Did Paul Do This?

[klutedavid]

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about divisions in the Church. How some were saying they were of Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas. When addressing this he asked, "Are we not all of Christ?" Meaning just because it was the message of Paul or Apollos that lead someone to Christ, that doesn't mean they are a follower of Paul or Apollos.

In 2 Peter, Peter writes that some of things Paul writes about are hard to understand and some folks twist them like they do other scriptures.

In thinking about this I realized that a lot of division we have amongst ourselves does come from Paul's writings.

Part of the error within some dispensational thought, for example, is that Paul preached a separate Gospel of Grace for the gentiles.

The Calvinist idea of election and predestination is heavily based on the book of Romans.

Sola Fide from Galatians.

The Continuist vs Cessationist debate comes from opposing views of 1 Corinthians.

The rapture from Thessalonians...

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

Hello Drew.

I don't think there is a remedy, Paul's letters will always generate controversy. As far as I am concerned, Paul's letters provide a piercing clarity to the understanding of the revelation of the Christ. One needs to only read the letter to the Romans, to understand the depth of Paul's comprehension of God's revelation.

Even if we removed Paul's letters from the scripture, controversy would still remain, that is the nature of the beast. No two people will ever fully agree with one another, that is the primary problem.

 

[John 1720]

@John 1720 I have a few minutes now but probably won't in the days ahead. So if you don't mind I would like to share this with you and others.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Above is Paul's commission. Why did I make 3 words bold and red? Good question!

The word for gentiles is ethnos. In the LXX (Greek OT) in almost 90% of the places where ethnos appears, the Hebrew manuscript is translated into English as nations. However, for some reason that % is almost reversed with ethnos being translated as gentiles around 75% of the time. So, would it be wrong to translate ethnos as nations here? Not at all... Young's Literal did it, as did The Literal Version, The Scriptures, The Modern KJV and many more.

That leaves the word "and" appearing two times... what is the significance? Well, when you go to the Greek you'll find they are two different words. The first is kai which is the Greek word for "and" but the second is "te" which appears 49 times in the NT... but only once as "and." The te means "both" or it can mean "also." So, allow me to retranslate....

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before the nations and kings both the children of Israel.

Te' translates as "not only" ... "but also" more than it does "both" by a ratio of more than 4:1 which the compilers in turn retranslate to contextualize as simply 'and'.
Outline of Strongs Biblical Usage
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Acts 9 (Blue Letter Bible: NKJV - New King James Version)

1. not only ... but also
2. both ... and
3. as ... so
   a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; both or also (properly, as correlation of G2532):—also, and, both, even, then, whether. Often used in composition, usually as the latter participle.

So maybe the better translation of Acts 9:15 is
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, not only the children of Israel:

Paul was to go to the nations and kings who were both the children of Israel. For those with an Eidetic Memory, this might look at least familiar:

Genesis 35:11 Also God said to him: "I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.

The seed of Jacob, Israel, would become nations and kings. Paul was sent to nations and kings... thus like Yeshua and the other disciples, he was sent to to call Israel home.

Really? What kind of doctrine is that? Coming to that conclusion with such scanty support of recontextualizing one Greek word is a leap beyond acceptable consideration in my estimate. It erases almost 2000 years of the Great Commission. Do you believe all Christians need to get DNA tested before God provides them with the Holy Spirit so they can have a share in His Kingdom? Whoops! I forgot, I did get the results and have no Jewish blood in me but am pure Viking-Irish. I guess the ethne' we have been working with these last 2000 years were a waste and need to hear the bad news that alas they just ain't Jewish enough to get to heaven.

• Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

All kidding aside Ken that's new doctrine that contradicts an enormous weight of Scripture. Even if your Greek was right, and I don't believe all our versions needs to be retranslated, you would have to ignore reams of Scripture that point to the revelation that all ethne' are included in the blessing, both those grafted in as well as the natural branches.

Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
BTW that's πᾶς ἔθνος emphasis "All Nations!"
In Christ, John 17:20 "all who believe in me through their word - the apostles whose words are recorded in the New Testament" - Jesus prayed for me that night!

 

[John 1720]

Just so I am clear... I abhor supercessionism. Absolutely stand against the whole concept. Blessings.

Yes, I believe it is bad doctrine as well, probably just as bad as superexclusionism. I am most likely done with the discussion as I'm flying out tomorrow.
May God put a fire in our heart for the lost who do not yet know Christ, Patrick
John 17:20

PS: AM update. Didn't want to end this on a sour note. I need to pack up but you were in my prayers last night and I will continue to pray for you. Be enriched and fruitful in His Word. - Pat

 

[Righttruth]

The NT has become bottom heavy because of Paul's letters. He had misguided zeal to convert people with his own notions much against the directive of Jesus. He started the first division in Jerusalem church on Mark's account. No wonder too much reliance of his letters written to specific congregations with their problems is bound to create more and more denominations! So the best thing is to disregard his themes when they contradict Jesus or other sources.

 

[Ken Rank]

Te' translates as "not only" ... "but also" more than it does "both" by a ratio of more than 4:1 which the compilers in turn retranslate to contextualize as simply 'and'.
Outline of Biblical Usage

1. not only ... but also
2. both ... and
3. as ... so
   a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; both or also (properly, as correlation of G2532):—also, and, both, even, then, whether. Often used in composition, usually as the latter participle.

So maybe the better translation of Acts 9:15 is
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, not only the children of Israel:

I am not sure where you get your translation information from, but... in the KJV (which I am using as a source, not as a KJV only adherent) the word "te" appears in the Greek 49 times, and 39 times (rounding off, 80%) it was translated as "both." 4 out of 5 times.... the weight is on BOTH. It was translated as "whether" 4 times and "then" 2 times. After that, there are 4 different words used once (and, so, also, even). As I look through the Septuagint, I don't find one example of your definition. But again... you are welcome to believe whatever you want on this. I don't care if you don't agree with me, I really don't. I shared a thought, accept or reject... doesn't matter... I am not interested in an endless debate over this.

Really? What kind of doctrine is that? Coming to that conclusion with such scanty support of recontextualizing one Greek word is a leap beyond acceptable consideration in my estimate. It erases almost 2000 years of the Great Commission. Do you believe all Christians need to get DNA tested before God provides them with the Holy Spirit so they can have a share in His Kingdom? Whoops! I forgot, I did get the results and have no Jewish blood in me but am pure Viking-Irish. I guess the ethne' we have been working with these last 2000 years were a waste and need to hear the bad news that alas they just ain't Jewish enough to get to heaven.

• Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

All kidding aside Ken that's new doctrine that contradicts an enormous weight of Scripture. Even if your Greek was right, and I don't believe all our versions needs to be retranslated, you would have to ignore reams of Scripture that point to the revelation that all ethne' are included in the blessing, both those grafted in as well as the natural branches.

Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
BTW that's πᾶς ἔθνος emphasis "All Nations!"
In Christ, John 17:20 "all who believe in me through their word - the apostles whose words are recorded in the New Testament" - Jesus prayed for me that night!

Actually, what I am keying on is THE MOST REPEATED prophecy in Scripture, and it is one I have yet to hear a mainstream Christian pastor preach on. That aside, as I ALREADY STATED CLEARLY (sorry for the caps, but since I have said this once and you either didn't read it or ignored, I want to make sure it is seen) the gospel is for >>ALL<< people. Do I need to go up to my previous post and link you to it so you can see where I already said this? You make it sound like I am reinventing the wheel... the gospel is intended for ALL OF CREATION... which is why creation ITSELF groans as it awaits it's redemption. None of that means Yeshua's mission has one facet to it... his work addressed MANY ISSUES not just sin. We are raised in a culture to see his work addressing sin only and thus when we see the word "saved" we think eternal salvation when often that isn't even the topic of the verse that has the word saved in it (Romans 9:27 comes to mind).

 

[Big Drew]

The NT has become bottom heavy because of Paul's letters. He had misguided zeal to convert people with his own notions much against the directive of Jesus. He started the first division in Jerusalem church on Mark's account. No wonder too much reliance of his letters written to specific congregations with their problems is bound to create more and more denominations! So the best thing is to disregard his themes when they contradict Jesus or other sources.

In which case the Bible is not inerrant?

I'm not asking this to be argumentative. Just interested in your perspective.

 

[Ken Rank]

The NT has become bottom heavy because of Paul's letters. He had misguided zeal to convert people with his own notions much against the directive of Jesus. He started the first division in Jerusalem church on Mark's account. No wonder too much reliance of his letters written to specific congregations with their problems is bound to create more and more denominations! So the best thing is to disregard his themes when they contradict Jesus or other sources.

I agree that it is bottom heavy and that we should not pit one side of the book against the other but rather take the time to find harmony within all 66 books. I don't agree with your assessment of Paul... I simply think Paul is not understood today. His use of exegetical tools as well as abstract forms of speech not in use today AND his "function not form" Hebraic mentality is missed by this "form not function" Greek influenced culture we live in.

 

[Righttruth]

In which case the Bible is not inerrant?

I'm not asking this to be argumentative. Just interested in your perspective.

Anything visible and product of men cannot be perfect. Bible is the base and guidepost to the truth that can be realized when we depend on the Holy Spirit.

 

[Righttruth]

I agree that it is bottom heavy and that we should not pit one side of the book against the other but rather take the time to find harmony within all 66 books. I don't agree with your assessment of Paul... I simply think Paul is not understood today. His use of exegetical tools as well as abstract forms of speech not in use today AND his "function not form" Hebraic mentality is missed by this "form not function" Greek influenced culture we live in.

Yes, harmony can be realized in all if we applied the words of Jesus as the yardstick. The words of Jesus ought to supersede all. Paul is more misunderstood than understood because he came up with notions that contradict the sublime teaching of Jesus. That becomes convenient for the nominal believers.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yes, harmony can be realized in all if we applied the words of Jesus as the yardstick. The words of Jesus ought to supersede all. Paul is more misunderstood than understood because he came up with notions that contradict the sublime teaching of Jesus. That becomes convenient for the nominal believers.

I appreciate you but I don't even agree here. You can be the most ardent adherent of dispensational thinking in the world (i.e. we went from a time of law to a time of grace)... and yet you couldn't make the case that the law came to an end until after Yeshua's death. Him not sinning means him not breaking the Law and so the yardstick he used to measure righteous living and a righteous walk was the law. He wouldn't have taken from it because there is a command that says nobody can take from it. So if we are going to say "the word (or actions) of Yeshua supersede all" I would agree IF that statement means he was revealing the intent (spirit) behind the law in every word he spoke and deed he performed.

 

[Big Drew]

Anything visible and product of men cannot be perfect. Bible is the base and guidepost to the truth that can be realized when we depend on the Holy Spirit.

Our views aren't that different, in that regard.

 

[sparow]

<<<Just so you know where I am coming from... I don't expect you to accept this, but this is what I believe... the word for "new" in Jeremiah 31:31 is chadashah. That is from the root chadesh which means 'to renew' being used as an adjective. So it is literally "renewed covenant" not "new covenant." If this is true, we should find the same in the Greek when this is repeated in Hebrews 8:8. And we do... the word for new is kainos which means "new in regards to freshness." The word nehos is new in regards to AGE. In other words, something brand new is nehos, something renewed is kainos... and kainos is the word we find in the Hebrews passage I just mentioned.

The word usage overwhelmingly indicates "new" not "renew" in an exhaustive search of the passages in the Bible. (see below) Jesus came to introduce something new, "You must be born from above", not to patch up something old. Jesus doesn't destroy the law but He fulfills it. On fulfilling He didn't leave us orphans but abides in us by the Holy Spirit He also fulfills part B of the Abrahamic blessing which brings the completion of the blessing (the transforming power of the Gospel) to all peoples by commissioning us. We are therefore on mission with Christ until He comes again.>>>

I used the “renewed covenant” approach to argue against the imaginary new covenant that most Christians seem to believe in; some say Paul introduced the new covenant and not Christ; they are never able to articulate their new covenant.

The word “new” can mean renewed, but our new covenant is both new and renewed.

The Ten Commandments are defined as the covenant; but the covenant is much more; it is every word God has spoken. The Law and the prophets was the OT covenant which included the prophesied new covenant; so therefore the old and new covenants are one.

My understanding of the new covenant; what is new?:

New management, new King/High Priest, new sacrifice, new priesthood and new Kingdom.

What is old is everything spoken by God up to the new point, which cannot be changed except as a function of prophesy; Christ’s appearance and fulfilment of everything concerning Him in the Law and the prophets verifies who He is and also validates the OT. To abrogate the old covenant is to throw half of the baby out with the bath water; even though the old covenant is finished and a new started the wordage of the covenant remains the same.

 

[Righttruth]

I appreciate you but I don't even agree here. You can be the most ardent adherent of dispensational thinking in the world (i.e. we went from a time of law to a time of grace)... and yet you couldn't make the case that the law came to an end until after Yeshua's death. Him not sinning means him not breaking the Law and so the yardstick he used to measure righteous living and a righteous walk was the law. He wouldn't have taken from it because there is a command that says nobody can take from it. So if we are going to say "the word (or actions) of Yeshua supersede all" I would agree IF that statement means he was revealing the intent (spirit) behind the law in every word he spoke and deed he performed.

I don't believe in Dispensation concept. Jesus fulfilled the letter of the Law which is easy compared to fulfilling the spirit of the Law. As I had indicated elsewhere, Jesus said that it is not simply avoiding murder, but also thinking of it. Jesus didn't destroy the Law. He added the spiritual component to it.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

In 1 Corinthians Paul speaks about divisions in the Church.

I can go on...but I wonder what it is about Paul's letters that have caused so much division? What is it about them that makes them hard to understand? Does it just seem like there's more division based on his teachings because he wrote the majority of the NT?

I have wondered if we didn't have Paul's epistles in the Bible if we would be more unified. Not that I'm saying we should disregard them...because there is much truth to be found in his words...nor do I think that Paul is to blame, but our interpretations of what he said...but is there a remedy?

You make a false assertion without an argument for it. Unification is better. A "heavy handed" church could unify the bulk of the Christian faith; this has been done in the past, not good. Does that make it true? Does that make it better? I think division is good as long as it is tolerated. Division that is not tolerated is the crime. Division that is argued/discussed/debated forces one to defend what one believes in. The best defense being scripture. The searching of scripture to defend what I believe has been the best learning experience for me.

Jesus' words are largely the gospel which as you state is much less controversial. Good, that is what saves us. So, despite our arguments, we will all still be in heaven with our varied doctrine. Remember the simplest concepts are the most important.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Ken Rank]

I don't believe in Dispensation concept. Jesus fulfilled the letter of the Law which is easy compared to fulfilling the spirit of the Law. As I had indicated elsewhere, Jesus said that it is not simply avoiding murder, but also thinking of it. Jesus didn't destroy the Law. He added the spiritual component to it.

Agreed although I don't believe he added the spiritual component... I believe that was always there. Think of it this way RT, if God is the author of the Law (and He is) and God does not change... then when God said, "you will not commit adultery" He spoke the "letter" to Moses but there was always an "intent" behind the letter. The intent behind the letter is the spirit of the law. Thus when Yeshua said, "if you look upon a woman and lust in your heart...." that concept was always behind the letter.

Matthew 5:17 is misunderstood today. It is used as a "proof text" to say the Law has been done away with. But if that is true, the verse contradicts itself because it opens up with him saying, in essence, "I have not come to do away with the law." The interesting thing I have found is one of the last definition entries for pleroo (fulfill) in Thayer. It states, "2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment." The idea then is this verse is him telling us that one of the facets of his mission was to become the model in terms of a perfect righteous walk for all who follow him.

 

[Ken Rank]

Remember the simplest concepts are the most important.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

But sometimes the simplest concepts are the ones that we overlook. For example.. is "believe" in John 3:16 just being firmly convinced? I used to think so and then I realized something one day, why is it that in the KJV John 3:16 has "believETH" when in other places (like James 2:19) it lacks the "eth?" I learned that the translators where differentiating between two different forms of a Greek word and in this case, the "eth" shows an ACTIVE form whereas the lack of one (like in James 2:19) it is a passive form. In other words, John 3:16 demands action... whereas James 2:19 does not. Simple.. yes... but this is why we are still told to study.

 

[Ken Rank]

<<<Just so you know where I am coming from... I don't expect you to accept this, but this is what I believe... the word for "new" in Jeremiah 31:31 is chadashah. That is from the root chadesh which means 'to renew' being used as an adjective. So it is literally "renewed covenant" not "new covenant." If this is true, we should find the same in the Greek when this is repeated in Hebrews 8:8. And we do... the word for new is kainos which means "new in regards to freshness." The word nehos is new in regards to AGE. In other words, something brand new is nehos, something renewed is kainos... and kainos is the word we find in the Hebrews passage I just mentioned.

The word usage overwhelmingly indicates "new" not "renew" in an exhaustive search of the passages in the Bible. (see below) Jesus came to introduce something new, "You must be born from above", not to patch up something old. Jesus doesn't destroy the law but He fulfills it. On fulfilling He didn't leave us orphans but abides in us by the Holy Spirit He also fulfills part B of the Abrahamic blessing which brings the completion of the blessing (the transforming power of the Gospel) to all peoples by commissioning us. We are therefore on mission with Christ until He comes again.>>>

I used the “renewed covenant” approach to argue against the imaginary new covenant that most Christians seem to believe in; some say Paul introduced the new covenant and not Christ; they are never able to articulate their new covenant.

The word “new” can mean renewed, but our new covenant is both new and renewed.

The Ten Commandments are defined as the covenant; but the covenant is much more; it is every word God has spoken. The Law and the prophets was the OT covenant which included the prophesied new covenant; so therefore the old and new covenants are one.

My understanding of the new covenant; what is new?:

New management, new King/High Priest, new sacrifice, new priesthood and new Kingdom.

What is old is everything spoken by God up to the new point, which cannot be changed except as a function of prophesy; Christ’s appearance and fulfilment of everything concerning Him in the Law and the prophets verifies who He is and also validates the OT. To abrogate the old covenant is to throw half of the baby out with the bath water; even though the old covenant is finished and a new started the wordage of the covenant remains the same.

It would be helpful if you hit "reply" to the posts you want to comment on or use @ and then the users name to tag them. Otherwise, we don't know when you have commented and nobody has time to read every post.

To address your points... there are many things that are NEW in the "new covenant" and you picked up on some. However, some you picked are not new. A new Kingdom? For example, there are two priesthoods. One is the Levitical and serves Israel... the other IS ISRAEL and serves the nations. The latter isn't new, how can the "Order of Melchizedek" be "new" when Abraham tied to this "priest" in Genesis? So it isn't new, not at all.... but our functioning within it is. To add to your picks... we have the Torah, the Law, literally "the instructions" of God. They were placed on stone (in writing by man) and they are being moved to the mind and heart by God. The latter is NEW but the Torah itself is not.

The words mean what they mean sparow, and the hard part is just getting our own bias to back off and let it say what is says. IN EVERY CASE but once in the NT, when you see "new covenant" you will find the word kainos. The one time you find nehos with covenant, the context is dealing with taking the Law from stone to the heart. You start looking around... Yeshua says, "I give you two NEW commandments," but the commandments he gives are in the Torah. Loving God and neighbor were not new at all, perhaps the depth (intent, spirit) behind them is new in the sense that nobody talked about them... but the commandments themselves are found in Scripture before his time. In the Hebrew... the root for the word new (in Jer. 31:31) is the word we find translated as "new" with "new moon." But when the moon comes around every month, is it a different moon or the same one that is always there? The latter... that is RENEWING it's cycle. That same word is being used as an adjective to describe the covenant. So it translates as "new" but is related to something that was called "Everlasting." The covenant is EVERLASTING (Psalms 105:8-10) and if God says it is everlasting, then is our theology is at odds with that, WE need to change, we don't make the Word change. Respectfully....

 

[Righttruth]

Agreed although I don't believe he added the spiritual component... I believe that was always there. Think of it this way RT, if God is the author of the Law (and He is) and God does not change... then when God said, "you will not commit adultery" He spoke the "letter" to Moses but there was always an "intent" behind the letter. The intent behind the letter is the spirit of the law. Thus when Yeshua said, "if you look upon a woman and lust in your heart...." that concept was always behind the letter.

Yes, the spiritual component was there, but people had no preparation and understanding of that. It took more than a thousand year after slavery to get revealed by the Son.

Matthew 5:17 is misunderstood today. It is used as a "proof text" to say the Law has been done away with. But if that is true, the verse contradicts itself because it opens up with him saying, in essence, "I have not come to do away with the law." The interesting thing I have found is one of the last definition entries for pleroo (fulfill) in Thayer. It states, "2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment." The idea then is this verse is him telling us that one of the facets of his mission was to become the model in terms of a perfect righteous walk for all who follow him.

I simply understand that Jesus fulfilled the letter of the Law to move higher up in the spiritual realm. That is also expected from us through His help. On our own we may fail.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yes, the spiritual component was there, but people had no preparation and understanding of that. It took more than a thousand year after slavery to get revealed by the Son.

I simply understand that Jesus fulfilled the letter of the Law to move higher up in the spiritual realm. That is also expected from us through His help. On our own we may fail.

I am not sure I agree but I also don't think it matters. The Law from the beginning took into consideration the intent of a person. For example, if you pushed a man and he fell and hit his head, in some societies that one who pushed would be guilty of murder. But in God's Law, that person didn't intent to kill and that is taken into consideration. If "do not commit adultery" is also "do not lust in your heart" then "do not bear false witness" is also not attributing an intent to somebody in your own heart when you have no proof. We don't need to over-spiritualize this.... this is fairly straight forward.

 

[Righttruth]

I am not sure I agree but I also don't think it matters. The Law from the beginning took into consideration the intent of a person. For example, if you pushed a man and he fell and hit his head, in some societies that one who pushed would be guilty of murder. But in God's Law, that person didn't intent to kill and that is taken into consideration. If "do not commit adultery" is also "do not lust in your heart" then "do not bear false witness" is also not attributing an intent to somebody in your own heart when you have no proof. We don't need to over-spiritualize this.... this is fairly straight forward.

We now look at with this kind of thinking after the preaching of Jesus. Such a progressive spiritual dimension never occurred to Pharisees, Scribes and Jews before. That is why Torah had become Talmud.