Notes regarding certain passages in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts
Please always get the latest version of this document, from the Bible Pages web site, at this address: www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/eo11b.htm
Need larger text? Go to your browser's "View" menu and look for "Text size" or "Zoom".
There are those who claim that the apostle Paul in his letters supposedly "did away"
with all rules of conduct, and perhaps even that he supposedly "did away" with what
Jesus had taught. Then, there are others who claim that Paul supposedly upheld the
Old Covenant and its rules and demanded the saints to follow them. And then, there
are those who say that he taught that it was the New Covenant that applied,
and that the saints were to live holy, righteous lives, being faithful to Jesus
and being led by the Holy Spirit of the true God who is in Heaven.
Seeing those greatly differing views regarding the apostle Paul and his teachings, one must ask, what did he really teach? Misleading bible-translations cause some of the confusion around these things. There are also other causes, such as misleading church dogmas.
This essay contains notes regarding certain passages in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts. It takes a closer look at the apostle Paul's teachings – what he really taught, and what not.
A note: Many specific passages in Paul's epistles are discussed in more detail in other essays at this site. Some of them are mentioned in this present essay or in the "Additional reading" section towards its end, but look also under the heading "Paul" on the index-page keyw-p1.htm, and see even the table of contents for this site.
Paul's birth and home area: He was an Israelite, a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus which was a coastal city in Cilicia in the north-eastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. (That he was born in Tarsus, is stated in Acts 22:3. From that, the epithet "Paul of Tarsus" or "Saul of Tarsus" that some use.) But, it seems that Paul had lived many years in Jerusalem; see Acts 22:3, et cetera. He was a Roman citizen; see Acts 21:39 and especially Acts 22:28.
Paul's name: In the Greek text of the New Testament, he is for the most part called Paulos, but in the book of Acts sometimes Saulos (see Acts 13:9, and more). The first mention of the name Paulos is found in Acts 13:9. Saulos could have been a Greek form of the Hebrew Saoul, "desired" – anglicised, "Saul". The name Paulos may have come from the Latin paulus, paullus, which meant "little", "small". Paulus, Paullus was also a Roman surname.
Paul's occupation: By trade (work, source of income), Paul was a tent-maker, see Acts 18:1-3. (See even Acts 20:34 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8.) There is more on Acts 20, below, and also in the essay em02c.htm. 2 Thessalonians 3:8 is discussed in several documents at this site, among them the essay em03c.htm.
Paul's education and religious background: His skilful use of the Greek language in his letters shows that he was a learned man. We can expect that in addition to Hebrew, Aramaic (Syriac) and Greek, he knew even Latin and perhaps a few other languages as well. In his past, he had belonged to the Pharisean sect (see Acts 22:3, 23:6 and 26:5, Philippians 3:5, and so on), but after his conversion, he rejected his past; see all of Philippians 3:5-8.
A note: Acts 23:6 does not mean that Paul supported the Pharisees. When he shouted "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee", he did that only for the purpose of dividing the council where accusations against him were being examined by both Sadducees and Pharisees. Again, after his conversion Paul rejected the Pharisean teachings, and counted his past to be of the same worth as skubalon, "refuse", "dung" (Philippians 3:8). Let us read that section of his letter to the saints in Philippi:
Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. [A] 3 For we are the circumcision, [B] who serve God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, having no confidence in the flesh. [B] 4 Though I might also have reason to confide in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the lineage of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, a persecutor of the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But those things which were gain to me, I counted loss for Christ. 8 And doubtless I even count all things as loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ 9 and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death, 11 if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (JB-2000, note signs added)
Regarding verse 6: The book of Acts records some of the fury that Paul before his conversion had against the saints and believers. But after his conversion, he rejected his Pharisean background, and more than that. (The essay eo12c.htm has more on the Pharisees and shows why Jesus called them "snakes" and "actors", opheis and hupokritai in the NT Greek.)
[A] Regarding verse 2 and the phrase "the concision" which the above-quoted translation has there. The Greek text has tên katatomê, something like "the cut ones". The reason why some English bible-versions have "concision" in this verse is that they have copied the Latin Vulgate version which has concisionem (the singular feminine accusative form of the Latin noun concisio which meant "a cutting"). The phrase "beware of the concision" referred to the Jews who wanted the believers to become circumcised. The apostle told the believers to beware of such deceivers. There is more on Philippians 3:2, under the heading "Concision" on the index-page keyw-c3.htm. See also the next note:
[B] Verse 3 refers to a spiritual "circumcision", that of the heart, which is to say, the Holy Spirit. See even Romans 2:29.
Was there a disagreement between Paul and James, regarding "works" and "faith"? Is there a conflict between Galatians 2:16 and James 2:24? At first sight, it might seem so, but a closer study of the matter shows that Paul and James were in agreement. It was only that Paul was talking about "works of the law" (Galatians 2:16), while James referred to the fact that Abraham obeyed the Lord (James 2:24), on an occasion a long time before the Old Covenant was made. And, that was a rhetorical note James made when wrote about the importance of having good works – caring for the poor and the needy. It will be shown below that Paul's taught the same. But, sometimes when wrote about "works", he referred to works of other kind.
In his epistle to the saints and believers in Galatia, the apostle Paul wrote:
Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (NKJV)
James wrote:
James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (NKJV)
Were Paul and James in disagreement? Not at all. Nor is any conflict between Galatians 2:16 and James 2:24. Explanation: The former passage records how Paul used the word "works" as a reference to the Old Covenant and its rules and rituals. James, on the other hand, did not refer to those things but was simply explaining that Abraham had put his trust in the Lord and obeyed him, doing what he had told him to do. That was Abraham's "works". That had nothing to do with the Old Covenant or its rules – Israel did not yet exist at that time, and the Old Covenant had not been made yet, of course. And, even though James made that rhetorical note regarding Abraham, the context shows that the subject he was addressing was good works.
More in that epistle, for making it clear that it was good works that James was talking about:
James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (NKJV)
And then, Paul and James were in full agreement, even in regard to good works. This is actually verified in the same chapter that was quoted above, Galatians 2:
Galatians 2:9 even James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, having perceived the favor granted to me, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we, indeed, should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision; 10 requesting only, that we would remember the poor, which very thing I had also been diligent to do. (LO)
(A side-note: The James who is mentioned in Galatians 2:9, probably was James the son of Zebedee, the apostle. James the epistle-writer was a different person – possible James, Jesus' half brother.)
Galatians 2:10, quoted above, tells us that even Paul had been "diligent in remembering the poor" – in other words, he had been diligent in good works. The connection between the apostle Paul and "good works" might be hard to understand for some people, because churches and preachers have caused them to think that Paul supposedly lived at the cost of others. The facts are that Paul did not do that, but provided for his own needs through his own manual work (we know that he worked as a tent-maker – see Acts 18:3). More: Paul did not provide for his own needs only, but also for the needs of others – the poor and needy and also those who followed him in his travels. This can be seen for instance in the record of the occasion when Paul was addressing the elders from Ephesus, reminding those elders that it was "more blessed to give than to receive". He also reminded them of the fact that they knew how he had acted, setting an example for them: "I have shown you in everything, by working like this, that we must support the infirm". We find this in the book of Acts:
Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the assembly. [...] 33 I have not wanted anyone's silver or gold or clothes – 34 rather, as you yourselves know, these hands have provided for my needs and for those who were with me. 35 I have shown you in everything, by working like this, that we must support the infirm and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive". (Author's tr.)
Unfortunately, many money-hungry preachers have twisted that passage, turning Paul's words totally upside down. See the next point, and also the essay em02c.htm, for more on Acts 20 and on what the apostle Paul really meant when he said to those elders that it was "more blessed to give than to receive", and when he said to them "I have shown you in everything, by working like this, that we must support the infirm". In addition to the next point and the essay em02c.htm, the essay em05e.htm makes that matter clearer, from certain slightly different points of view.
Titus 1 records how Paul warned about men of the "filthy lucre" kind, and called them "false, evil beasts, lovers of food, hating work". Paul was different: He was not defiled by a lust for filthy lucre. His ways and motives were pure. (The essay ee05b.htm has more on spiritual or inner purity such as Paul's, and on the defilement that Paul warned about, the defilement caused by lust for money. It also explains what the phrase "filthy lucre" in 1 Timothy 3:8, Titus 1:7 and 11 and 1 Peter 5:2 actually refers to.)
