Did Paul misquote scripture on purpose?

[Alone]

I am intrigued. Thank you for sharing this. I wasn't aware of any Christian group that rejects Paul.

I know I'm with you I'm perplexed by this I'm just really literally scratching my head I don't claim to be a Christian however after reading the Bible I just don't understand how Paul can be rejected, to me it's a very intriguing story to say the least?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I am intrigued. Thank you for sharing this. I wasn't aware of any Christian group that rejects Paul.

One of the very early Christian groups called Ebionites rejected Paul.

 

[New Paradigm]

One of the very early Christian groups called Ebionites rejected Paul.

yes...I am very aware of the ebionites. They were staunchly against Paul

 

[osgart]

Fwis, The righteous walk by faith in the promise of deliverance from OT to NT. They believed God and it was counted for righteousness. God's righteousness not man's. I don't see where man is righteous of his own doings throughout the OT. The promise of God made them righteous through belief and faith. The Messiah was to fulfill the promise. And that deliverance was the promise to deliver them all from their wretchedness. So it's always God's righteousness, and what God makes righteous, and not mankind itself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What about the lamed-vavniks?

Wow, I had never heard of them, until you posted this.

If I may ask, where did you first learn about them?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Right. If He thought humans as a whole could be perfect, there'd be no law at all.

But there is.

Yes, now.
A & E, though, never were given any real laws.... the one about not eating from the one tree — only one prohibited, from all the others — was just to establish God’s right as their Creator to be Sovereign over them.

But, really, they didn’t need to be told to not do bad things.... you don’t find any in Genesis.... “don’t slap the animals,” “don’t hit your wife, Adam”.... it just wasn’t needed.

In the entire account, there’s only 3 — the “don’t eat from this tree” one (to get A & E to recognize God’s authority), ‘procreate and fill the Earth’ (a desirable and fun one), and “cultivate and take care of” the Garden (giving them satisfying work), no doubt to eventually extend the paradise boundary, worldwide.

All of them, ‘easy-peasy’.

 

[Rival]

Yes, now.
A & E, though, never were given any real laws.... the one about not eating from the one tree — only one prohibited, from all the others — was just to establish God’s right as their Creator to be Sovereign over them.

But, really, they didn’t need to be told to not do bad things.... you don’t find any in Genesis.... “don’t slap the animals,” “don’t hit your wife, Adam”.... it just wasn’t needed.

In the entire account, there’s only 3 — the “don’t eat from this tree” one (to get A & E to recognize God’s authority), ‘procreate and fill the Earth’ (a desirable and fun one), and “cultivate and take care of” the Garden (giving them satisfying work), no doubt to eventually extend the paradise boundary, worldwide.

All of them, ‘easy-peasy’.

I don't disagree. I think we just see what came next differently.

 

[Jedster]

Wow, I had never heard of them, until you posted this.

If I may ask, where did you first learn about them?

Early years in England growing up in a Jewish community.
I was reminded about them by the statement that only 4 were perfect.

 

[Harel13]

What about the lamed-vavniks?

Had a thought about this today: Who's to say that these 36 righteous men never sin?

 

[1213]

Paul abused Scripture by taking passages out of context and giving them meanings that were never intended!...

…One of Paul’s unique and fundamental doctrines states that absolutely no one is righteous. To proof-text his doctrine Paul cuts and pastes together no less than 7 snippets of Scripture and presents them as one:

“There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18

… “the generation of THE RIGHTEOUS”!! Paul didn’t tell us about this part of the Psalm! So much for his doctrine that no one is righteous.

I think you have good point, but I think in this it is good to also remember this:

…as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16

Paul may be little difficult to understand, but when you understand it correctly, there is no problem.

Paul is basically saying that no one has obeyed the Law perfectly and no one becomes righteous by obeying the Law. And I believe he is correct. Those who have been counted righteous were not perfect. They are counted righteous, because they are loyal (faithful) to God.

 

[Jedster]

Had a thought about this today: Who's to say that these 36 righteous men never sin?

You are right. Righteous does not necessarily mean perfect.

 

[New Paradigm]

In Paul's string of quotes here in Romans 3 he continues to take snippets of Scripture out of their context from Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7,8, and Psalm 36:1. In each and every case, the unrighteous individuals spoken of in these passages are specifically evil men, and in the greater context of these passages, the evil men are contrasted with those who are called "the righteous", "the upright", and "the innocent". Please check for yourself. Not only is there no support for Paul's picture in these passages, but in their proper context, the exact opposite is firmly established.

