Difficult Texts Found in Paul’s Epistles

Introduction – Paul’s Letters “Hard To Understand”

Usually, these texts have to do with the doctrine of justification by faith. Understanding the depth of Paul’s gospel message can be especially challenging. Understanding the depth of Paul’s Gospel message is particularly problematic. In general, the plan of salvation is simple: John 3:16; John 5:24, etc.

But when we go deeper into the gospel and consider how God justifies human beings, we may discover that it requires much mental effort, much time, and earnest prayer. This is because, as a result of sin, humanity found itself in a hopeless situation: the wages of sin is death, and there is no appeal against this verdict.

It therefore seemed that no one in the universe, including God, could find a way to save sinful people. In His infinite wisdom, God did find such a plan of salvation. Yet the complexity of the whole situation means that this plan is extraordinarily wise, and therefore it can be difficult for us to understand. For this reason, some people, even well-known theologians, carelessly—and I hope unknowingly—misinterpret Paul’s statements. This is what the apostle Peter wrote:

2 Peter 3:15–17

15. And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him;

16. He writes in the same way in all his letters, speaking in them about these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

17. Therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, be on your guard, lest you be carried away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness.

When I became an Adventist, I did not know these texts for a long time. However, when I finally read them, I felt very discouraged, and at first I even wondered whether I was in the right church. I was afraid to return to these passages. These texts usually refer to the law in the context of the plan of salvation and justification, which is by faith alone.

It should be remembered that Paul uses the word law in different senses. Sometimes he means the moral law, most often the ceremonial law, and sometimes both. For example, in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul may have been referring to the ceremonial law; otherwise, he would have contradicted himself:

Ephesians 2:14–16 – “Abolished the Law of Commandments Expressed In Ordinances”

14. For He is our peace, who has made the two one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility,

15. He abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances in order to make peace and create in Himself one new humanity out of the two,

16. and to reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting the hostility to death.

If Paul was referring only to the ceremonial law and not to the moral law, how can we prove it?

Deuteronomy 31:24–26

24. And it came to pass, when Moses had written the words of this law in books, and had finished them,

25. And Moses commanded the Levites that were carrying the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,

26. “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD (in which the moral law was kept), so that it may remain there as a witness against you.”

Hebrews 10:1, 9

1. For the law, having only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of those things, can never, by the same sacrifices which are offered continually year after year, make perfect those who draw near.

Which law is the shadow of the good things to come? Only the ceremonial law—especially the sacrificial system. That is why feasts such as the Feast of Booths or Passover no longer had a continuing purpose after Christ’s death. This does not apply to the Decalogue. Paul then indicates that this ceremonial order was abolished because it had fulfilled its purpose:

9. Then He says, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

Paul is clearly suggesting here that it was not the moral law that was abolished, but the sacrificial system that belonged to the ceremonial order. The author of the Epistle to the Ephesians could not have meant the moral law here, because otherwise he would have contradicted himself:

1 Corinthians 7:19

19. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God.

It is clear from the above text that, according to Paul, circumcision, which belonged to the ceremonial law, is not important in the new covenant, but the moral law remains important. However, some people claim that Paul meant only the commandment of love. However, this claim is not justified. Let us look at the passage usually quoted by those who say that there are only two commandments of love:

Matthew 22:34–40

34. But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.

35. And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him:

36. “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the law?”

37. And He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.”

38. This is the greatest and first commandment.

39. And the second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

40. On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets.

Did Christ say here that He abolished the Ten Commandments and replaced them with two commandments of love? No. He said only that love is the foundation of the Decalogue, and that all the commandments express love for God and love for other people. If Christ had intended to abolish the Decalogue with this statement, He would have contradicted Himself:

Matthew 5:17–19

17. Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfil.

18. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.

19. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17

17. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the law to fail.

God’s Law Is Immortal!

Does Holy Scripture Allow the Possibility of Changing God’s Commandments?

Psalm 111:7–8

“All His commandments are sure; they stand fast forever and ever.”

Scripture foretold an attempt to change God’s commandments, but it does not say that anyone would be able to change the Decalogue in Scripture itself:

Daniel 7:25

“He shall speak words against the Most High and oppress the saints of the Most High; he shall intend to change times and law.”

Who Admits to Changing the Decalogue?