Among the apostle Paul's teachings, there are many things that preachers twist; Acts 20:35 is among them. The following will explain that passage with its context, showing what Paul really taught and meant.
When Paul was about to be imprisoned, and his life as a free man was coming to its end, he gave an account of his stewardship. Acts 20 records this. Please note that he was addressing elders (see Acts 20:17), giving instructions to those elders, regarding how they were to be and act. He reminded those elders of the fact that they knew that he, Paul, had always supported himself through his own, manual work. He said to them, "I have shown you in everything, by working like this, that we must support the infirm and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Again, please remember that Paul was addressing elders. He reminded them that they knew how he had acted, and then he warned of others who would act in a very different way:
Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the assembly. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them, You are familiar with, from the first day that I arrived in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, and how many tears and trials came upon me through the plots of the Jews, 20 how I held back nothing that is profitable for you, and how I kept teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 solemnly witnessing both to Jews and to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus the Anointed. 22 And now, look, bound by the Spirit I go to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit affirms in every city, saying that bonds and distress wait for me. 24 But none of these things move me, and I do not count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish the race with joy, and the opportunity to serve that I received from the Lord Jesus – to fully testify to the Good Message of the grace of God. 25 And now, look, I know that none of you, among whom I have gone proclaiming the Kingdom of God, will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you today that I am not guilty for anyone's blood, 27 for I did not fail to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore, take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians over, to feed the assembly of God which he purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know that after my departure, burdensome wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 And, from among your own selves shall arise men speaking perverted things, in order to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore keep watch, remembering that for three years, I did not cease to warn everyone, with tears, night and day. 32 And now I commit you, brothers, to God and the word of his grace, who is able to edify you and to give you an inheritance among all who are sanctified. 33 I have not wanted anyone's silver or gold or clothes – 34 rather, as you yourselves know, these hands have provided for my needs and for those who were with me. 35 I have shown you in everything, by working like this, that we must support the infirm and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive". (Author's tr.)
A note regarding verse 29: Paul called men who wanted to fatten themselves at the cost of the flock, "wolves". In his letter to Titus, he called men of that kind "false, evil beasts, lovers of food, hating work".
Throughout his stewardship, Paul had supported himself through his own manual work. When he said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35), he was reminding the elders from Ephesus of the fact that they knew that he, Paul, had always been on the giving side. And, he told those elders to follow his example in that.
What we see today is very different. Most preachers do not act as Paul did. Instead, they deceive people, turn Paul's words upside down, and claim that preachers supposedly are the ones who are to receive, instead of giving.
The essay em02c.htm has more on Acts 20, including verse 35. The essay em03c.htm has more on the example that Paul set and then told others to imitate. That essay also shows that the translations which make it seem that Paul told others to "follow him" (as some kind of a "leader"), are false and twist Paul's words. See even the essay em05e.htm.
The essay em08c.htm shows how the Enemy could snare those who proclaimed the Good Message, and cause them to become spiritually unfruitful. The essay em01d.htm has more on the Old Covenant's tithe system, and shows the facts regarding the claim that preachers supposedly have "inherited the Levites' lot".
The words "righteous", righteously" and "righteousness" appear around 128 times in the 1769 KJ version NT – most of them (73) are found in Paul's letters. Let us read some of those passages, as examples:
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NASB-95)
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (NKJV)
2 Corinthians 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (NKJV)
Ephesians 4:24 And put on the new man, to which God has given life, in righteousness and a true and holy way of living. (BBE)
Hebrews 12:14 Pursue peace with all, and holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord: 15 watching lest there be any one who lacks the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and many be defiled by it; 16 lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one meal sold his birthright (DBY)
The above-quoted passages, along with many others, make it clear that Paul did not teach lawlessness (immorality) or that "anything goes". No, he told the saints that they were to live holy, pure and just lives.
In addition to writing and speaking about righteousness, Paul also wrote and spoke about holiness, sanctification, purity, and much more of the same kind.
A note: The English word "righteousness", older form rihtwisnes, actually means "right-way-ness", "right-ways-ness". The modern-day English noun "righteous" comes from Middle English rightwise, Old English rihtwis. There is more on this below and especially in the essay eg08b.htm which covers the righteousness-related Greek words in the NT and explains what new-covenantal righteousness really meant for the saints on the practical level.
Some have claimed that the apostle Paul supposedly "established" the Old Covenant (and its rules). Is that true?
This has to do with certain words in the KJ version. Referring to that translation, some have claimed that Paul supposedly taught that the Old Covenant's rules should be kept.
Those who have read all of Paul's letters with care, know that Paul most certainly did not "uphold" the Old Covenant or its rules. He did his best to explain that the Old Covenant had come to its end and was no more, and that a New Covenant was now binding for the saints (who had been betrothed to a covenant with Jesus, when they received the Holy Spirit as a Pledge and as a Seal).
This is the passage in question, as the NKJ version has it:
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. (NKJV)
However, that is a misleading translation. For he first, there was no definite article in the Greek text of that passage, but the NKJ version adds one. Had the Greek text contained a definite article, then Paul could have been talking about "the Law", that is, about the Old Covenant's law. But there was none.
Here is another translation:
Romans 3:31 Do we, then, make law useless through the faith? By no means: but we establish law. (LO)
It seems that Paul was faithful to his custom and was playing with words even here. Those who have studied the Greek text of Paul's letters, know that he liked to make plays with the double meanings of words, and even in other ways.
Here, he used the word nomos. He was not talking about "the Law" (the Old Covenant's rules), but simply about nomos. The word nomos did not mean only "law", but (first and foremost) such things as "custom", "usage", "manner" and "way".
It seems that Paul was saying, in effect: "Are we saying that in New Covenant times there is no nomos but only 'faith'? Not by any means; rather, we are establishing nomos!"
The word-play: Paul made it clear (in this letter, as well at other times) that the saints were not under nomos (law) – the essay ec12c.htm has more on that subject – and still, at the same time he presented himself and his fellows as ones who were "establishing a nomos". However, the nomos they were establishing, was not a "law" but something slightly different. That is, they nomos that they were establishing was a new way of life, that of the New Covenant, a life of righteousness under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (For understanding this in more depth, it is good to know more about the noun nomos. There is more on that word, elsewhere in this essay. And again, the essay ec12c.htm has more on the fact that the saints were not under law but under grace.)
A note: Some might ask, where does one find the "rules" of the New Covenant, in written form? The essay ec08c.htm has the answer to that question. See also the essay eg08b.htm which explains what true, new covenantal righteousness really is.
Another note: Some might feel that Paul perhaps used the word nomos, Romans 3:31, as a reference to a book called "Law": Either the five books of Moses, or the entire Old Testament. Were it so, then one would expect the definite article in Romans 3:31, but it is not found there.
More on Romans 3:31 which was quoted above. The Greek verb Paul used was katargeô. Considering some examples of how Paul used that verb elsewhere, can perhaps make it easier to understand what he really taught regarding the matter of covenants:
Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect [katargeô] (KJV-1769, comment added)
Romans 7:2 For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed [katargeô] from the law of her husband. (AKJV, comment added)
2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away [katargeô] (KJV-1769, comment added)
Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect [katargeô] to you, whoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace. (AKJV, comment added)
Other passages with that same verb katargeô include Romans 7:6, 1 Corinthians 1:28, 2:6 and 13:10-11, 2 Corinthians 3:11 and 13 and Hebrews 2:14. See them all – a study of the use of the word katargeô in them, together with Romans 4:14 and 7:2, 2 Corinthians 3:7 and Galatians 5:4 which were quoted above, makes it even more clear what Paul really taught regarding the Old Covenant and its rules. That makes even Romans 3:31 easier to understand.
Now – and this might surprise some – the facts are that the phrase "the Ten Commandments" was not in use in Paul's day. It was coined much later, in the Middle Ages, and is a mistranslation. Consequently, Paul did not use such a phrase. But, he did write about the Decalogue, of course, several times.
But, before going on into that, let us first consider the correct translation of the three Old Testament passages where many English bible-versions have put the phrase "Ten Commandments". It is important to understand the real meaning of the Hebrew wording in those verses, in order to understand why Paul wrote and formulated certain things the way he did.