 

[Rival]

and no one becomes righteous by obeying the Law. And I believe he is correct.

The Tanakh disagrees with you. Psalm 119 disagrees with you. The scriptures describe many people as righteous.

 

[New Paradigm]

The Tanakh disagrees with you. Psalm 119 disagrees with you. The scriptures describe many people as righteous.

exactly....to suggest otherwise is to call Hashem a liar

 

[New Paradigm]

Paul wants us to believe that no one becomes righteous through the works of the Law. But there are many whom God called "righteous". From Genesis 7:1 where He says to Noah, "I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation", all the way through to the New Testament where Yeshua says, "many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it...", there are many references to "righteous" men. Take an exhaustive concordance and look under the word righteous.

 

[halbhh]

Paul abused Scripture by taking passages out of context and giving them meanings that were never intended!

To proof-text his doctrine, Paul lifted numerous Scripture passages out of their context and gave them meanings that were never intended. Some of these passages he gave a meaning that the context absolutely nullifies. The following is one classic example:

One of Paul’s unique and fundamental doctrines states that absolutely no one is righteous. To proof-text his doctrine Paul cuts and pastes together no less than 7 snippets of Scripture and presents them as one:

“There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18

Each of every one of these snippets Paul took out of context and gave a meaning that its author never intended. The first snippet is our example of how Paul gave a meaning to a passage that only a verse or two later the author says something that completely destroys what Paul said about it. It was taken from Psalm 14. David here begins by speaking specifically of “fools”, who say in their heart “there is no God”.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one. Psalm 14:1-3


David is in no way referring to every human being with the term “the children of men”. He is speaking of the fools who say there is no God and is referring specifically to them as the children of men. It is among these that he says there is none righteous. We know this because he goes on to contrast these children of men with those he calls the generation of the righteous!
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up MY people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is
with the generation of the righteous. Psalm 14:4-5

Imagine that, ... “the generation of THE RIGHTEOUS”!! Paul didn’t tell us about this part of the Psalm! So much for his doctrine that no one is righteous.

I like that you don't just gloss over this. It's indeed a real problem potentially. One thinks: What about Job? (for instance)

At risk someone already mentioned: to me I see that many using this section to say none have any hint of right-doing or right-seeking, they need to read Romans in a whole different way: as one long letter. Through.

Not even by chapter, but through. Like you visit with a close friend for hours.

So, it is to be one whole thing, so that chapter 3 isn't by itself away from chapter 4, 5, 7 or 8, 13...

And to me, then this section in chapter 3 reads like hyperbole.

Of course many have ardently seeked for God! To say none seek God is to talk to a condition, a situation.

A tendency that happens at times. Into which a culture/nation can fall, and remain in for too long. We remember how some towns simply disbelieved in Christ, even while He was there in person right in front of them. They refused.

Do we need a Savior? Oh yes!

 

[New Paradigm]

I like that you don't just gloss over this. It's indeed a real problem potentially. One thinks: What about Job? (for instance)

At risk someone already mentioned: to me I see that many using this section to say none have any hint of right-doing or right-seeking, they need to read Romans in a whole different way: as one long letter. Through.

Not even by chapter, but through. Like you visit with a close friend for hours.

So, it is to be one whole thing, so that chapter 3 isn't by itself away from chapter 4, 5, 7 or 8, 13...

And to me, then this section in chapter 3 reads like hyperbole.

Of course many have ardently seeked for God! To say none seek God is to talk to a condition, a situation.

A tendency that happens at times. Into which a culture/nation can fall, and remain in for too long. We remember how some towns simply disbelieved in Christ, even while He was there in person right in front of them. They refused.

Do we need a Savior? Oh yes!

This is the best argument I've seen yet. The argument that Paul is using hyperbole. I struggle with this line of thinking and here is why.

Paul fully believed and taught that righteousness was a free gift that had nothing to do with our actions. Unmerited favor where we have nothing to do with it.
Now, after deceptively quoting Scripture to try and convince us that no one can become righteous under the Law, Paul is left to find for us a good working reason why God gave man the Law in the first place! Here is his logic.

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, that (for this purpose) every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19,20

This begins to defy words to describe the blasphemous lie that it is. But hey! Paul has to come up with some reason for the Law's existence after demolishing the truth! Are we really to believe now that it is God's purpose to make man guilty before Him? If God intentionally made His Law impossible for man to keep, that would make God the author of unrighteousness and guilt!

