Tag Archives: paul

The Bible’s questions, answered—part 18: Answers to questions in Romans

The Bible contains a lot of questions, and it doesn’t always provide satisfactory answers. So I’ve been answering some of the Bible’s questions myself. This time, I’m looking at questions from Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Paul asks: When you pass judgment on anyone for anything and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? (Implied answer: You won’t.) Real answer: Yes, but why would you assume I do those things? Not everyone’s as hypocritical as you, Paul.

He asks: You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? (Implied answer: Yes.) Real answer: I wouldn’t think so. What kind of person would assume that everyone does all that?

Paul asks: If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? Answer: No, circumcision is part of the law, so it’s impossible to keep the law’s requirements without being circumcised.

He asks: What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Answer: Probably not enough to outweigh the harms of circumcision.

Paul asks: Why not say “Let us do evil that good may result”? Answer: Because if the result of what you were doing was good, then you wouldn’t actually be doing evil.

After asserting that “a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law”, Paul asks: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? (Paul’s answer: Not at all!) Real answer: You never explain how that’s not the case, so I’m gonna say yeah, you are trying to nullify the law.

Paul asks: We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Answer: Because Jesus failed to actually put an end to it.

He asks: Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey? Answer: Offer yourselves? I don’t think that’s usually how slavery works.

Paul asks: Do you not know that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? Answer: Yeah, that goes without saying. It’s impossible to break the law when you’re dead. But that doesn’t follow from the “example” you give, nor does it actually support the point you’re trying to make.

He asks: What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? (Paul’s answer: Certainly not!) Real answer: You say the law caused sin that never would have existed without the law, so yeah, that sounds right. God’s law is sinful.

And he asks: Did that which is good, then, become death to me? (Paul’s answer: By no means!) Real answer: Yes, according to what you just said, it did. (I mean, if you want to call it “good”.)

Paul asks: Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? Answer: I’ll do it, if no one else wants to.

He asks: Who then is the one who condemns? (Paul’s answer: No one.) Alternative biblical answer: God, Moses, Jesus, his disciples, Christians, thousands of “holy ones“, and whoever else has been given authority to judge.

After saying what something says, Paul asks: But what does it say? Answer: It says what you just said it says, doesn’t it? Or were you lying?

Paul asks: How can they call on the one they have not believed in? Answer: Lip service?

He asks: And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? Answer: Sensus divinitatis?

Then he asks: And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Answer: By hearing something that isn’t someone preaching to them? Or by overhearing preachers who aren’t talking to them?

And he asks: And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? Answer: By making their own decisions?

Paul asks: Why do you judge your brother or sister? Answer: What do you expect me to do, leave that to God? He’s obviously completely unqualified as a judge of morality.

Questions about God

Continue reading The Bible’s questions, answered—part 18: Answers to questions in Romans
Share this post:

The Story of the Circum-Schism
Paul Hijacks Christianity

Ignorant outsider declares himself the authority on Christianity

When a man named Paul (also known as Saul) saw that Stephen had been killed, he approved. With the high priest’s permission, Paul started beating, imprisoning, and killing all the Christians he could find.

But then, while Paul was going from Jerusalem to Damascus, Jesus blinded him with a flash of light from heaven, and then sent a Christian from Damascus to un-blind him. Paul had a change of heart, but he just couldn’t make himself stop sinning.

Paul spent several days with the Christians in Damascus, during which he didn’t learn anything about Jesus from them. Then he suddenly started proclaiming that Jesus was the son of God, which confused everyone.

The Jews in Damascus wanted to kill Paul now that he was promoting Christianity. But he escaped back to Jerusalem, and tried to join the Christians there. At first they didn’t believe that their enemy was really a Christian now, but someone convinced them.

But then the Jews there tried to kill him too. So Paul went away and started preaching his own foolish message of Christianity to the world. People thought he was insane. Paul preached only to foreigners, who weren’t familiar with Jesus and so had no preconceived ideas of what he was actually like. Paul and his companions suggested that they might harm people who didn’t do what he thought God wanted. And the terrified foreigners complied.