The phrase "the Ten Commandments" that many English bible-versions have, is found in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. It occurs only in those three passages, but even there, it is an invented wording that was introduced in 1560, in the Geneva bible. Earlier bible-versions such as Wycliffe (1395) and Coverdale (1535), did not have that invented phrase. The meaning of the Hebrew text is somewhat different. Here are the passages in question, as the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation has them:
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words. (JPS-1917, highlighting added)
Deuteronomy 4:13 And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded [C] you to perform, even the ten words; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone. (JPS-1917, note sign and highlighting added)
Deuteronomy 10:4 And He wrote on the tables according to the first writing, the ten words, which the LORD spoke unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them unto me. (JPS-1917, highlighting added)
Those are correct translations of the Hebrew. The Hebrew text says, in translation, "the words of the covenant, the ten words" (Exodus 34:28) and, in the shorter form, "ten words" (Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4). The Hebrew noun in question is dabar. The 1769 KJ version renders dabar around 807 times as "word", 231 times as "thing", 63 times as "matter", 51 times as "acts", 38 times as "chronicles", 25 times as "saying" and 204 times in miscellaneous ways. And then, in 20 passages the 1769 KJ version renders dabar as "commandment", but that is misleading and not correct. (The essay es03c.htm has more on the KJ version and the men who were involved in producing it.)
[C] Deuteronomy 4:13 – some might wonder about the word "commanded" which the 1917 JPS version has in that verse. But, anyone who checks what really happened at Sinai, will find that the Lord was not forcing anything on the Israelites. One does not "command" anyone into a covenant. Three times, the Israelites were asked whether they wanted to make such a covenant with the Lord. It was only after they had, three times, given their consent to the covenant which the Lord was proposing, that they became bound by that covenant and its rules. Concerning the translation of that part of Deuteronomy 4:13 – the meaning probably was something like "and he showed you the covenant which he asked you to make [with him], the ten words, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone". The essay ec06f.htm sorts out the matter of the Decalogue, including Deuteronomy 4:13.
There are even a few other versions that have dared to keep away from the twisted wording that was introduced in 1560. Among them are the Darby version, the Douay-Rheims and the 1902 Emphasized Bible by Rotherham. (Obviously, there has been a great pressure on translators to use the twisted translation.)
Some might ask, "What does it matter whether it is 'the Ten Commandments' or "the ten words, the words of the covenant'?" The answer is that it certainly makes a difference – a significant one. Consider the correct translation, "the words of the covenant, the ten words". To the words of which covenant does that refer? Why, the one made at Sinai, of course. In other words: Those ten words – the deka logous, whence the word "Decalogue" – were the main points of the Old Covenant. (A note: This does not mean that the saints who were under the New Covenant, could lust or steal or anything like that – not at all. But, that is not the point here.)
Many churches and preachers, while knowing better, have caused people to think that "the words of the covenant, the ten words" somehow were not the central part of the Old Covenant, but were supposedly a "separate law". But, that is not true. "The words of the covenant, the ten words" were introduced at Sinai, and formed the central part of the covenant that was made there – the Old Covenant.
Understanding this fact, is vital for understanding what Paul wrote and said about the Old Covenant and its Ten Words, and why. Here, the reader is advised to get that matter plain and clear, first. Please take a pause here, and read first the essay ec06f.htm which has more on the matter of the "Decalogue", the "words of the covenant, the ten words". After that, you can come back to this present treatise.
Likewise, it is important to understand the whole matter regarding the two covenants – old and new – before one can come to understand Paul's teachings. The essays ec01c.htm and ec02d.htm have some basics on that matter. The essay ec11c.htm shows that the New Covenant is not a "renewal" or "modification" or "enhancement" of the Old Covenant, but something totally new and different. And, do not forget the essay ec06f.htm which has more on the matter of the Decalogue.
Now, in the hopes that the reader has studied and understood the matter of the two covenants, old and new, let us consider this passage which records something that the apostle Paul wrote about the Old Covenant, in comparison with the New Covenant:
2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. (NKJV)
Here, the apostle used the Old Covenant's "ten words" and the two stone tables that they had been written on, as symbols for the Old Covenant in its entirety.
In verses 6 and 7, the words "letter" and "engraved" refer to the two tables of stone on which the Old Covenant's main points had been written. In verses 7 and 9, the phrases "ministry of death" and "ministry of condemnation" refer to that same covenant – perhaps the apostle used those words because of the solid fact that the Old Covenant did not provide lasting life to anyone but instead condemned to death all who ever were under it.
A note: Many preachers twist Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 3 into a talk about some supposed "literal and spiritual interpretations of the Old Covenant and its law". Later in this essay, it will be shown how all that talk about "the letter of the law" versus a supposed "spirit if the law" is nonsense – and that the apostle was talking about the Old Covenant and its "letter", versus the New Covenant and the Holy Spirit. Please note that the often used phrases "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law" are not biblical – they simply are not found in the Bible. There is more on this below, and in the essay ec13c.htm.
It is important to understand this matter. Many people have severe problems with it, because they have been caused to think that the Decalogue (that phrase means "ten words") supposedly was "the law upon which the Old Covenant was based". That is, they have been caused to think that it supposedly was some kind of a "separate law", or that it existed before the Old Covenant was made. That is not true; the Decalogue was none of those things. Hopefully you studied the covenants-matter, in the other essays that were mentioned above.
By the way, did the fact that the Decalogue belonged to the Old Covenant, mean that the saints could murder and steal and so on? No, of course not. As was shown above, Paul made it clear that for the saints who were under the New Covenant, there was no place for licentiousness or immorality. Paul taught that they were to live righteous lives – holy, just and pure lives. The essay eg08b.htm explains what righteousness really is and consists of. The essay ec06f.htm has more on the Decalogue.
Romans 7:6 records how Paul wrote to the saints in Rome, "we should serve in newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter". Out of that, some preachers have constructed many kinds of dogmas.
Some translations make that verse clearer:
Romans 7:6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. (NRSV)
Romans 7:6 But now, by dying to what once held us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (TCE)
Romans 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. (ESV)
Please note that the apostle spoke about "the Spirit" – that is, the Holy Spirit – and not about some "spirit of the law". The facts are that the concept of a supposed "spirit of the law" versus a supposed "letter of the law" does not at all exist in the Bible. The essay ec13c.htm has more on that subject.
If one considers the context, it becomes clear what the apostle really meant. He wrote, from the Jewish point of view, "but now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held" (Romans 7:6, KJV). Or, as some others have it, "...having died in that in which we were held". Or, as the DR-1899 has it, "...but now we are loosed from the law of death wherein we were detained", which probably is closer to what Paul was saying and meant. Let us compare Romans 7:6 (quoted above) with 2 Corinthians 3:7-9:
In 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul used the phrase "the letter" as a reference to the Old Covenant, whose main points had been written on two tables of stone. And, when he wrote "the Spirit" (verses 6 and 8), it was the Holy Spirit he referred to. We read:
2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. (NASB-77)
The Old Covenant did not provide a way to everlasting life, so, those who were under it, faced death. Consequently, Paul wrote, to gramma apokteinei, "the engraving kills" (verse 6). And, when he wrote to pneuma zôotoiei, "the Spirit gives life", he was speaking about the Holy Spirit and the New Covenant. (The Old Covenant had a code which was written on physical things – partially on stone and partially on parchment or similar – and which did not provide a way to everlasting life. But, the New Covenant's "writing" – which "gives life" – is not a "legal code". The Holy Spirit is the New Covenant's "writing". The New Covenant is written, "not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart" (2 Corinthians 3:3, NKJV).
The apostle also wrote, obviously from the point of view of a Jew who had been under the Old Covenant:
Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (NASB-77)
The essay ec13c.htm has more on 2 Corinthians 3:6-9 and Romans 7:6, and shows in more detail that the popular talk about "spirit of the law" versus "the letter of the law" has no basis in the Bible. Those phrases are not scriptural – they simply are not found in the Bible.
The essay ec08c.htm has more on the Holy Spirit as the New Covenant's "writing".
Of course, Paul did not write in English and thus he did not use the word "law". He used a Greek word, nomos. The phrase ho nomos was often used to refer to the book which we today call "the Old Testament". Sometimes, ho nomos was used of the entire Old Testament; sometimes it referred to the five books of Moses only.
Here is an example of that (here, the spelling is tou nomou):
Acts 28:23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. (NASB-95)
What does this mean? When it is said that Paul used "the Law of Moses" to teach those people about Jesus, does that mean that he taught those people the rules ("law") of the Old Covenant? Of course not. That merely means that Paul used the books which were called, as translations have it, "the Law" (Greek, tou nomou), for teaching those people about Jesus and the New Covenant. Similarly, Paul did not exhume the prophets of old in order to teach those people about Jesus; he used the books which were called "the Prophets".
And yes, it appears that sometimes, the phrase ho nomos was also used to refer to the Old Covenant, rather than to the book which we today call "Old Testament". It may also be that, on a few occasions, Paul used the phrase ho nomos to point to "the words of the covenant, the ten words" – but then, he used those ten words, or the tables they were written on, as a symbol of the Old Covenant as a whole.
What is important to understand is that the Old Covenant was one thing, and that the New Covenant is another, totally different and separate thing. For more on the old and new covenants, look under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm.
Again: There is no such thing in the Bible as "the spirit of the Law". The essay ec13c.htm has more on that subject, but in short: The New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant, nor is it "based on the Old Covenant" or a "modification" of it. It is something totally separate and new. It is also vital to understand that only ancient Israel had a covenant-relationship with the Lord; the other nations did not. The Old Covenant was not applicable on other nations; it was only for Israel. And, after the Lord had divorced the northern tribes, that covenant-relationship was only for the southern tribes, the Jews. Later, when the Lord Jesus was killed, the Old Covenant came to its end, even for the Jews. It is only that they have not realised that yet, not even after 2000 years. (There is also the covenant the Lord made with Abraham, but that is something different.)
Paul was explaining, in various ways, that the Old Covenant was one thing, and the New Covenant another, totally different and separate. Here is one of Paul's ways to make that matter more clear:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birthpangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married." 28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman." 31 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman.
Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
(NRSV)
Those words of Paul are very clear and speak for themselves. The saints had nothing to do with the Old Covenant. No one has; it is a thing of the past. But, that did not mean that the saints could kill, steal or do anything of that kind. Nor did that mean that they could live in licentiousness (immorality). A better manner of life was expected of the saints, than what the Old Covenant's rules had demanded of those who had been under it.
Now, this does not mean that one should throw away the book which is called "the Old Testament". That book contains several prophecies that have not been fulfilled yet, so, if one wants to know what is about to happen, one should try to study that book. Also, in order to better understand the nature of the New Covenant, one should also study the Old Testament.
More: The apostles actually proclaimed the Good Message and the New Covenant, using the Old Testament!
And then, the Old Testament is good for much more: It contains reliable historical data, a lot of wisdom and many fully applicable guidelines, and many other useful things. Even though the Old Covenant came to its end a long time ago, the book which is called "Old Testament" is in no way "outdated" yet.
A note: The essay ea02d.htm has more on Galatians 4:22-28 and especially Galatians 4:26.
Another note: Translations of the Bible are not reliable, of course.
In his letter to the saints in Rome, the apostle Paul quoted some of those ten words, but that did not mean that he was saying that the Old Covenant's "ten words" were a "law for the New Covenant". No, he meant something else.
The New Testament does not mention the phrase "the words of the covenant, the ten words", or the shorter form "ten words" (those phrases appear in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4 – see the essay ec06f.htm for more). Some of those "ten words" (matters, points) are mentioned though, but only in passing and not all together or as a group. Overwhelming as this might sound in some ears, the Decalogue does not have any special role in the New Testament. But, if one remembers that the correct translation is "the words of the covenant, the ten words" (Exodus 34:28), and that that refers to the Old Covenant, then perhaps it is easier to understand why those deka logous have not been given any special role in the New Testament.
Let us first look at verse 9 in Romans chapter 13:
Romans 13:9 And this, Do not be untrue in married life, Do not put to death, Do not take what is another's, Do not have desire for what is another's, and if there is any other order, it is covered by this word, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself. (BBE)
It is easy to understand that (the way of) love covers even those things. If one love's one's fellow humans, one will not do the things mentioned in the first part of Romans 13:9.
But then, most bible-translators have twisted Romans 13:10 and made it seem that Paul supposedly meant that "love is the fulfilment of the law of the Old Covenant", or that love means that "one will keep the law of Moses perfectly", or whatever. But that is not true. Paul was simply explaining was that love covers the things he mentioned (see the first part of Romans 13:9). That is, if one has true love towards one's fellow humans, then one will not do the things mentioned in the first part of that verse.
Again, most bible-translations twist Romans 13:10, but here is one that comes closer to what Paul obviously meant and was saying:
Romans 13:10 Love works no ill to its neighbour; love therefore is the whole law. (DBY)
But, even that can be a bit misleading. The Greek wording is plêrôma oun nomou hê agapê. The adjective plêrôma referred to completeness (or perfection, if you please); the noun agapê meant "love" – but what about nomou (nomos)? Many have rendered it here as "law" ("love is the fulfilling of the law", or similar), but was that what the apostle Paul meant? Here, it is important to know that Paul often played on words, using in the same sentence or context a word in two different meanings. (The word nomos had many uses and meanings, among them "pasture", "district", "custom", "usage", "practice", "melody" and "way".) Thus, taking it that the words plêrôma oun nomou are in this case to be interpreted something like "perfectness of manner of life", here is a suggested translation of that verse:
Romans 13:10 Love works no evil to neighbour; love therefore is the perfect way. (Author's tr.)
Whatever it exactly was that Paul meant by each word in Romans 13:10 and its context, it is clear that he was talking about the way of righteousness – living a life of love, loving one's neighbours as oneself. Incidentally, the English word "righteousness", older form rihtwisnes, actually means "right-way-ness", "right-ways-ness". Love – including good works – towards one's fellow humans, is a central part of righteousness – the right way of living. The essay eg08b.htm has more on this and explains in more detail what righteousness actually is.
Again, Paul made it clear that a better manner of life was expected of the saints, than what the Old Covenant's rules had demanded of the Jews. But also: The saints were not to lead their lives on the basis of the Old Covenant or its law-code. Instead, they were to observe and follow what the New Covenant's "writing" said. And, as was mentioned above, the Holy Spirit is the New Covenant's "writing"; the essay ec08c.htm has more on this. The essay eb01c.htm has more on the distribution of the Holy Spirit. The essay ec12c.htm takes a closer look at Romans 6:14-15 and Romans 7:6 and what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote to the saints in Rome that they were not under law but under grace.
Paul wrote to the saints in Rome:
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets (KJV-1769)
Some might read this and think that Paul meant that there were no rules at all. But no, Paul was merely explaining to the saints in Rome that one could be considered "right" with God, without any ritual "works" that the Old Covenant had demanded.
As was mentioned earlier, Paul said, in effect, "Are we saying that there is no use for nomos?" (Romans 3:31; the different meanings of the noun nomos are discussed elsewhere in this essay.) He explained, "No, we are establishing nomos." In other words, Paul and his company were establishing a new nomos, a new way of life – a way of righteousness. Romans 3:21 shows that that righteousness was not connected to the Old Covenant or its law-text.
Again, Paul often played on words, using the same word in different meanings. That is obviously the case in Romans 3:31 and its context. But, when it comes to Paul's words in Romans 6:14, "for you are not under law but under grace", in that case, the word "law" (nomos) referred to the Old Covenant and its law-text. The saints were not under the Old Covenant or its rules. No one was, for that matter; the Jews had been under it, but that state of things came to its end when Jesus was killed. But, "grace" (Romans 6:14) did not mean that the saints could live in licentiousness, without any rules of conduct. They could not. (Yes, it is true that salvation was offered to them as a free gift, but that is a totally different matter.)
Let us again read what Paul wrote to the saints in Rome:
Romans 6:1 What do we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that favor may abound? 2 By no means. How shall we, who have died to sin, continue to live in it? 3 Do you not know, that as many as have been immersed into Jesus Christ, have been immersed into his death? 4 We have been buried, then, together with him, by the immersion into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father; so we also shall walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death; we shall then, also, certainly be in the likeness of his resurrection. 6 Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we should not any longer serve sin: 7 for he that has died is released from sin. 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 9 Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies not again; death has no longer dominion over him: 10 for that he has died, he has died for sin once: but that he lives, he lives for God. 11 So reckon yourselves also dead, indeed, to sin; but alive to God, by Jesus Christ. 12 Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, by obeying it. 13 Neither present your members as instruments of unrighteousness, to sin; but present yourselves to God, as alive from the dead; and your members as instruments of righteousness, to God. 14 Besides, sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under law, but under favor. 15 What then do we say? Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under favor? 16 Do you not know, that to whom you present yourselves servants, by obedience; his servants you are whom you thus obey; whether of sin into death, or of obedience into righteousness? 16 Do you not know, that to whom you present yourselves servants, by obedience; his servants you are whom you thus obey; whether of sin into death, or of obedience into righteousness? (LO)
A note regarding that quote: It is important to realise that when Paul wrote "sin", it was not the Old Covenant or its rules that defined what was wrong and right. Instead, as was mentioned earlier, the saints were to be led by the New Covenant's "Writing" – the Holy Spirit. Again, the essay eb01c.htm has more on the Holy Spirit.
Another note: Several things that were wrong under the Old Covenant, are wrong in New Covenant times as well. But, that is not the point here. When it comes to the New Covenant, sin is not defined by the Old Covenant's rules.
The next chapter, Romans 7, shows that Paul was especially directing his words to a Jewish audience. He wrote, "For I speak to them who know the law" – that is, Jewish saints (there were many of them in Rome). Consequently, what he wrote in that passage, has to be seen in that light. Also, it seems that Romans 7 is one of those places where Paul pointed to the Old Covenant's and its law through its "ten words". But, the book of Romans, and especially chapter 7, is not the most simple portion of the Bible; it is something for a separate study.
The essay ec12c.htm considers Romans 6:14-15 and 7:6 and what the apostle Paul meant when he said that the saints they were not under law but under grace. The essay ec13c.htm is about 2 Corinthians 3:6 and Romans 7:6 and what the apostle Paul really meant when he wrote about the letter as opposed to the Spirit. On what righteousness is in view of the New Testament – see the note below, and the essay mentioned in it.
The English adjective "righteous" comes from Middle English rightwise (right-wise), from Old English rihtwis which was a combination of riht ("just", "good", "fair", "proper", "fitting", "straight") and wis, "wise", "way", "manner". In other words:
The word "righteous" simply means "just" fair", "morally upright". Thus, "righteousness" is the same as rihtwisnes ("right-way-ness"), from rihtwis whose meaning was explained above.
The Greek word in question, dikaios, has the same meaning – "just" fair", "morally upright".
In short: Being righteous is the same as being just, fair and morally upright. Of course, there is more to the matter of righteousness, but that is the meaning of that word, expressed in a concise way.
The essay eg08b.htm studies the matter of righteousness in more detail.
The apostle Paul wrote:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (AKJV)
What was that "law of sin and death"? Well, by those words, Paul referred to the Old Covenant. It did not provide for true righteousness or for everlasting life, nor was it ever meant to do that.
In the quote above, Paul was once again looking at things from the Jewish viewpoint (which is not applicable on the other nations because they never had a covenant with the Lord). He wrote to the saints in Galatia:
Galatians 3:22 but the Writing did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those believing. 23 And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, 24 so that the law became our child-conductor—to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, 25 and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we (YLT)
Many bible-translations have "Scripture", but it is clear that by the phrase hê graphê ("the Writing", verse 22), Paul even here referred to the Old Covenant, using its tables of stone as a symbol for the entire covenant. Galatians 3:22, "but the Writing shut up all under sin", 2 Corinthians 3:6, "the writing kills".
Even here (Galatians 3:22), Paul was looking at things from the Jewish viewpoint. The Jews had been under the Old Covenant, which had for them been like a paidagôgos (a "tutor", a guide for small children – a paidion was a child, an agôgos was a guide):
Galatians 3:24 So the Law has been our tutor-slave our pedagogue to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith; 25 but now that the Faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor-slave. (MontNT)
But, explained Paul, they were not under that tutor-slave any longer.
Then there is verse 21 which many have mistranslated, and which many because of that have misunderstood:
Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. (NKJV)
Is that translation correct – "Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not!" No, it is not. Even a simple reading of the rest of the New Testament shows that the Old Covenant (which "was added 430 years later"), indeed was in clear conflict with the Promises. Consequently, there must be something seriously wrong with the "traditional" way of translating Galatians 3:21. Let us take a closer look at that matter.
The word which most bible-versions (in Galatians 3:21) translate as "against" or "opposed to", was kata in the Greek text. The Online Bible's Greek-English lexicon has this on that word:
1) down from, through out
2) according to, toward, along
The 1769 KJ version renders kata in around 107 passages as "according", in 61 passages as "after", and in 58 passages as "against", in 36 passages as "in", in 27 passages as "by", in 11 passages as "as", and in 165 passages in other ways. (The NASB renders kata 155 times as "according to", "accord", "according", "accordingly" or "conforming", 52 times as "against", and some 273 times in other ways.)
Let us note that in that same letter, the apostle Paul several times used kata in the meaning "according to":
"according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:4)
"not according to man" (Galatians 1:11)
"I went up according to revelation" (Galatians 2:2)
"brothers, I speak according to man" (Galatians 3:15)
"heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:29)
"he of the slave woman has been born according to flesh" (Galatians 4:23)
"children of promise according to Isaac" (Galatians 4:28)
"he born according to flesh persecuted the one according to Spirit" (Galatians 4:29)
(Quotes from LIT.)
Consequently, here is Galatians 3:21, translated with kata in its most common meaning, "according to":
Galatians 3:21 Then, was the Law according to the promises of God? Not at all. For if a law had been given which could give life, then righteousness would have been through law. (Author's tr.)
(Another way to view this might be to consider that Paul was simply asking whether the Old Covenant "nullified" the Promises – whether it was "against" the Promises in that way. The answer is that the Old Covenant did not and could not nullify the Promises, simply because Old Covenant was only a temporary thing, while the Promises were and are of lasting nature.)
Paul wrote:
Galatians 3:17 I mean to say that the testament which God has already ratified could not be annulled by the Law which came four hundred and thirty years later, so as to make the Promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes from law, it no longer comes from a promise; but God did give it as a free gift to Abraham by a promise. 19 To what purpose, then, was the Law? It was imposed later for the sake of transgressions, until the "Offspring" should come to whom the promise had been made. It was arranged through angels by the hand of a mediator. (MontNT)
Paul's words are clear. The Old Covenant was the "added law". But, that added thing was there only "until the Offspring should come" – only until Jesus came.
The Jewish saints were no longer under that "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:25) – that is, they were no longer under the Old Covenant.
It is important to understand that the Old Covenant was one thing (and that it came to its end), and that the New Covenant is another thing, totally separate. Those two covenants are not the same, nor is the New "based on the old" as some have claimed. They are different and separate.
The essay ec10c.htm has more on Galatians 3:17, 19 and 21.
Paul wrote, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? The one of works? No, but by the law of faith." (Romans 3:27.)
"Law of faith." Not the Old Covenant and its rules, but something totally different and new.
A note: Today, even the word and concept "faith" has become corrupted; it has lost its original meaning. There is a note on this, below. The essay eb10b.htm has more on "faith".
Another note: Since Paul made it clear that the Promises were actually made (directed) only to one seed of Abraham (Jesus), then how could the saints receive the Promises? The answer is, through the New Covenant. Even the New Covenant is a marriage covenant. When the saints (saints: people of the apostles' day) became joined to Jesus who has the Promises and the Inheritance, that meant that they would share those things with him.
In a nutshell: The old Greek word pistis had two meanings, neither of which correspond to the present-day meaning of the English word "faith", as it is used in the religious world.
For the saints, pistis was a matter of, on the one hand, considering the Lord to be reliable and trustworthy, and putting their trust in him, and, on the other hand, being on their own part reliable and faithful servants of the Lord.
Paul noted that the saints could not be saved by "works". By that, he referred to Old Covenant's ritual "works". Instead, they received salvation by putting their trust in Jesus.