So the idea that hyperbole was being used here doesn't fit for me in the end.

 

[New Paradigm]

I think you have good point, but I think in this it is good to also remember this:

…as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16

Paul may be little difficult to understand, but when you understand it correctly, there is no problem.

Paul is basically saying that no one has obeyed the Law perfectly and no one becomes righteous by obeying the Law. And I believe he is correct. Those who have been counted righteous were not perfect. They are counted righteous, because they are loyal (faithful) to God.

You may want to test that verse from 2 Peter.

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

Good article on the topic

 

[halbhh]

This is the best argument I've seen yet. The argument that Paul is using hyperbole. I struggle with this line of thinking and here is why.

Paul fully believed and taught that righteousness was a free gift that had nothing to do with our actions. Unmerited favor where we have nothing to do with it.
Now, after deceptively quoting Scripture to try and convince us that no one can become righteous under the Law, Paul is left to find for us a good working reason why God gave man the Law in the first place! Here is his logic.

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, that (for this purpose) every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19,20

This begins to defy words to describe the blasphemous lie that it is. But hey! Paul has to come up with some reason for the Law's existence after demolishing the truth! Are we really to believe now that it is God's purpose to make man guilty before Him? If God intentionally made His Law impossible for man to keep, that would make God the author of unrighteousness and guilt!

So the idea that hyperbole was being used here doesn't fit for me in the end.

Well, one thing I think of Paul trying to do here in this epistle -- he's writing to the Christians in Rome, and it's to both gentile and Jew, but especially to Jewish converts, because Paul knows from first hand experience that many Jews that have converted are still quite naturally tending to want to reestablish or continue their old habits of being good by willpower following the Law -- a self created righteousness. Soon, they may insist on circumcision for instance (just 1 example).

Contrast to Christ speaking of how we are able to bear good fruit, or true fruit -- the only fruit of any value -- in the key John chapter 15, verses 1-17 (reread if you haven't in a year or more): we are able to bear real fruit only if we are...remaining in Him, in faith, by virtue of His being in us, His word remaining in us, we remaining on the Vine, abiding in Him.

That's not a self-accomplishment on our own without Him, but a new kind of thing, fruit, that we have because and from and through Him -- very much like branches receiving nourishment through the main stem, the vine. The branches produce fruit because the Vine feeds them. The fruit is the outcome of the branches from the Vine, since they remained on the Vine. In Him.

This is very radically unlike the old Jewish covenant way, from which the converts Paul is really writing to are from. They need a total reset of their feeling/mind relationship to the Law.

Now, today in 2019, we see too much of a kind of opposite problem actually, doctrines based on bits of what Paul wrote, ignoring what Christ, James, John, Peter and Jude wrote (and...things Paul wrote even!). One way to aid them is to quote what Christ said -- for instance Matthew 7:24-27. Another is to get more interested in the powerful and valuable epistle 1rst John. James is so blunt, I don't alway think of it first, as the message they need, but it can help at times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Paul abused Scripture by taking passages out of context and giving them meanings that were never intended!

To proof-text his doctrine, Paul lifted numerous Scripture passages out of their context and gave them meanings that were never intended. Some of these passages he gave a meaning that the context absolutely nullifies. The following is one classic example:

One of Paul’s unique and fundamental doctrines states that absolutely no one is righteous. To proof-text his doctrine Paul cuts and pastes together no less than 7 snippets of Scripture and presents them as one:

“There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18

Each of every one of these snippets Paul took out of context and gave a meaning that its author never intended. The first snippet is our example of how Paul gave a meaning to a passage that only a verse or two later the author says something that completely destroys what Paul said about it. It was taken from Psalm 14. David here begins by speaking specifically of “fools”, who say in their heart “there is no God”.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one. Psalm 14:1-3


David is in no way referring to every human being with the term “the children of men”. He is speaking of the fools who say there is no God and is referring specifically to them as the children of men. It is among these that he says there is none righteous. We know this because he goes on to contrast these children of men with those he calls the generation of the righteous!
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up MY people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is
with the generation of the righteous. Psalm 14:4-5

Imagine that, ... “the generation of THE RIGHTEOUS”!! Paul didn’t tell us about this part of the Psalm! So much for his doctrine that no one is righteous.

Welcome to the forum.
You might like to read a thread I posted about a year ago entitled How Paul changed the course of Christianity.

The section of the book I cited closes like this:

“This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century.”