“Without violating the essence of the commandment, the (Catholic) Church has made the following changes in them. It joined the second commandment, concerning the veneration of images, to the first, while the tenth commandment of God was divided into two separate commandments… The command to keep the Sabbath holy has been transformed by the Church into a command to keep Sunday holy.” Catholic People’s Catechism, Part II, 2nd ed., p. 79, Fr. Fr. Spirago

Colossians 2:13–23 – What Was Nailed to the Cross?

Colossians 2:13–23

14. He blotted out the written record of debt against us, which stood against us with its demands, and removed it, nailing it to the cross.

Some theologians apply this passage to the Decalogue. Can the phrase “written record of debt” refer to the Ten Commandments? What benefit would there be for God or for us if He cancelled these commandments? If traffic laws were abolished, what would be the result? What if all road signs were removed from the roads? This would only increase the number of accidents, and death would take a much greater toll. Traffic law protects human life; it is not a bad thing. It is the same with God’s law. Paul’s phrase “written record of debt” (cheirographon) here means the record of our sins, not God’s commandments. What was nailed to the cross with Christ was the record of our sins. Paul also explains what was nailed to the cross with Christ:

Romans 7:4

4. Therefore, my brethren, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God.

Colossians 2:16

16. Therefore let no one judge you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast, a new moon, or a Sabbath.

What Did Paul Mean by This?

The well-known Presbyterian theologian Albert Barnes explains that Paul could not have meant the fourth commandment:

“There is no evidence from this passage that Paul was teaching that people are no longer bound to observe any holy time; for there is not the slightest reason to believe that the apostle intended these words to mean that one of the Ten Commandments has ceased to apply to the human race. The author was referring to the many feast days observed by the Jews as part of their ceremonial system, not the moral law of the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law, nor any of the Ten Commandments, can be described as a “shadow of things to come”, for these commandments, by the very nature of moral law, have a timeless, universal meaning.”

This is the opinion not of an Adventist, but of a Protestant theologian. Similar words about the immutability of God’s law were written by Charles Spurgeon, another great Protestant preacher and theologian:

“Our King did not come to abolish the law, but to establish and confirm it. His commandments are eternal, and if those who teach this law, even unintentionally, break it and teach that any of the commandments, even the smallest, have been abolished, then they will be placed in the lowest rank. Greatness in His kingdom is measured by the degree of obedience.” The Gospel of the Kingdom, 1893, p. 48.

Thus, Paul was certainly referring here to ceremonial Sabbaths, that is, Jewish annual Old Testament festivals, which were also called Sabbaths. But even if Paul was also referring to the Sabbath that is part of the Decalogue, what would he mean by saying not to judge anyone because of the Sabbath? First, he does not say that one should not keep the Sabbath holy, but that one should not judge others because of it. What does it mean, for example, to judge someone because of the Sabbath or food? According to Paul’s gospel, salvation is available to human beings only through faith. Therefore, eating pork, for example, or keeping the Sabbath holy cannot enable sinful people to earn salvation.

Ephesians 2:8–9

8. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God;

9. not by works, so that no one may boast.

Among the Colossians there were certain teachers who promoted excessive asceticism, while some Jewish Christians claimed that salvation was not through faith in Christ alone, but also through abstaining from unclean foods and observing Sabbaths. Paul opposed this error. Paul does not condemn keeping the Sabbath or abstaining from meat (Romans 14:21 says, “It is good not to eat meat”), but he warns against misusing these practices and claiming that by them one can earn salvation. Paul himself kept the Sabbath holy (Acts 18:4; 17:1). Most often, misunderstanding Paul’s attitude toward the commandments and the Sabbath comes from failing to distinguish between the law as a set of moral principles, which Paul calls holy (Romans 7:12), and the law as a supposed system of salvation after Christ, which Paul condemns as a false gospel.

Galatians 2:16

16. Knowing that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:10

10. For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

In the context of Colossians chapter 2, Paul explains which Sabbaths he had in mind:

17. These are only a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to Christ.

18. All these things perish with use and are based on human commandments and teachings.

Can the Sabbath of the fourth commandment be called a shadow, a human commandment, or a human teaching? Such a description is far more appropriate for Sunday.

Romans 10:4 – In What Sense “Christ Is the End of the Law”?