James showed that the faithful Abraham was considered righteous because he had "works". By that, James meant that Abraham did, what the Lord told him to do. That doing was of course "works". Abraham obeyed the Lord and trusted that the Lord would perform what he had promised to Abraham.
Again, pistis had a two-fold meaning. On the one hand, it refers to being faithful (trustworthy), and on the other hand, it refers to putting one's trust in someone – considering that person to be trustworthy. The essay eb10b.htm has more on the matter of faith.
Acts 15 records how some men from Jerusalem had come and caused problems among the saints in Antioch, claiming that the Old Covenant's rules should be followed. Because of that, the saints in Antioch decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, so they could calm things down and settle that matter.
(The Bible mentions two Antiochs. The Antioch of Acts 15 was located on the coast at the north-eastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea, not very far from Tarsus where Paul was born.)
Please note how it really was: The saints in Antioch sent those men to Jerusalem, apparently without the saints in Jerusalem even knowing that they would be coming. They were not "summoned". They were not going to some "conference of elders". They simply were sent to Jerusalem, to meet other saints there, including some of the apostles. The saints in Jerusalem then considered the problem which had been caused by certain men who had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch. The saints noted that there was no need to follow the law of Moses. But, they gave certain guidelines regarding a few things.
The essay eo04d.htm has more on Acts 15.
The essay ef03b.htm has more on the "foods" part (the prohibition against idol meats), and on the mention of "blood" and "strangled things" in Acts 15.
A note: Some create out of Acts 15 a religion with only four points: "Abstaining from pollutions of idols, sexual sins, strangled things and blood." That is a very strange and amusing religion, with only those four guidelines. And then, some deceivers claim that Paul supposedly "overruled" even those four things, at some later time, so that after that, "nothing mattered". But that is not true. Again, the essay eo04d.htm has more on Acts 15.
We read:
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [D] the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (NKJV, note sign added)
[D] Verse 7: The word "mystery" is a non-translation of the Greek noun mustêrion which simply meant "secret", just as for instance Young translated it:
1 Corinthians 2:7 but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, 8 which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified (YLT)
It is in the light of those things that one must view much of Paul's writings. Many things Paul wrote, are difficult to understand, without understanding what that secret was. The essay ed06c.htm has more on the "secret of God" which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.
Likewise, for understanding Paul's letters, it is important to understand the matter of the covenants. For more on that subject, look under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm.
The 1769 KJ version has this wording:
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (KJV-1769)
A number of preachers have claimed that some "oracles" supposedly were, as "oral tradition", in some mystical way "preserved" by the Jews, over thousands of years, in an unwritten form. But no, unwritten things cannot be preserved for thousands of years in that way. Paul was not talking about an "oral tradition". Here is a better translation of that verse:
Romans 3:1 How then is the Jew better off? or what profit is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way: first of all because the words of God were given to them. (BBE)
The Greek wording is ta logia tou Theou, "the sayings of God". That is: The Old Testament. That is what he Jews had been given – that is what Paul referred to. The Old Testament, and not some "oral tradition".
(How did the word "oracles" come to appear in Romans 3:2? The 1525 Tyndale version had "vnto them was committed the worde of God", the 1535 Coverdale version had "First Vnto them was commytted what God spake", and even the 1568 Bishops' bible had "vnto them were committed ye wordes of God". But, in the 1560 Geneva bible the wording was for some strange reason changed to "oracles". Again, the Greek wording is ta logia tou Theou, "the sayings of God". That is, what God said, through his prophets or in other ways – as recorded in the Old Testament.)
Many bible-translations make it seem that this world's rulers and governments would be appointed by God and "in his service".
But, those translations are misleading.
The essay ew02c.htm has more on this world's rulers, and on certain wordings in Romans 13 and in some other passages.
Now, if there is among Paul's teachings a matter that is much debated, then it is the role of women.
To a large part, the problems regarding that matter are translation-related. But yes, there is also the fact that on certain occasions, Paul did teach that men and women had different roles, mostly within a marriage relationship but by extension also within the saints' fellowship (but only in regard to certain things and only in some ways).
That subject is something for a separate study. However, a note: It is good to realise and keep in mind that the apostle Paul wrote those things, not to people of our day and culture and society, but to the saints, people of his own day and culture and society.
Again, when one reads the New Testament and sees such words as "you", "your", "we", "our", "us" and similar – one must realise that those words refer to those who were being addressed – people of those days. There is much to learn from those things even for people of our day, but it is important to understand that all things that are recorded in the New Testament are not applicable in our day and age. The essay eg02c.htm has more on this.
This is an important question, because some quote 1 Corinthians 6:12 and claim that Paul supposedly meant that the saints could do whatever they wanted, without any moral restrictions. Here is how the NKJ version rendered that verse:
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (NKJV)
But, that translation is misleading. Here is another translation which makes the matter a bit more clear:
1 Corinthians 6:12 I am free to do all things; but not all things are wise. I am free to do all things; but I will not let myself come under the power of any. (BBE)
Obviously, what Paul was saying was that human beings are free moral agents. They are able to do all kinds of things – but all things are not of the kind one should do. It is in that way that humans are "free" to do what they want – but then, everyone must take the consequences of one's actions. It was those consequences that Paul referred to, by his words "I will not let myself come under the power of any".
Actually, there is a word-play in the Greek text of that passage (exesti-exousiazô). Paul often played with words, but much of that is lost in translation. Here is an excerpt from the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary, on 1 Corinthians 6:12:
[...]
lawful...brought under the power—The Greek words are from the same
root, whence there is a play on the words: All things are in my power, but
I will not be brought under the power of any of them (the "all things").
He who commits "fornication," steps aside from his own legitimate power or liberty,
and is "brought under the power" of an harlot
[...]
Or, brought under the power of sin. In short: Paul did not teach that the saints could do "all and everything". His point was exactly the opposite: Humans have a free will, but there are consequences for what one does.
A note: Many bible-versions translate the Greek words exesti and exousia and related word forms in misleading ways, even in certain other passages. There is more on those words, in a footnote towards the end of this essay.
Another note: 1 Corinthians 10:23, which contains a similar wording as 1 Corinthians 6:12 but is about foods offered (dedicated) to idols, is discussed in the essay ef03b.htm.
Some have quoted Titus 1:15 and claimed or insinuated that if one just is "pure", then one can do whatever one wants. Is that true? No, of course not. It is important to find out what the subject was. Also, it is likewise important to realise that all too often, bible-translations confuse and mislead.
Paul was not talking about foods, nor was he saying that the saints could do anything they wanted. And, the proper translation appears to be "all is pure with the pure—but with the defiled and unfaithful ones nothing is pure". Also: Titus 1:15 must not be taken out of its context. The context shows that Paul was talking about elders – how men being proposed for election as elders were to be, and not be.
Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and establish elders in every town as I told you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, a man who has children only with one woman and is faithful [to her], not under accusation of prodigality or of loose living. 7 For an elder must be beyond reproach as God's steward: Not presumptuous, not choleric, not given to wine, not a brawler, not seeking filthy gain, 8 but generous, one who loves goodness, temperate, righteous, holy, controlled, 9 holding to the faithful word taught so that he may be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who teach differently. 10 For, there are many confusing and vain talkers and mind-deceivers (especially those of the circumcision) 11 whose mouths must be closed, men who turn upside down whole houses, teaching for the sake of filthy gain things that should not be taught. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, has said, "Cretans are always liars, savage beasts, not willing to work." 13 That witness is true. Because of that, refute them with severity, so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not turning their minds to Jewish fables and commandments of men which depart from the truth. 15 All is pure with the pure—but with the defiled and unfaithful ones nothing is pure; instead, they are defiled in their minds and consciences. (Author's tr.)
In the first part of verse 15, the Greek wording panta men kathara tois katharois. As you perhaps noted, here they were not translated as "all is pure unto the pure", but rather as "all is pure with the pure". Again:
Titus 1:15 All is pure with the pure—but with the defiled and unfaithful ones nothing is pure; instead, they are defiled in their minds and consciences. (Author's tr.)
That Greek wording of the first part of verse 15 does not contain any preposition for "for" or "with". In order to find out what the writer meant, the reader must consider the context. And again, the context was elders – how men being proposed for election as elders were to be, and not be. Paul gave several criteria, among them that those men were not to be "seeking filthy gain".
