How to understand Paul

[iouae]

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 saved, 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.

 

[patrick jane]

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.

Gee, thanks for trying to tell us how to read. I remember when I first discovered Paul's epistles, I told everybody I saw.

 

[iouae]

Gee, thanks for trying to tell us how to read. I remember when I first discovered Paul's epistles, I told everybody I saw.

Yes, the highly under-utilised Gift of Literacy.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

Whose fault is that, of the reader or of Paul's inconsistency? Either way, Paul is the one to blame.

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.

The only way to understand what you mean, is with an example. Otherwise, Paul is the impersonation of contradictions of himself and to others.

Let's take Galatians. Gal 1:6 seems to be the theme of the book.

The explanation of this text is that Paul used to overturn Nazarene synagogues into Christian churches. Some of the Nazarene members were sent from Judea to try to restore their synagogues from the hands of Paul and he got terribly upset to see some of the members deserting Paul and going back to the Nazarene Sect.

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"

Poppy ****! How could Jesus have called the believers made so by his own disciples and back into an anti-Jewish religion if Jesus was a Jew? It makes no sense at all.

Gal 1:13-14 would suggest that the "other" Gospel has something to do with the "Jew's religion."

Of course! Jesus was a Jew wasn't he? That was natural as his disciples were trying to preserve the cause of Jesus.

Gal 2:3 suggests that circumcision was the stumbling block of this "other Gospel".

See what I mean? Paul himself knew he was fighting the apostles of Jesus. Hence, when he noticed that the apostles seemed to be preaching a different gospel about a different Jesus, he allowed to qualms to consider them as false apostles transformed themselves into the disciples of Jesus. (II Cor. 4-6, 13)

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).

Which of course was a lie because circumcision was an everlasting token of the Abraham covenant with the Lord, and Paul would preach against it even to the Jews themselves to stop circumcising their own children. (Gen. 17:13; Acts 21:21)

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

Which goes without saying that the idea was about Paul's policy of Replacement Theology.

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".

And the policy went on as a pernicious attempt to replace Judaism.

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.

The faith base salvation is based on the repentance and obedience to God's Law and not on faith without the works of the Law which would be like a body without the breath of life aka dead. (James 2:26)

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 realize that each epistle is telling a story, and the quote only has relevance within the context of that story.

You ain't kidding as I totally agree with you.

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.

In fact, no one needs to be circumcised to be saved. We have never said this to any one whomsoever. Circumcision is a requirement if one is or becomes a Jew. All we need to be saved is repentance and obedience to the Law.

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.

That's a Pauline lie in the search of a reason to attack the rite of the circumcision because of its value among the Jews.

 

[iouae]

That's a Pauline lie in the search of a reason to attack the rite of the circumcision because of its value among the Jews.

Ben, Paul was not trying to convert Gentiles to Judaism, but to Christianity.

As you rightly say, preaching the Gospel started in synagogues, so it makes sense that there was a faction of new Christian converts thinking that all Christian converts should be circumcised.

Paul loved his Jewish brethren. Paul is not attacking Jews or preaching substitution theology.

All Paul is trying to discourage in Galatians is Christians feeling they need to be circumcised. In Acts 15-16 we see this was the biggest crisis to hit the new Christian church, and it was decided by all, that GENTILE converts to Christianity do not need to be circumcised. Jewish converts were already circumcised when they were 8 days old.

I don't see why you would have anything against what Paul was saying in Galatians, since he was not saying it to Jews, but to Gentiles of Galatia who, even you would agree, have no reason to be circumcised, since they are not offspring of Abraham.

 

[jamie]

...since they are not offspring of Abraham.

Jesus explained that the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63).

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7 NKJV)​

Ben perceives himself to be a Jew because of his flesh but he is not a spiritual Jew, which is what counts.

Jesus tells his congregations, "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9 NKJV)

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

His letters are meant to be understood as a whole. Good post.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

1. He couldn't get into the church he persecuted.
2. He was the first into something new.
3. The Lord appeared to him more than once, progressive revelation.
4. His Acts ministry and six letters were limited in scope.
5. His post Acts ministry and seven letters were complete in scope.

I see these as important in understanding Paul.

 

[patrick jane]

Whose fault is that, of the reader or of Paul's inconsistency? Either way, Paul is the one to blame.




That's a Pauline lie in the search of a reason to attack the rite of the circumcision because of its value among the Jews.

Paul hater

 

[heir]

How to understand Paul

1 Corinthians 2:9-13 KJV, 2 Timothy 1:13 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:7 KJV

 

[KingdomRose]

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.

This is KingdomRose and I am trying to answer parts of this post as I read it. Actually it is true to say that "any quote from Paul, out of context, can be made to say almost anything." ANY sentence taken out of context from ANY piece of literature or letter can mean just about anything. That is why we must ALWAYS read it in context.



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).

Paul said that the Law was like a schoolmaster to teach them to look ahead to Christ. Is that what you mean?

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

Yes. No longer was God concerned with the physical temple in Jerusalem. The "Jerusalem above" was now the important Jerusalem...the heavenly Jerusalem...the site of the "true tent," or, temple, not made with hands.

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 saved, since he has departed from a faith-based salvation.

Yes.

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.

Nothing of the sort? That is exactly what he was saying!

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.

I guess I don't understand your position on this. What you say just above is also true. I don't know why you would disagree with the ideas espoused in your first few paragraphs.

 

[heir]

1. He couldn't get into the church he persecuted.
2. He was the first into something new.
3. The Lord appeared to him more than once, progressive revelation.
4. His Acts ministry and six letters were limited in scope.
5. His post Acts ministry and seven letters were complete in scope.

I see these as important in understanding Paul.

excellentamundo! :up:

 

[Dialogos]

Saul to Paul,

You made the following statements:

He couldn't get into the church he persecuted.

Where does it say this in the bible?

He was the first into something new.

Where does it say this in the bible?

The Lord appeared to him more than once, progressive revelation.

What do you mean by progressive revelation?

His Acts ministry and six letters were limited in scope.

What do you mean by this?

His post Acts ministry and seven letters were complete in scope

What do you mean by this?

 

[iouae]

1 Corinthians 2:9-13 KJV, 2 Timothy 1:13 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:7 KJV

Heir - what I take you to be saying is that one needs the Holy Spirit to understand Paul?

The other NT writers less so. Maybe Revelation is difficult. So why is Paul so hard to understand?

 

[heir]

Heir - what I take you to be saying is that one needs the Holy Spirit to understand Paul?

The Holy Ghost teaches us comparing spiritual things with spiritual. We hold fast the form of sound words that we have heard of Paul. Hold fast carries the idea of being bonded to and by what Paul says. When we consider what Paul says and the Lord gives us understanding!

So why is Paul so hard to understand?

For one, he was before a blasphemer who could not be forgiven in that world neither in the world to come (Matthew 12:31-32 KJV, 1 Timothy 1:16 KJV)). I believe that to be one of things that was hard for Peter to understand (2 Peter 3:16 KJV).

 

[jamie]

So why is Paul so hard to understand?

Paul was a Jewish rabbi (teacher) and taught from a Jewish perspective. Paul understood the Mosaic law well enough to understand that God gave the law to the Hebrew people (not just the Jews) and that it was not based on faith but on the letter of the law.

For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them, but the word which they heard did not profit them not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. (Hebrews 4:2 NKJV)​

 

[Nihilo]

In understanding the Bible as a whole, including Paul, I'd just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[heir]

In understanding the Bible as a whole, including Paul, I'd just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

:darwinsm:

 

[jamie]

For one, he was before a blasphemer who could not be forgiven in that world neither in the world to come (Matthew 12:31-32 KJV, 1 Timothy 1:16 KJV)). I believe that to be one of things that was hard for Peter to understand (2 Peter 3:16 KJV).

Not true. Paul was never accused of blasphemy, on the contrary, he was very zealous for God and his law. Paul believed the NT believers were blaspheming God until one day Christ asked him to knock it off.

And he did.

 

[Danoh]

Paul was a Jewish rabbi (teacher) and taught from a Jewish perspective. Paul understood the Mosaic law well enough to understand that God gave the law to the Hebrew people (not just the Jews) and that it was not based on faith but on the letter of the law.

For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them, but the word which they heard did not profit them not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. (Hebrews 4:2 NKJV)​

Actually, it was both - the letter of the Law walked in by faith, or, from the heart, Rom. 2:25, 28, 29.

But much of Israel had so grown to emphasize the letter of the Law absent of actual faith that even the Gentiles - who have not the Law, v. 14 - when they did right from the heart out of their conscience of right and wrong - they would unavoidably show just how bad off Israel, who had the Law, and therefore knew the way of God more perfectly, v. 18, had become, v. 26, 27.