What About Paul? (2)
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. Romans 7:14 NASB
Sold into bondage – pipráskō. To dispose of as merchandise, to sell into slavery. Preisker writes that Paul’s use of the verb in Romans 7 is “the desperate plight of the person.”[1] But we know from previous study that this desperation is not a result of having a body. It is the result of choosing something other than God’s torah. So in what sense is a person “sold” to sin?
First we need to make a small correction. The ancillary phrase “into bondage” is not in the Greek text. The Greek simply uses the preposition, hypo (under). The idea of bondage is added. We might ask why the translators felt it necessary since the original text reads only “sold under sin.” Might I suggest that the Augustinian/Lutheran idea of “sinful nature” creeps into this translation? “Sold into bondage” strengthens the thought, making it seem as if being embodied is the cause of this bondage. That, of course, has gnostic leanings, driving a wedge between the material and spiritual worlds. But this is not rabbinic, and it’s not Paul. Paul simply says that we are human, embodied in the world as human, and as such, subject to all the battlefield skirmishes that accompany what it means to be the center of conflict between the yetzer ha’ra and the yetzer ha’tov. Since we, each one of us, have chosen the paths of the yetzer ha’ra, we have become slaves to those paths. We are addicted to having things our way. In this sense, we sold ourselves into sinful behaviors. We exchanged the design that God gave us at birth for a new model, one wrapped around our own concerns. We bartered ourselves into this mess, as if we were property owned by ourselves, not borrowed from God. We forgot Genesis 2:7, that the value of being human is the loan of God’s breath, not the dust of our physical existence.
Second, we need to notice that “sin” isn’t quite as clear as we might have thought.
- The LXX with its summary use of hamartía, adikía, anomía, etc. hardly does justice to the rich and flexible Hebrew original and often misses the point, e.g., when “guilt” is in view. The Hebrew terms translated by hamartía and the like (for a full list see TDNT, I, 268–69) do not have an exclusive religious use, so that it is easy in translation either to import this or to weaken it. No uniform or self-contained concept of sin is present in the OT authors, and detailed questions of linguistic history further complicate the matter.
- The four main roots which carry the idea of sin have the varied senses of “sin or negligence,” “rebelling,” “guilt,” and “error,” enough to show the variety of thinking about sin quite apart from the many other roots.[2]
What does Paul have in mind? If only we could ask him for clarification. Are we sold as rebels? We are under the verdict “guilty”? Have we made mistakes? Have we neglected what God taught? All of these? And more? With such a broad scope of the nuances of “sin,” we should not be to quick to assert that Paul is speaking about the same idea we have inherited from Christian theology. Only one thing is clear. Paul is not gnostic. He does not consider the “flesh” the cause of our “sin.” Whatever he’s thinking, it is transactional. Some exchange was accomplished and we are both seller and sold in the process. As with all Hebraic ideas about Man and God, relationship is at the bottom, not fate and not physical being.
It’s interesting that the verb, pipráskō, has further nuances. It can also mean “betrayed, led astray, sold out” or “ruined.” In “1 Macc. 1:15 men sell themselves to wrong . . . Here pipráskō means ‘self-abandonment to sinful impulse.’”[3] If Paul is using the term as found in the way it was used during the rabbinic period, perhaps he’s saying more than “sold.” Perhaps he’s also telling his readers that they were betrayed, led astray and ruined (cf. Genesis 3) in the same sense that the couple in the Garden discovered. The yetzer ha’ra is cunning, the most subtle of all God’s creatures. And it lies beneath, doesn’t it?
Topical Index: sold into bondage, pipráskō, sin, Romans 7:14
[1] H. Preisker, pipráskō, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VI, p. 160.
[2] G. Quell, hamartía, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. I, pp. 267-286.
[3] H. Preisker, pipráskō, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VI, p. 160.
You say, “‘Sold into bondage’ strengthens the thought, making it seem as if being embodied is the cause of this bondage. That, of course, has gnostic leanings, driving a wedge between the material and spiritual worlds. But this is not rabbinic, and it’s not Paul.”
Here, and often otherwise, also, you look to the Rabbis and Paul. And what of Yeshua? Are they even equal to him in wisdom and understanding, in truth, in authority? Is not the understanding of his words more highly to be sought than those of other teachers and scholars? Wouldn’t he offer more clarity about this issue? What does he have to say about it?