4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

What did Paul mean by this? Did he mean that the law was abolished? What law did he have in mind? To understand Paul’s meaning, we must consider the entire context of the letter to the Romans. The central teaching is that salvation is possible only through faith. Here Paul opposes the claim that a person can be saved by the works of the law, as the earlier verse shows:

3. For, not knowing the righteousness that comes from God and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

Similarly, he wrote in chapter 9 of the same letter:

Romans 9:31–32

31. But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law.

32. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

So what did Paul mean when he wrote that “Christ is the end of the law”? Christ is the end of the law in the sense that He brings to an end all attempts to obtain salvation through the works of the law, as the context makes clear. Second, Christ is the end of the law in the sense that the Saviour fulfilled the law completely and perfectly on our behalf. The Greek word translated here as “end,” telos, can also mean purpose, goal, or fulfilment. Therefore, this passage may also be understood as follows: “Christ is the fulfilment of the law”—He fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf. “The goal of the law is Christ”—that is, the role of the law is not to save us, but to lead us to Christ, who is our only salvation. And if Paul was referring to the ceremonial law, then we can say that Christ brought that law to an end because it had fulfilled its role in the plan of salvation. However, the most problematic passage is found in Romans chapter 7:

Romans 7:6

6. But now we have been released from the law, having died to what held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the letter.

The difficulty is that here we can no longer say that Paul was referring to the ceremonial law, because in the very next verse he clearly shows that this time he meant the moral law:

7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Yet I would not have known sin except through the law; for I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

What, then, does Paul want us to understand when he says that we have been released from this law? Did he think that the commandments had been abolished? No. He himself explains that he did not mean anything like that:

7. What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Yet I would not have known sin except through the law. 12. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

8. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin, used what is good to bring about my death.

9. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin.

Romans 6:14–15

14. For sin shall not have dominion over you, because you are not under law, but under grace.

15. What then? Shall we sin (that is, shall we break the commandments?) because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Surely Paul did not mean that we are free from keeping the commandments:

1 Corinthians 7:19

19. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God.

So what did Paul mean by saying that we have been released from the law?

Romans 7:1–15

1. Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over a person only as long as he lives?

2. For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband.

3. Therefore, if she belongs to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law and is not an adulteress if she becomes another man’s wife.

4. Therefore, my brethren, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God.

It was not the law that was nailed to the cross with Christ, but we ourselves! Because of this, we are no longer under the law as our first “spouse,” but are united with Christ, who does not condemn us but sympathises with us, helps us, and loves us. In Romans 7, Paul meant the same thing as in Galatians 3:

Galatians 3:24–26

24. Therefore the law was our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

26. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

My parents were teachers. When I was a child, I was under their authority as my teachers. That meant I had to obey their instructions, and if I did not, I could be disciplined. Were my parents bad because of this? No. They were simply fulfilling their proper duty toward me. But when I reached maturity, I was no longer under my parents in the same way. What does that mean? Does it mean that my parents ceased to exist for me, or that I no longer value their opinion? No. The only thing that changed was my relationship to them and their authority over me. Now that I am no longer under those tutors, they no longer have disciplinary power over me. In the same way, we are no longer under the condemning power of the law, but under Christ, who does not condemn us; rather, He helps us and sympathises with our weaknesses. This is exactly what Paul meant in both Romans 7 and Galatians 3. From the context of Romans, it is clear that being released from the law does not mean being released from keeping the commandments, but from the law’s condemning power:

Romans 7:6

6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

What does it mean that the law has lost its condemning power over us? It means that when we sin as converted Christians, the law cannot condemn us, because it has lost its condemning power over us in Christ. The law can no longer give sin the power to put us to death:

1 Corinthians 15:56

56. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

Sin is what kills us. But where does sin get the power to kill us? The law, which is good, declares that if we transgress it, we deserve death. In this sense, the law gives sin the power to condemn us. Therefore, if the law no longer has condemning power over us in Christ, then sin itself cannot condemn us to death. Therefore, in the very next chapter, Paul explains:

Romans 8:1

1. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Why was this needed? For motivation: now we obey not out of fear, but out of love.

Does That Mean We May Do Whatever We Want?

1 John 2:1–2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

READ: IS THE MORAL LAW STILL BINDING?

READ ABOUT SABBATH VS SUNDAY