So, even in his letter to Titus, Paul warned about men who lusted for filthy lucre (money, dirty gain). That lust for money defiled those men, so that with them, nothing was pure. "With the defiled and unfaithful ones nothing is pure; instead, they are defiled in their minds and consciences." But with Paul and those with him, things were different – they were pure in their motives, and were not defiled by lust for money. With Paul and his companions, all things were pure.
The essay ee05b.htm has more on Titus 1:15, and considers in more detail what Paul really meant. (The essay ee02b.htm explains how the saints elected their elders. It also shows that the concept of "ordination" has been written into the NT by bible-translators, without any support in the Greek text.)
All of Paul's teachings cannot be included or discussed in one single essay, nor can all of the Pauline epistles be commented in a short treatise. For more, please see other essays at this site.
For more on what Paul (and others) taught about "law, grace and covenants", look under the heading "Covenants" on the index-page keyw-c4.htm.
For more on what Paul taught regarding monetary things in connection with the saints and their fellowships, look under the heading "Silver and gold" on the index-page keyw-s5.htm.
For more on what Paul taught about elders and other fellowship-related matters, look under the heading "Assembly" on the index-page keyw-a4.htm.
1 Corinthians 10:23 is discussed in the essay ef03b.htm. The essay ee05b.htm explains the real meaning of Titus 1:15.
Was Paul "mistaken" or "in error" regarding some things? Some have claimed that he was, because he wrote to the saints that they would soon be taken up to the Lord. But was that a mistake? Was Paul really speaking nonsense there, as some have claimed? The essays eg04b.htm and eg05b.htm sort out that matter.
Look also under the heading "Paul" on the index-page keyw-p1.htm.
See also the "Additional reading" list towards the end of this present essay. You can even use the search function, for finding specific words, phrases or bible passages at this site.
A footnote regarding the Greek words exesti and exousia (and exousiazô).
Those words had many different kinds of uses, meanings and nuances. The apostle Paul often played with words. 1 Corinthians 6:12 is one such passage, among many. Unfortunately, Paul's word-plays are for the most part lost in translation. Often, even his meaning is lost or twisted.
The root of exousia and exousiazô is found in the word exesti. This is what the "Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon" by Liddell and Scott has on exesti:
exesti imperat. exestô subj. exêi opt. exeiê inf. exeinai part. exon imperf. exên fut. exestai opt. exesoito [impers., the only forms in use of ex-eimi] it is allowed, it is in one's power, is possible, c. inf., Hdt.: c. dat. pers. et inf., id=Hdt., attic; ex. soi andri genesthai Xen.:– c. acc. pers. et inf., Ar.:–part. neut. absol., exon since it was possible, Hdt., Aesch., etc.
In summary: The old Greek noun exousia had many different uses and meanings. It was derived from the word exesti which meant such things as "it is right", "let", "permissible", "permitted", "it is allowed", "it is in one's power", "it is possible".
It is important to realise that bible-translators have not always given exousia (and related words) the meaning which is correct for the context. Sometimes the meaning is "power", sometimes "liberty", sometimes "authority", sometimes "permission". Sometimes exousia is used in the meaning "choice", such as in Acts 5:4 where exousia referred to a person's free choice ("was it not in your own control", NKJV). So, a person having a certain exousia could mean that he or she had multiple choices none of which had to be wrong – but sometimes there were both right and wrong choices.
1 Corinthians 6:12 is a case of the latter kind – it was a matter of choosing between right and wrong. Paul did a word-play with exesti and exousiazô. (The latter word is a derivative of the former.)
Many bible-translations mislead, by translating exesti in 1 Corinthians 6:12 as "lawful", while it is clear that Paul only meant that he was able to do all kinds of things (as a person with a free will). Then Paul showed, using his complicated language, that all things have their consequences. Had he used his ability to choose (exesti), in the wrong way, that would have given the wrong thing (sin, error, wrong ways) power over him (exousiazô).
1 Corinthians 6:12 I am free to do all things; but not all things are wise. I am free to do all things; but I will not let myself come under the power of any. (BBE)
Or,
1 Corinthians 6:12 Every thing is in my power: but every thing is not profitable to me. Every thing is in my power; but none of them shall have dominion over me. (MUR)
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are in my power, but all things are not profitable. All things are in my power; but I will not let myself come under the power of any. (Author's tr.)
"All things are in my power" – clearly, a reference to the fact that humans have a free will. Humans must always use their free will so that they choose the right thing to do, keeping away from wrong.
Misleading translations have turned many passages in Paul's epistles (letters) totally upside down. In short, regarding verse 12 in 1 Corinthians 6: The translation "lawful" is totally wrong and misleading. This was explained in more detail in this essay, above.
A note: 1 Corinthians 10:23 contains a similar wording as 1 Corinthians 6:12, in connection with foods offered (dedicated) to idols. That passage is discussed in the essay ef03b.htm.
A noter note: Paul's use of the many-faceted word exousia in 1 Corinthians 9:18 is explained in the essay em05e.htm. His use of that word in a different meaning, in 2 Thessalonians 3:9, is explained in the essays em03c.htm and em05e.htm.
Table of contents – What's new here? – Key-word index – Search function – Goal and purpose – Contact, comment, question
If this page did not contain what you were looking for, see the links below, and the key-word index and the table of contents, or use the search function.
Additional reading at the Bible Pages, on related as well as other issues:
A clarifying explanation of the short names for the bible-versions quoted or mentioned at this site, such as that NKJV stands for New King James Version, YLT for Young's Literal translation, HCSB for Holman Christian Standard Bible, NRSV for the New Revised Standard Version, and so on. → es09c.htm
For those who are interested:
Acts 20:35 – what did the apostle Paul mean when he said to the elders from Ephesus, "it is more blessed to give than to receive", and when he said to them, "I have shown you in everything, by working like this, that we must support the infirm"? → em02c.htm
On the example the apostle Paul set, for others to imitate. Paul did not tell people to "follow him as a leader"; what he did was that he told the saints to imitate him, to copy his example. It is important for believers to know what kind of example Paul referred to and meant, and in what connection. → em03c.htm
Monetary things in connection with religious fellowships. → keyw-s5.htm (Look under the heading "Silver and gold".)
What does the Bible say about the Pharisees? Also, why did Jesus call them vipers, snakes and actors? → eo12c.htm
1 Corinthians 9:14, "Even so has the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel". What did Jesus and the apostle Paul really mean? Should preachers be paid? A study on 1 Corinthians 9:14, Matthew 10:5-11 and Mark 6:7-13. → em05e.htm
Check your bible knowledge. A basic self-test with 15 biblical questions (with answers and commentary). → es04b.htm
On Titus 1:15 and the translation "to the pure all things are pure", and what the apostle Paul really meant and referred to. → ee05b.htm
A study on the phrases "the snare of the Devil" and "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 3:7 and 6:9-10 and 2 Timothy 2:26). On Jesus' and Paul's teachings regarding how those who proclaimed the Gospel or Good Message could become spiritually unfruitful. → em08c.htm
What is the truth about tithing, the concept of giving "tithes" and "offerings" to a church? In the light of the New Covenant, is tithing right or wrong, biblical or unbiblical? → em01d.htm
What does the word "righteous" really mean? What does the Bible say about righteousness? → eg08b.htm
Romans 6:14-15, "For you are not under law but under grace", and Romans 7:6, "We are delivered from the law". What did the apostle mean? → ec12c.htm
Where can one find New Covenant's law or rules, in written form? Also, notes on Jeremiah 31:33 and the Holy Spirit. → ec08c.htm
The King James bible, the Authorised Version – is it somehow "the inspired Word of God", better than other translations, or a particularly "holy" bible-version, or the best or most exact or accurate one as some have claimed? Also: In what way or sense is it authoritative, or, who "authorised" it? This essay has some details of the story behind the King James translation or KJV, including the men who were involved in producing it. Two examples of pages in KJV-1611 are included as well; one is an image showing the page with Hebrews 1, the other is a PDF-file containing a facsimile, picture format copy of the book of Matthew in the year 1611 edition of the King James version. There are also some brief remarks on the so-called "Received Text" or Textus Receptus, the Greek NT text compilation produced by the Catholic priest Gerrit Gerritszoon ("Erasmus"). → es03c.htm
The Ten Commandments – that phrase was coined in the Middle Ages and is a mistranslation. The Hebrew text talks about "the words of the covenant, the ten words". On the Decalogue, the "ten words" or eser dabarim as the Hebrew text has it, or tous deka logous as the Greek Septuagint or LXX translated it. → ec06f.htm
The New Covenant versus the Old Covenant, or the Old Covenant versus the New Covenant. Also, some notes on Matthew 5:17 and 18. → ec01c.htm
Several important points regarding the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. This essay ties in with its companion ec01c.htm (look above) which is about those two covenants and the difference between them. → ec02d.htm
Is the New Covenant a "renewal" or "modification" of the Old Covenant? → ec11c.htm
Many talk about "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law" – but those expressions are not found in the Bible. A detailed, down to the core study on 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and Romans 7:6 and what the apostle Paul really meant and referred to when he wrote about the letter as opposed to the Spirit. → ec13c.htm
The two covenants, old and new. → keyw-c4.htm (Look under the heading "Covenants".)