Sold “under” is an interesting term. Over and under in the Hebraic understanding almost always has to do with authority and “under” has the idea of “instead of or in place of”, as in Gen. 1 the waters under the heavens and in Gen. 4 Seth was given to Eve in place of (instead of) Abel. (same word) Yeshua says it’s about masters (authority) and 2 are mentioned.
Our 1st mistake was to think that we were our own master, that isn’t one of the two mentioned. Our second mistake was to think that (as our own master) we could touch, taste or handle whatever we desire and then walk away from it unscathed. What we find is that in so doing, we sell ourselves to another master. It’s never “just” an action, it’s always a transaction. You cannot serve 2 masters, that’s what Yeshua said. It’s interesting that in all the stuff Babylon trades in, ultimately it comes down to the souls of men.
And the whore (false religion) that Babylon represents rides the beast of Revelation, and the dragon gives power to the beast (which is always an earthly kingdom aka Daniel) which ultimately ends up as worship of (fear of) the dragon. (see Revelation 13) It is the dragon that makes war with God; we – including those religious systems and earthly kingdoms – are mere pawns. The only interest we engender is because we are counted precious to God. That is a blow to our egos, for sure.
All of us are at any one time arrayed on one side or the other of the game board; it is we who get to decide, minute by minute, which side gets us in that war. That gives us all the power of choice, but none of the power associated with the game itself. We did not get to choose this game, nor did we get to choose which part we played. We were pawns from day one of the game, which started at a certain Tree in a certain Garden. The game was already going on; we just chose to enter ourselves in as pawns when our forbears bit (experienced) that fruit.
We chose to experience the war firsthand, instead of just being told about it. The choice to learn from experience knocked out the ability to learn second hand. Now we struggle to believe anything we are told, with good reason: we lack the ability to tell whether or not it is really true unless it has been made manifest by experience. Back to the war for us.
How can we, on the one hand, extol the ultimate value of inspired Scriptures, that is, the Torah, Gospels, Epistles while on the other hand diminishing the meaning of the texts themselves? Everything we can know about Yeshua comes to us from someone other than Yeshua attempting to answer the questions Yeshua himself asked them in various circumstances and situations. It’s a mystery as to why YHVH utilizes this method to present the mysteries of life to all of us over the ages. Why didn’t Yeshua simply find a faithful follower, sit him down and tell him/her to “write down exactly what I tell you and do so in a half dozen languages or more. Sure would have been easier for us. But he didn’t. We are left with those words that faithful followers chose to expend the energy and time to record. The fact that we are some two thousand years separated from these original works puts a tremendous strain of effort on us to decipher meaning. I agree with George. “And what of Yeshua, indeed.” As Yeshua apparently intended, we have the texts of men to unravel. It’s hard work. Plenty difficult, for the most part.
Michael he did give this instruction. Teach all to observe what he taught the disciples….
Misunderstanding was always present. He came to save the lost sheep not create something else. It may be our understanding that is wrong.
When saving people is your focus you do not write a diary of what you are doing. You do what must be done. Yeshua was not creating historical records he was working. No record of these deeds were ever made.
His teaching of other people to duplicate his works are the only clues provided.
What is found is that he only becomes discussion and part of documented information around 45 years after his claimed resurrection. Making his total life actually a mystery. As it was intended…
Should we not apply PaRDeS to the Torah to reveal Christ the anointed? While Yeshua represents those called into covenant. Which may be very Gnostic.
Seeker, I can’t find where Yeshua told anyone to write down everything he said. Where is that in the text? Yeshua is recorded as saying for his talmidim to teach all that he instructed. I concur that Yeshua was focused on ushering in the kingdom. My point was, in addressing Jerry and Lisa’s comment, about Paul’s teaching taking second place to Yeshua’s comments. If the Brit HaDashah is equally inspired as the Torah (Tanakh) then shouldn’t it all be of equal value since Paul was a strong follower of Yeshua. Paul, as Yeshua’s disciple, was charged with imitating Yeshua in life and communicating the good news of YHVH’s kingdom coming to all, right? With inspiration of Paul’s letters, should we not take them of equal value and equal challenge in attempting to understand. Does Yeshua say one thing and Paul another? If so, I think we are really in trouble. I am continually facing the overwhelming challenge of trying to understand the texts we’ve been given that illuminate YHVH’s and Yeshua’s teachings. The whole inspiration issue is just as challenging. It is not a simple as various inspiration doctrine has presented it. The text themselves allude to the difficulty of understanding Paul’s writings.
I guess I am responding to the issuance of a dictum that reflects denominational flavors. Of course what Yeshua says is of utmost importance. That doesn’t diminish our charge of weighing and evaluating as best we can what the other writers said. The observable fact is that the other writers addressed much of what is recorded Yeshua saying. However, they also addressed issues that were outside the specific things Yeshua uttered, wouldn’t you say? They sought to decipher, explain and apply the instructions Yeshua gave them to various situations the writers’ audience experienced.
It seems to me that everything needs to be on the table of excavation. Everything must be allowed to be dug in to, handled, challenged, questioned and evaluated on a regular basis. The goal isn’t creating doctrine but appropriating life direction in actual living.
Good day Michael
I agree no one was instructed to record and I concur with the rest you are saying.
What I find interesting is that no one considered compiling some related communication until those scholars of the evolving religion decided to do it. If they had not I think we would most probably only have verbal discussions to consider. The positive side is that we have something to decipher.
I think the message could well be that Paul was equally empowered as Yeshua said more than he did his disciples will do. Well observed, Michael.
Another observation is that God said he will inscribe himself… Could this be why Yeshua did not consider creating record…
Onward! Continuing the digging. Thanks for the back and forth, Seeker.
“And what of Yeshua” indeed? Given that he never recorded a single word of his thoughts, it is left to third person “others” to do so, is it not? Ergo, who do you trust to more accurately provide wisdom? The four gospel authors who during their time totally misunderstood the Messiah and wrote about it decades later or Paul who had a totally transformative first person experience and wrote of this understanding contemporaneously.
The Gospels have plenty of value for sure but when push comes to shove, I’ll take the rabbinically trained Paul when he is correctly interpreted and he was the primary force in delivering the message to the Gentiles. Me.
So many questions about what you are saying here, George.
You say the four gospel authors “during their time” “totally misunderstood” the Messiah. During what period of time are you saying they “totally misunderstood” him? Before his ascension and their receiving the Ruach at Shavuot? Even then, however, they didn’t totally misunderstand him. But if you think so, then Paul also before his receiving of the Ruach “totally misunderstood” him, also, in that since, and even worse. He had followers of Yeshua murdered.
And you say Paul had a “totally transformative” “first person experience” and wrote of his understanding “contemporaneously”? Technically, Paul, though significantly transformed early on after his divine encounter, was continuing to be transformed throughout his life and it was never “total”. He didn’t reach some sort of divine state, as some Catholics, and probably even Protestants, think of the popes, and become inerrant in all his words. So, do you just mean a significantly transformative first person experience?
What do you mean “first person experience”? He didn’t even have a person-to-person encounter with Yeshua in the flesh, like the other apostles did.
And “contemporaneously” to what, and as compared to what re: when the other apostles wrote the gospels?
Also, are you saying that the other apostles didn’t have as much of a “transformative first person experience”? How could that even be measured?
And are you also saying that what the other apostles wrote of what Yeshua taught is not as reliable as what Paul wrote? That Yeshua’s own words as recorded by his apostles are not even at least equally significant to, if not greater than, the words of Paul? And if Yeshua didn’t receive the same rabbinical training as Paul, would you favor Paul’s teaching over Yeshua’s? We should remember that the greatest majority of rabbis throughout the centuries have rejected not only Paul’s teachings, but even Yeshua’s, who Paul esteemed above himself. We’re not even comparing the epistles of Paul with the epistles of the other apostles but with the words of Yeshua, himself, as recorded in the gospels.
My concern is about the elevation of the words of rabbis, whether Paul’s or those of other teachers, above those of Yeshua. I would not negate that there is value in the words of Paul, and maybe even that of some other rabbis, but I believe we should give Yeshua first place in all things, and that includes his words when it comes to understanding the meaning of the rest of the scriptures.
Paul, himself, wrote this of Yeshua:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created—in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones or angelic powers or rulers or authorities. All was created through Him and for Him. He exists before everything, and in Him all holds together. He is the head of the body, His community. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead—so that He might come to have FIRST PLACE IN ALL THINGS. For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, making peace through the blood of His cross—whether things on earth or things in heaven! Once you were alienated from God and hostile in your attitude by wicked deeds. But now He has reconciled you in Messiah’s physical body through death, in order to present you holy, spotless and blameless in His eyes—if indeed you continue in the faith, established and firm, not budging from the hope of the Good News that you have heard. This Good News has been proclaimed throughout all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant.” [Col 1:15- 23]
Not complicated. How many times did Yeshua admonish the apostles for not understanding what he was saying? Of course Paul misunderstood, same as thousands of others but no one else had a first person beyond the grave transformation as Paul did, did they? And no other vitally important apostle was a Roman citizen with the benefits that Paul had. And no other apostle understood the Hebrew Bible the way Paul did. And no other apostle wrote about his experience and understanding as it happened.
