual scriptures, get the story flow of the WHOLE epistle of Paul.  This is hard work, but is the only way to NOT misunderstand Paul.

[...]

Thus, the next time someone quotes Paul, take the trouble to read the whole epistle and you will see from the context that Paul says nothing of the sort.  Mostly this is not malicious, deliberate misinterpreting of Paul.  The person quoting Paul does not realise that each epistle is telling a story, and the quote only has relevance within the context of that story.  

Taking Paul out of context is a major problem in modern Christianity.  Those who look at a whole chapter at a time are quite rare.  Those who look at a whole book at a time are very rare.  Yet there is an even larger context that should be included when trying to interpret what Paul was writing. 

[Robert]

28 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Robert, where in Scripture do you find a group that was "called 'Judaizers' " ?

 Young's Literal Translation for Galatians 2:14:

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?

[Wingnut]

5 hours ago, Robert said:

Did you know that Timothy was circumcised by the Paul (not be be confused with Saul the Pharisee)? See Acts 16:3.  

Does this mean Paul put Timothy "back under bondage"?

 

Paul circumcised Timothy so that Timothy could be acceptable in the Jewish circles where Paul preached the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:20

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Paul knew that Timothy did not have to be circumcised to be saved, neither was Timothy under any bondage because his motive for circumcision was to not give offence while preaching the Gospel.

 

 

 

[Wingnut]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I agree Wingnut, but you cannot take Jesus OUT of His Israelite "context". 

Even the Book of Revelation teaches the gospel, but you can't understand that Book without understanding "the Law" - especially Tabernacle imagery, and the Day of Atonement. We can't just leave the Torah behind and forget about it.

I think I could understand the Gospel perfectly well without Tabernacle imagery.

Most Gentiles did not think in terms of Christ being a High Priest.

The Book of Hebrews was written to Jewish converts who DID think in terms of Atonement and the High Priest.

Thus I bet the Corinthians barely thought in terms of Christ's role as a High Priest on Atonement.

Adventists, of all Christian groups, are the only ones I know who dwell so long on the Tabernacle.

Obviously, the Elllen White, alcohol free guided tour of the Holy Land must have spent a whole lot of time touring the Tabernacle, and for this reason, Adventists come back from this tour thinking that the Tabernacle is hugely important.  

All other Christian Tour Groups who tour the Holy Land, spend their time looking at things other than the Tabernacle.  Thus the Tabernacle has almost zero importance to them.  And I don't think they are the unbalanced ones.  They don't believe Christ entered to the Tabernacle in 1844.

[Wingnut]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I agree Wingnut, but you cannot take Jesus OUT of His Israelite "context". 

Even the Book of Revelation teaches the gospel, but you can't understand that Book without understanding "the Law" - especially Tabernacle imagery, and the Day of Atonement. We can't just leave the Torah behind and forget about it.

I think I could understand the Gospel perfectly well without Tabernacle imagery.

Most Gentiles did not think in terms of Christ being a High Priest.

The Book of Hebrews was written to Jewish converts who DID think in terms of Atonement and the High Priest.

Thus I bet the Corinthians barely thought in terms of Christ's role as a High Priest on Atonement.

Adventists, of all Christian groups, are the only ones I know who dwell so long on the Tabernacle.

Obviously, the Elllen White, alcohol free guided tour of the Holy Land must have spent a whole lot of time touring the Tabernacle, and for this reason, Adventists come back from this tour thinking that the Tabernacle is hugely important.  

All other Christian Tour Groups who tour the Holy Land, spend their time looking at things other than the Tabernacle.  Thus the Tabernacle has almost zero importance to them.  And I don't think they are the unbalanced ones.  They don't believe Christ entered into the Tabernacle in 1844.

[Ron Amnsn]

18 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Let's take Galatians.  
Gal 1:6 seems to be the theme of the book.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"
Gal 1:13-14 would suggest that the "other" Gospel has something to do with the "Jew's religion".
Gal 2:3 suggests that circumcision was the stumbling block of this "other Gospel".

Now comes a seemingly anti-law, pro-faith tirade by Paul (Gal 2:16).
Paul goes to lengths to explain that faith was the original faith of Abraham (Gal 3:29).

And the OT law was like a schoolmaster, to bring us back to the original faith, which was faith. (Gal 3:24).

Gal 4 compares the OT faith to Hagar = Mt Sinai = bondwoman, and the NT faith is Sarah = New Jerusalem above = free-woman.

Gal 5:3 goes back to the issue of circumcision being part of this "other Gospel".

Gal 6:12 says that anyone who accepts circumcision as part of this "other Gospel" will put himself back under bondage to keep every aspect of the law to be saves, since he has departed from a faith-based salvation.

This is a decent outline of Galatians understood within the paradigm that Gentile Christianity has handed down to us.  However, when we interpret Galatians within the whole context of Scripture, history, and the religion and culture of the original recipients, we get could get a clearer understanding of Paul's intent.