What does Galatians 4:26 mean? It talks about the heavenly Jerusalem and is a part of an allegory regarding the two covenants. Why have some preachers then claimed that it refers to some church? This essay finds the facts regarding the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31, and shows what the different things named in it pictured and symbolised. → ea02d.htm
Essays regarding various matters in connection with religious fellowships. → keyw-a4.htm (Look under the heading "Assembly".)
How to understand the Bible. Easy keys to interpreting and understanding Scripture in a better and deeper way, by avoiding certain fundamental but common mistakes and errors in bible study. These vital keys are really the basics for objective bible study. Knowing these keys will make many things easier to interpret and comprehend, and one will see several central matters in the Bible from a new and different perspective, especially in connection with the Gospels and the Epistles. → eg02c.htm
What does the English language word and concept "doctrine" literally mean? Likewise, the terms "dogma", "creed" and "tenet", what do they signify? Countless preachers and doctors of theology compile dogmas, creeds, tenets and doctrinal statements of beliefs, and claim them to be "the Truth". But, they do not agree with each other. Their opinions and teachings differ, depending on their denomination and its viewpoints, and there is much confusion. So, the pertinent question is, who has the "true doctrines" or "correct dogmas"? What should one think – do the Scriptures give any guidance regarding this matter? What does the Bible say about "doctrine"? → es08c.htm
The Holy Spirit – an outline and a no-nonsense synopsis of the matter of the distribution of God's Spirit, in the past, today, and in the coming days of the future. Also: Whose baptism is valid? Churches and preachers baptise people, but they are not notably changed and no obvious signs or fruit of the Spirit are seen in their lives. Why is that? Is the Spirit of God at all given to humans, at this present time? → eb01c.htm
Galatians 3:17-19 – what did Paul mean by the term "added law"? What was the original thing? And, the addition that came 430 years later, was it some "extra rituals", or something else? Further: What did the apostle Paul mean when he in that same epistle wrote, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (3:2) and, "Tell me, you who want to be under the Law, do you not understand the Law?" (4:21). Those things in the letter to the saints in Galatia might seem confusing, but this essay makes them clearer and more easily understood, and shows what the apostle was talking about. → ec10c.htm
What does the word "faith" mean? What is true faith? On the words and concepts "faith", "faithfulness", "believe" and "believing", in the Bible and especially in the New Testament, and what those things meant in the saints' lives. → eb10b.htm
Acts 15 and the matter of the covenants. → eo04d.htm
Could the saints sit in idols' temples or eat foods that had been offered to idols? This essay sorts out the translation and meaning of Acts 15:19-20 and 29, and 1 Corinthians 8:1-12 and 10:14-32. → ef03b.htm
Colossians 1:26, "the mystery of the ages" or "the secret of God", and the "princes of this age" and "thrones and dominions". How Jesus conquered and spoiled certain principalities and powers. → ed06c.htm
The so-called "divine right of kings" – is there such a thing? Are kings, rulers and governments appointed by God? → ew02c.htm
What does the Bible say about ordaining and ordination? In other words: How did the saints appoint or choose their elders? And, were those elders "ordained", and did they function as "priests" of some kind? → ee02b.htm
What happened to the saints, in the first century? Also, some notes on the "early church". → eg04b.htm
Rapture and parousia – are they biblical concepts? → eg05b.htm
For more on the apostle Paul and his teachings, look under the heading "Paul" on the index-page keyw-p1.htm. See even the table of contents for this site.
Info on the goal and purpose of this site, and a contact address.
→
purpose.htm
Table of contents for this site, including a synopsis or a short, summary description
of each essay or article. →
filename.htm
Search for specific words, phrases or bible passages at this site. →
search.htm
An alphabetical bible topic keyword index of the essays and articles at this site:
1-9
– A
– B
– C
– D
– E
– F
– G
– H
– I
– J
– K
– L
– M
– N
– O
– P
– Q
– R
– S
– T
– U
– V
– W
– X
– Y – Z –
Detailed index overview
If you find any of the essays or treatises at this site interesting and helpful, please provide a copy to other people as well. But before printing or distributing anything, make sure to get the very latest version, exactly as it is, directly from this web site. In regard to printable copies of these pages, for example as PDF-format papers, booklets or brochures or so – there are no specially printer friendly variants (except some bible puzzles), nor is there a need for that – simply, when you print an essay, set the margins and the text size to fit your needs and the paper you use, in the program you use for viewing these pages, and then send it to your printer. (This varies in different browsers and word processing programs. In web browsers, for setting the margin size and headers and footers, look for "Print Format" in the File menu; to set the text size for print-out, look under "Preview" or "View" in the same menu.)
Important: You are welcome to quote the documents at this site – the Bible Pages – provided that you mention the source, by giving the full web address to the page in question. Please link to these essays and give copies to friends. However, you may not re-publish any part of the contents of this site, as a booklet, brochure or on the Internet or in other ways, without a permission from the author; he retains the copyright. For more on copying and quoting, and a few words about the author and his religious education and credentials, see the page purpose.htm.
The essays at this site are not in "bible lesson" or "bible study course" format, nor are they meant as on-line "bible study classes" of some kind. Even though this site gives ready answers to biblical questions of many kinds, its main goal is providing food for thought on a variety of biblical subjects, and challenging and encouraging people to get started with deep personal bible study and then continue with that. (Many religious organisations and denominations have their bible lessons and correspondence courses; they are ready-made "studies" which are shrewdly constructed and written in such a manner that they lead the reader to conclusions that fit the dogmas of the group in question.) A careful, closer study of the books of the Bible with proper tools will help a believer to gain better and deeper biblical understanding. In that way, one will find out more about what the Bible really says, means and teaches. One can then, with wisdom, use that knowledge as a guide for one's life, instead of accepting as "biblical truths" whatever commercial religion – churches and their ministers (preachers) – have taught and want people to believe.
A more thorough, bible-based study with care and with thought will, not only help one to learn more, but also show one how many a popular belief has no scriptural basis or support but is altogether false and not biblical at all. This applies, not only to prophecy and "end time" related things, but also to many other subjects where prevailing dogmas are often taken "for granted". For this reason, it is extremely important for believers to personally study the Writings, and to thoroughly analyse them down to the smaller details, in order to find out the real facts. For doing that, it is not necessary to know the Hebrew, Greek or Latin languages (even though learning their letters and alphabet can be a good idea); there are modern, advanced tools which can help one to study in an effective way – see the pages es01d.htm and es02c.htm for more on this. The essay eg02c.htm supplies a number of easy, elementary keys to acquiring a better and deeper understanding of the Bible, simply by consciously and methodically avoiding certain usual errors and pitfalls.
This site is non-denominational and non-sectarian. It is not connected to any church, sect or religious organisation or movement. This site looks at things from a biblical perspective, and not from a dogmatic one. It does not claim to be without error or to "know it all" or to have a perfect or complete explanation to all things – it consists of an ongoing bible study that has been made public, and as the study goes on, the contents of these pages are revised and also expanded, with new topics and themes being addressed. Readers are invited and welcome to write to the author with thoughts and comments, or to ask questions or to point out a mistake if they feel that they have found one. For more on this, see the page purpose.htm.
The address to this page is www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/eo11b.htm
Please send or mention the address to this site to others, and link to these pages.
This page was created or modified 2010-03-14.