“totally – absolutely”
“significantly – worthy of attention,” I stand by totally.
“contemporaneously” – his commentary writings were “in the same period of time”. By definition they had to be.
I am saying that Paul played a unique role in the world of his time and he had a relational understanding between Jews and Gentiles that maybe only he could and did provide. I think maybe the biggest problem of early developing Christianity for three centuries was the willful setting aside of all things Jewish as being of no value, to the severe detriment of its religion that created pagan things like Easter and Christmas and scrapping of Passover celebration and Sunday worship etc.
That created a fertile environment for everything from an implied Trinity to original sin and Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes and beyond. I scrapped my RCC and never saw any value in mainstream Protestantism for similar reasons. I don’t think they know who they really are and don’t know how to do anything about it. It took 1700 years for the Pope to apologize for it but I guess that’s a start.
There is nothing new in the NT that is not already in the Torah, just how to live it completely, properly, as expressed and lived by the Messiah. Not complicated.
“I’ll take the rabbinically trained Paul…”, thank you, George, and I’d like to add: who was condemned by Jewish leaders in his day, plotted against to be assassinated, persecuted endlessly…
“Are they ministers of [Messiah]? (I speak as beside myself,) I am more! I have been in labors more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in prisons more, in deaths many times. Five times from the Jews I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. I have spent a night and a day in the deep. I have been in travels often; in dangers from waters; in dangers from robbers; in dangers from my race; in dangers from the heathen; in dangers in the city; in dangers in the wilderness; in dangers on the sea; in dangers among false brothers. I have been in hardship and toil; often in watchings; in hunger and thirst; often in fastings; in cold and nakedness; besides the things outside conspiring against me daily, the care of all the churches. (2Co 11:23-28 MKJV)
Falsely accused, falsely imprisoned, put on trial as Yeshua was, and deemed innocent, as Yeshua was… and even as I type, I think of Stephen – and all Paul’s consequences for that…
And this statement of Paul’s, which I, too, struggle and strive to make true for myself:
“And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, nor making a gathering of a crowd; not even in the synagogues, nor throughout the city. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But I confess this to you, that after the Way which they call heresy, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets. And I have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. And in this I exercise/discipline myself, (not causing anyone to stumble -ABP) always to have a blameless conscience toward God and men.” (Act 24:12-16 MKJV)
May it be so.
What a wonderful reminder, Skip.
“the value of being human is the loan of God’s breath,
not the dust of our physical existence.”
Yet that physical existence has a mind of its own! And how easily
it forgets the “loan of God’s breath”, if it even knows it.
It’s a spiritual battle for any man’s mind to give up its territory.
We’re convinced, and we’ve been conned, into our sense of
what is rightfully ours. And that’s the last thing the yetzer ha’ra
wants us to know. Paul is simply saying to take a moment to “see”
your life’s existence just a step away from your body’s gravitational pull.
This discussion is why I love T.W. and participate as I am lead. The effort to blow the cobwebs out of our ideas about the Scriptures and expose ” the design that God gave us at birth” lest we be trapped in ” a new model, one wrapped around our own concerns.” Because our elders, teachers and our own inclenations “bartered ourselves into this mess, as if we were property owned by ourselves, not borrowed from God. ” and “We forgot Genesis 2:7, that the value of being human is the loan of God’s breath, not the dust of our physical existence.” This effort takes not only the masterful abilities, mental horsepower and dedication to truth and transperancy of our host Skip. But each of us in respectful contributions. Because ” As with all Hebraic ideas about Man and God, relationship is at the bottom, not fate and not physical being.” This is a glorious and beautiful thing to me. And let us remember in the in the Hebrew if it is beautiful it is good. Remember also I am an architect . The original intentsbinba design really matter to me. As an architect I am occasional required to graciously watch as my designs are basterdized, ignored or morphed into something else by the vanity, pride or ignorance of others. Let’s not forget we are part of a plan and seek to understand it rather than re-interpret it to suite ourseves. Being part of something bigger than ourseves requires we humbly follow the guidance of the spirit not just our understanding of the word or the na ture ofbthevworld. We must be in the spirit of grace that came through Yeshua into the world while we walk in the light that is the Tanakh.