Three years later, Paul went to Jerusalem briefly and met the Christians there for the first time, again. The apostle Peter (also known as Simon or Cephas) also started preaching Christianity to Gentiles, which the other Christians of Judea thought was wrong. They thought only Jews could be Christians. But Peter said he had had a dream that God told him to eat animals that were forbidden by God’s law. Therefore, it must be okay for Gentiles to be Christians.

Paul briefly questions the reliability of his knowledge about Jesus

Over a decade later, Paul heard that Christians from Judea were teaching Gentiles that they couldn’t be saved unless they were circumcised. Paul, having never actually met Jesus nor learned the original church’s doctrine, had been teaching something quite different. He had taught his followers that Jesus had made all those useless old Jewish laws obsolete. Especially circumcision.

So Paul decided to go to Jerusalem again, to talk with the apostles and make sure he was getting the message right. He found that, contrary to what he thought the spirit of Jesus had revealed to him, the original Christian church believed that all Christians had to follow all the Jewish laws, including circumcision. Peter, who tended to say foolish things, discussed the matter with Paul, who he thought was awfully hard to understand. They seemed to come to an agreement, but that didn’t last long.

The apostles sent Paul out with a letter telling the Gentile Christians that they only had to follow a few Jewish laws. But Paul really didn’t think even Jews needed to follow even those laws. He sometimes pretended to think people were still under the law though, in order to be more convincing to people who thought that way.

The original Christians attempt to debunk Paul’s misinformation

Then Jesus’s brother James convinced Peter and the rest of the Jewish Christian church and even Paul’s companion Barnabas that Gentile Christians did indeed have to live like Jews. Paul opposed them and called them hypocrites.

The Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem sent out their own missionaries to the foreign churches Paul had founded, teaching them their version of Christianity, which Paul disagreed with. They taught Paul’s followers that they had to obey the Jewish laws, including circumcision. They pointed out that they were Jesus’s own chosen apostles, and Paul was not. Some members of Paul’s churches started turning away from Paul and his comrade Apollos, and started following Peter.

So Paul started writing his followers defensive letters, proclaiming himself to be an apostle. He insulted and demonized the “other” apostles, insisting that they weren’t any better than him, and he didn’t need their opinions.

Paul’s insistence on lawlessness gets him arrested

Continue reading The Story of the Circum-Schism
Paul Hijacks Christianity
Share this post:

Did Paul require Gentiles to be circumcised?

Paul, writing to one of his Gentile churches, says nobody really needs to be circumcised; they just need to obey the law. But circumcision is part of the law he’s talking about, so that doesn’t make any sense. Anyone who actually obeys the Jewish law will be circumcised. So does Paul think Gentiles need to be circumcised or not?

Continue reading Did Paul require Gentiles to be circumcised?
Share this post:

Was Paul under the law?

Paul told his Corinthian followers that in order to persuade people who were under the law, he would sometimes act as if he was under the law. But he said he wasn’t actually under the law.

Then he said in order to persuade people who weren’t under the law, he would sometimes act as if he was not under the law. But he said he actually was under God’s law, and not free from it. Which is just the opposite of what he just said in the previous verse.

Continue reading Was Paul under the law?
Share this post:

Did Paul think he should get a reward for his work?

In his letters to the Corinthians, Paul makes it clear that he expects to be rewarded for his work. And not just by God after he dies. He thinks his followers owe him a material reward for his spiritual work, just like any other worker would get. And he says that isn’t just his opinion. God’s law (at least the way Paul interprets it) commands that people pay others for their work, including preachers.

But then he claims that he’s not preaching for profit, that there’s nothing wrong with not paying a preacher, and that he’s not trying to convince anyone to give him anything. So why was he just telling people they owed him, then? Even though he thinks he has a right to be supported by his followers, he now says he would rather die than use that right, because he’s proud not to be a burden to the people he’s preaching to.1

Then he says he doesn’t even deserve a reward, because he can’t help preaching. So why was he just saying he did deserve it? For Paul, preaching the gospel for free is its own reward, and other than that, he doesn’t want any reward.

Continue reading Did Paul think he should get a reward for his work?
Share this post: