Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[Anakin]

in his doctrine, Paul misinterprets Deuteronomium

When Christianity emerged from Judaism, Paul from Tarsus created a new doctrine for the new emerging religion which stated as follows: (a) all laws from the Torah have to be observed to the extent that breaking one makes man cursed (Galatians 3:10) (b) man, being imperfect, will sin (Galatians 3:21-2) (c) man is cursed by the law (Galatians 3:10 again) (d) therefore, man has to be redeemed by belief in Jesus (Romans 3:28)

However, this doctrine comes from misinterpreting Deuteronomy 27:26 - the verses before, Deuteronomy 27:15-25 list basical ethical obligations and it is stated that man who does not follow them is cursed by Moses and the Jews, not by God. In Hebrew it says "this Torah", which applies only to those verses and means "this specific teaching", but Paul mistakenly translates this to "the Torah" meaning "all five books of Moses" - this mistranslation appears in the New Testament.

"This Torah" meaning only specific subset of laws appears for example also in Leviticus 6:2 or Numbers 6:21

In the Old Testament (original Hebrew bible), it is understood that no man is perfect and everybody will occasionaly sin (Ecclesiates 7:20) and, after repenting, they will be restored to grace without being eternally cursed.

Both hell and eternal damnation does not occur in the original Hebrew bible, the word "sheol", which is mistranslated as "hell" originally means "grave".

Disclaimer: I do not want to steer someone to incorrect path, so correct me if you think I am wrong. This piece of knowledge I acquired comes from Jewish sources. I find it logical at least.

[jimwalton]

I'm thinking I don't agree with you, and therefore with those particular Jewish sources.

1. Deuteronomy 27 is constructed after the model of royal land grant ceremony common on Babylonian boundary descriptions.

2. As a unit, Daniel Block writes that "the chapter presents a theology far greater than the sum of these conventional parts," and even "greater than the Babylonian Entitlement naru inscriptions."

3. Therefore the Torah written there pertains to the entire covenant of Israel's entitlement to the land promised to the ancestors, not specifically and only to what is written in the chapter.

4. I see nothing in the text suggesting that it is Moses and the Jews cursing those who break this Torah, as opposed to them being under the curse of God. The chapter is written under the auspices of the covenant being given to them by the LORD (Dt. 27.2, 3, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10).

5. The Torah in this chapter finds parallels elsewhere in the broader Sinaitic Torah of YHWH (Ex. 20.25; Dt. 4.2; 12.5, 7, 11, 13-14, 18, 21). What is contained in vv. 15-26 is a recitation of covenant curses similar to what we see elsewhere in the Torah (Ex. 20, 22; Lev. 18, 20).

I see no reason to restrict the curse to just this chapter, and just Moses and the elders. And therefore I see no justifiable reason to accuse Paul of misinterpreting Deuteronomy.