As Skip is often referring to Paul being a rabbi and of Paul thinking in rabbinic terms, I thought it important to know exactly what Torah’s definition of “rabbi/rabbinic” was. Unfortunately, I found there is no such religious occupation in the Tanakh called a “Rabbi”. Rather it was a man-made title of respect meaning; my master, great one, and, revered; expressed for instance, by a student to a master of Torah.
I consulted a number of online dictionaries for rabbinic and they boiled down to two definitions. One being very generic, as per the Oxford stating, “Relating to rabbis or to Jewish law or teachings”, and the other being more inclusive, as per Merriam-Webster stating, “a Jew adhering to the Talmud and the traditions of the rabbis in opposition to the Karaites”
I wouldn’t think that Skip would “adhere” Paul to the Talmud, but I think that even associating Paul with the “rabbis” is problematic. Which brand of rabbi would Paul be? The Talmud is riddled with conflicting rabbinic thoughts. And what difference does it make when “rabbinic” is a man-made designation anyway? No one in the book of Acts, nor anyone in any other epistle, ever calls Paul a rabbi. But most importantly, why would we call him one when Yeshua Himself specifically commanded,
Mat 23:8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
John 20:16. Apparently it was proper to call Yeshua “rabboni” as a title of respect and authority. Would not Paul get the same treatment, even if not officially qualified (as a man-made designation)?
No doubt it was proper to call Yeshua, “rabboni”, as I believe Yeshua was referring to Himself when He said, “for One is your Teacher”.
I hold Paul in very high regard but I would not offer him the same treatment as the Son of God. Paul called himself the worst of all sinners although subsequently he did call himself an apostle of, and also a slave of, Jesus Christ. But even these titles are, by definition, subordinate to the One Rabbi/Teacher.
I agree with you on this, Daniel. Not only was Paul not a Rabbi, nobody ever called him such and I seriously doubt he would have allowed it anyway. Not the guy that says “oh wretched man that I am…” He called himself by his Greek name of Paul and he called himself a slave of Messiah Yeshua.
No matter what, what we know of the Judaisms in the last 1800 plus years, wouldn’t have even remotely appeared similar in the 1st century. Even the term Rabbi, we don’t see any sages of that time period even using that term of each other either. It’s primarily a late addition, as a title.
What I sometimes find interesting, is when people call Paul a “Rav”. Which would be totally incorrect and impossible.
If “rabbi” identifies as ‘a teacher,’ wouldn’t anyone walking in that role be classified as a rabbi, a teacher? I can’t help but conclude that since Paul did teach that he would fill the outline of a rabbi. I see rabbi as a verb rather than a noun. One could rightly conclude that the recipients of Paul’s letter would consider him a teacher, unless there is evidence that all his writings were rejected by his intended audiences.
In my Greek or Rabbinic reasoning, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but I can’t in the face of my Hebraic obedience to the Scriptures cited above.
Let’s step back from this for a moment and consider Paul in and of himself. Who was he, what was he, what came to be expected of him, what was his role in the deliverance of the message of the Messiah to the Jews and maybe most importantly, to the Gentiles?
Paul was a Roman citizen, a student of respected Gamiliel, a liberal Hillel Pharisaic sage who had the support of the majority of the people, but Paul sided with the detested, law bound conservative Pharisaic Shammai House in the Sanhedrin and in the marketplace.
Until Damascus.
So Paul saw both sides of the Messianic story in a way no one else ever had or ever will. And God chose Paul particularly to do the job of bringing the message of the Messiah and the Torah Noahide laws to the diaspora Jews and the Gentiles. I believe that Christianity would, could not exist today without him. No one else did what he did. NO ONE. What would the NT be without him? It told us what happened, what Yeshua said and what the result was but for the most part it did not impart the MEANING of all this to the ignorant pagan Gentiles. And Paul was doing this and writing about this long before the gospels were written. He was unique but not the power broker founder of Christianity, “Constantine the not so Great”.
For my money, Paul was the “modern” day Moses who saw God’s “back” as Skip explained a few days ago and the future was not a pretty place and he was compelled to change it just like Moses. And so it was thus.
Paul, arguably, the first renaissance man.