There were two different systems of "law" being used within the Judaism of Paul's day -- God's Law of Moses (Torah) written in Scripture, and the oral law that contained the man-made traditions that were intended to "guard" the Law of Moses.  God's Law was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.  The Jews claim the oral law was also given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.  That claim is contrary to the evidence we have in Scripture, but nevertheless the Jews still claim that the oral law originated at Mt. Sinai.

There were also at least two kinds of circumcision being done during Paul's time.  There was the traditional ritual circumcision that was the culmination of the lengthy proselyte training and conversion program that the Jewish sages had developed to supposedly turn a Gentile into a Jew so that he could be saved.  And there was the kind of circumcision that Paul did to Timothy, which was probably more like what Abraham was given as the sign of his covenant with God, and which evidently did not put Timothy in the position Paul spoke of in Galatians 5:2, "if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."  Also,there was the kind of circumcision that was done to 8-day-old male babies-- the kind of circumcision that Jesus and Paul received.  Nothing that Paul says against circumcision is applicable to the circumcision done to 8-day-old baby boys because what Paul says against circumcision always refers to males old enough to choose for themselves.

The traditional proselyte program that preceded circumcision for Gentiles included instruction in both God's Law and the traditions of oral law.  The culmination of the program included a solemn vow (covenant) by the proselyte to keep both God's Law and the man-made traditions of oral law, before the proselyte was circumcised and accepted into full fellowship in the synagogue and considered "saved" as a son of Abraham.

Christians have always understood the extended metaphor at the end of Galatians 4 as if Paul was contrasting the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai against the covenant that God made with Abraham.  That is the most obvious interpretation to us, but it has some significant problems when compared to the rest of Scripture and the claims Paul made about his own ministry.  But what if the Jews in Galatia were teaching the Gentile believers that in order to come into God's covenant and fellowship with the Jews the Gentiles needed to complete the traditional proselyte training program and then make the solemn covenant [supposedly] "handed down from Mt. Sinai" to observe the oral law. which was also supposedly passed down "from Mt. Sinai".  In that case, Paul would have been contrasting the covenant required of Gentiles at the traditional Jewish Circumcision ceremony against the promises and covenant that God gave to Abraham.  Paul's point about Hagar, was that her descendants were born as the result of a man-made plan devised to help achieve what God had already promised to fulfill another way.  The covenant that the oral law required Gentiles to make at the Circumcision ceremony was also a man-made plan devised to help achieve what God had already promised to achieve another way.  If that was the contrast Paul was making in Galatians 4, then he was telling the truth when he testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14)

 

[Wingnut]

7 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The covenant that the oral law required Gentiles to make at the Circumcision ceremony was also a man-made plan devised to help achieve what God had already promised to achieve another way.  If that was the contrast Paul was making in Galatians 4, then he was telling the truth when he testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14)

 

If one does a concordance search of "the law" as used by the Bible, this phrase means...

1)  The 10 commandments.

2) The writings of Moses or the Pentateuch. (when used as "the law and the prophets")

3) The whole OT

I cannot think of a scripture which even considers the oral Jewish traditions as part of "the law".

If you can find such a scripture, I would like to see it.

[Robert]

7 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Paul circumcised Timothy so that Timothy could be acceptable in the Jewish circles where Paul preached the Gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:20

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Paul knew that Timothy did not have to be circumcised to be saved, neither was Timothy under any bondage because his motive for circumcision was to not give offence while preaching the Gospel.

Excellent answer....That's what I was thinking, but I had to test you....

[Robert]

6 hours ago, Wingnut said:

If one does a concordance search of "the law" as used by the Bible, this phrase means...

1)  The 10 commandments.

2) The writings of Moses or the Pentateuch. (when used as "the law and the prophets")

 

OF course the 10 commandments are included in the Pentateuch. So when Paul stated, " I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised (compare to Acts 15:1,5) that he is a debtor to keep the whole law" he had all the rules of the Pentateuch in mind.

In other words if you make circumcision a method of salvation then you must keep all the rules in the Pentateuch. For example, ff you make the Sabbath something you do to gain heaven, the same principle applies.

[Wingnut]

58 minutes ago, Robert said:

OF course the 10 commandments are included in the Pentateuch. So when Paul stated, " I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised (compare to Acts 15:1,5) that he is a debtor to keep the whole law" he had all the rules of the Pentateuch in mind.

In other words if you make circumcision a method of salvation then you must keep all the rules in the Pentateuch. For example, ff you make the Sabbath something you do to gain heaven, the same principle applies.

 

Matthew 19:17

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

Revelation 12:17

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

We all know that one cannot earn salvation.

But, as a condition to being given that gift, we need to keep the commandments as best we can, to enter into life.

If you think otherwise Robert, prove it WITHOUT QUOTING PAUL.

 

 

[Robert]

40 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Matthew 19:17

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

....as a condition to being given that gift, we need to keep the commandments as best we can, to enter into life.

If you think otherwise Robert, prove it WITHOUT QUOTING PAUL.

Are you afraid of what Paul might say?

And Jesus, in Matthew 19:17, isn't going against Paul's famous quote that says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." (Rom 3:28)

So according to Paul we stand just before God apart from our law keeping!

BTW, Jesus didn't say "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" as best you can. 

Jesus said: "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"

If Paul said we stand just "in Christ" apart from our law keeping,  why did Christ tell the RYR  "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"?  

[Robert]

17 minutes ago, Robert said:

Are you afraid of what Paul might say?

And Jesus, in Matthew 19:17, isn't going against Paul's famous quote that says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." (Rom 3:28)

So according to Paul we stand just before God apart from our law keeping!

BTW, Jesus didn't say "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" as best you can. 

Jesus said: "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"

If Paul said we stand just "in Christ" apart from our law keeping,  why did Christ tell the RYR  "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"?  

Of course our answers need to come from the Bible alone! However, Ellen White gives a good clue into why Christ said what He did to the RYR:

"What is justification by faith? It is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself (i.e., saving him "in Christ Jesus"). When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ. FLB 111.2

Now, Paul said we stand just "in Christ" apart from our law keeping!  Why  then did Christ tell the RYR  "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"?  

[Robert]

32 minutes ago, Robert said:

It is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust

How do you lay someone's pride (glory) in the dust?

Let's say you go around making the claim that you are a master at calculus (like some Engineers that I use to know who couldn't remember the simplest of derivatives and/or integrals).

Q: What's the best way to put you into your place, i.e., put your glory in the dust?

A: Give you a calculus problem.

What then?

You'll either

a] try to work the problem or

b] you'll excuse yourself from the conversation so you won't be embarrassed. 

If you try and fail then your glory is put in the dust.

Then you must admit that you aren't a master at doing calculus.

If you make up an excuse and leave, then you'll get to keep your pride.

Now, instead of using calculus as an example, let's replace doing calculus with doing or keeping God's law.  

Think it out....

[8thdaypriest]

9 hours ago, Wingnut said:

I think I could understand the Gospel perfectly well without Tabernacle imagery.

Most Gentiles did not think in terms of Christ being a High Priest.

The Book of Hebrews was written to Jewish converts who DID think in terms of Atonement and the High Priest.

Thus I bet the Corinthians barely thought in terms of Christ's role as a High Priest on Atonement.

Adventists, of all Christian groups, are the only ones I know who dwell so long on the Tabernacle.

Obviously, the Elllen White, alcohol free guided tour of the Holy Land must have spent a whole lot of time touring the Tabernacle, and for this reason, Adventists come back from this tour thinking that the Tabernacle is hugely important.  

All other Christian Tour Groups who tour the Holy Land, spend their time looking at things other than the Tabernacle.  Thus the Tabernacle has almost zero importance to them.  And I don't think they are the unbalanced ones.  They don't believe Christ entered to the Tabernacle in 1844.

I do NOT believe Jesus entered the MHP on October 22, 1844.  

Mrs White described Jesus being taken in a chariot to the MHP.  Mrs White wrote that she "was shown what happened in Heaven on October 22nd."  She described Jesus standing before the Ark, in the MHP.  But she has Jesus - as High Priest - in the glorious DAILY garb, not in the 5 pieces of plain white linen, which was the prescribed clothing (for the High Priest) for the Day of Atonement.  See Leviticus Cpt 16.

Mr Edson "saw" Jesus entering the MHP, before Ellen "saw" this. 

So what was the message?  The LORD could have been trying to tell them that October 22 was NOT the Day of Atonement.  He could have been telling them - yes - that Jesus would enter the MHP at the end of the 2300 evening/mornings - but - that was not October 22, 1844.  

Jesus certainly does NOT need 175 years plus to determine which persons belong to Him.  Jesus said, "I know my sheep".  "My sheep hear my voice." 

The idea that the Day of Atonement has been going on now for almost 175 years is not consistent with Scripture.  The DAY of Atonement was a ONE DAY event.  ONE DAY!!  Personally - I believe it will be judgment day - the Second Coming day. 

[Wingnut]

Robert, my principle #2 in understanding Paul is that one must be able to prove one's pet doctrines without Paul.

James says faith without works is dead.

Jesus gives parables such as folks invited to a feast arriving without proper garments which it seems to have been THEIR duty to make sure they have, thus implying some duty on their part.  Or virgins lacking oil -  a dereliction of duty on their part.  Or the Mark of the Beast which we accept and are damned, or reject and are persecuted - again a duty on our part.

Peter implies a duty of enduring under pressure.  

 

1 Pet 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1 John 2 says...

 

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

... again telling us we have a duty as Christians.

Jude tells us ...

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

This says we have a duty to test doctrine, again something WE DO.  The rest of Jude goes on to tell of how some, not paying attention, have wandered from the faith and become lost.

Thus I see the NT, from beginning to end, consistently telling us we have a part to play.

In this thread I do not plan on responding to anything Paul or Ellen are supposed to have said, since I believe both are open to misinterpretation when quoted out of context.

Also, I plan to keep on topic, which is "How to understand Paul".

 

 

 

 

 

[Robert]

58 minutes ago, Robert said:

If Paul said we stand just "in Christ" apart from our law keeping,  why did Christ tell the RYR  "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"?  

BTW, Jesus didn't say "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" as best you can. 

You didn't answer my question....

You don't think Paul is contradicting Christ, do you?