(Note: on this site you will find critical Bible commentaries. This piece on Romans was an early attempt and more recent pieces can be found by visiting Romans - Bible Commentary.

      According to church theology, Paul taught that Christ died as an atonement sacrifice, to pay for the sins of humanity, by perfectly fulfilling the law found in Leviticus, among other books. To be washed in the blood of the lamb means to partake of this perfect sacrifice and thus take on, as it were, the perfect obedience to the law of Moses as lived out by Christ, and Christ alone, who was perfect in doing what Moses wanted done. The meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is thus found in understanding him to be a whole offerings sin sacrifice. In the book of Romans Paul claimed to be preaching ‘the gospel, which God announced beforehand through the prophets.' (Romans Chapter 1 verse 2) He also preached that, "now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the Torah, although the Torah and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith" ... (Romans Chapter 3 verse 21) and that even though ‘all have sinned,' "they are justified by God's grace as a gift." (Romans Chapter 3 verse 24) . Paul was a Christian and binds all these concepts together with the image of the crucified Christ (the prophets were not Christians, and could not be expected to be Christians having lived long before the time of Christ, and so I extracted the essential elements of Paul's sermon which, as I will demonstrate, effectively summarize the doctrines of the prophets). In this section I will be summarizing ‘the gospel' as it was preached by the prophets in their day, and at various points I will be illustrating certain interesting parallels to their thinking that are (not surprisingly) to be found in the book of Romans (Paul was, after all, Jewish and familiar with the message of the prophets). Throughout the ages of the church the book of Romans has been interpreted through the lens supplied by Christian theology, and it might be interesting to view and interpret the book of Romans through the ‘lens of Jewish prophecy' for a change (illustrating in the process the meaning of Jewish prophecy in its day and also illustrating through comparison with Romans that the meaning of a book, like Romans, is influenced by the interpretative lens through which it is viewed.)

      In a number of other sections I have repeated the radical traditions found in the books of the prophets a number of times In order to make my next point I feel it necessary to briefly recapitulate these traditions here once again. Among these radical prophetic traditions are the following statements found in the prophets.

      Paul was a Pharisee and thus one of the rulers Isaiah was addressing in the following prophecy.

"Hear the word of YAHWEH, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says YAHWEH; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me." (Isaiah Chapter 1 verse 10)

      This theme of calling these practices ‘abominations' is echoed in another passage in Isaiah, and the radical school of thought is summarized by Jeremiah.

"He who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dog's neck; he who presents a cereal offering, like him who offers swine's blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like him who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations." (Isaiah Chapter 66 verse 3)

"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices." (Jeremiah Chapter 7 verse 21)

"Now my people do not know the requirements of God. How can you say, ‘we are wise, for we have the law of God,' when, actually, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah Chapter 8 verse 7)

      Thye books of the prophets consist of sources from different ideological positions and are not consistent on this point. For a brief summary example of these contradictions consult the short page a Levite scribe pretends to be the prophet Jeremiah. You might also consult the short page on the status of women, Pseudo Paul which demonstrates that letters were forged in the name of Paul, so Paul was also waffling and on both sides of the issue as well, in the finished product. in this essays I will be bringing together 'radical Paul' with the radical prophets of Israel, and will let traditional theologians attempt to link reactionary Paul with the reactionary pseudo-prophets.

      The radical prophets against the ritual laws in the Torah, and Paul is equally blunt in the book of Romans, where he notes that although Israel tried to create a Torah that would describe a law of righteousness, they were ultimately unsuccessful. As the prophets testified, they would not listen to God or learn God's righteousness, but kept trying to set up there own righteousness, with the result that they never learned God's way.

"Israel, which sought after the law of righteousness, has not achieved the law of righteousness." (Romans Chapter 9 verse 31)

"They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Torah for righteousness to every one that believes." (Romans Chapter 10 verse 2)

      In Galatians Paul summarizes what he means by ‘God's way of righteousness' as opposed to ‘following the Torah.' The Torah is neither here or there, he says, but rather the only thing that matters is faith, working through love. This dovetails with the statement by the prophets judging the Torah regulations, also found in the gospels, ‘it is mercy that I require, says God, and not sacrifice.' That this critique was on target is best shown by the ruthless judgments of those who chose sacrifice, who then, like Paul, who viciously and violently persecuted those who did not follow traditional religion, or like the Pharisees of the gospels who persecuted and crucified Christ, showed no mercy, for it seems that to validate sacrifice, mercy cannot be shown, for mercy drains sacrifice of meaning.

      Traditional religious dogmas and human commandments and regulations did not foster any true understanding of the nature of God, but rather were confusing obfustications. The definition of faith is to rely on completely, to trust wholeheartedly, and to place complete confidence in the trustworthy nature of another. The righteous will live by this faith, the prophets taught, and this became the central theme of Paul's ministry. Mercy triumphs over judgment. The way you treat others is how you can expect to be treated by God. Faith equates with salvation, as opposed to a suspicious or even paranoid nature of distrust, which makes one lost. Those who have learned the requirements of God, and who have repented and healed and become enabled to love, have entered into this relationship of calm, quiet trust and are ‘saved'. They are ‘justified' if they repent and learn to follow the righteousness of God, rather than being faithless and without understanding and always seeking to set up their own system of righteousness (which is exactly what the prophets protested against in all their critiques of the Torah). True ‘justification' is simple - repent and do right. True ‘salvation' is simple - enter into a relationship of confidence and trust. True ‘righteousness' is not obscure and nor does it consist of slavery to systems and rules - rather it is mercy that God requires, not systems of sacrifice. To those caught up in these religious systems the prophets replied, ‘the righteous will live by faith.' Because of their faith, the prophets were courageous and fearless and rejected the religious system.

      It is those who lack this faith, then, who wander off into setting up a righteousness of their own, and systems of religion soon enough develop, and these systems are ALWAYS mandatory, for a system is drained of meaning if it is optional. Faith trusts God and cannot be intimidated by systems of religion, and rather, it is lack of faith that perpetuates these systems, as the prophets taught. It is this faithlessness against which Paul, and prophets before him, protested, for not only did it not result in righteousness (but rather slavery to religious systems and rules) it also resulted in ignorance about the nature and requirements of God, and these systems, rather than making one wise, inevitably only made one lacking in understanding, and in the worst case scenario (where sacrifice is extolled, for example, and mercy and love ignored) these religious systems actually took one so far away from any true knowledge of God that one became completely foolish and darkened in understanding. It would then follow, as the prophets testified, and as the persecuted church and their crucified Messiah discovered, that those caught up in faithless forms of religious dogma would fight against the truth about God and even go so far as to condemn the innocent on grounds of ‘blasphemy' against prevailing human systems of orthodoxy. The story of Joshua then, and the crucifixion, is a universal part of human experience, and has been repeated constantly throughout human history. The gospel asks us, just whom does God choose, and what really is faith and what really is righteousness and how does one really become justified in the sight of God? Paul alludes to all these matters in his opening section of Romans.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who fight against the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has made it clear to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans Chapter 1 verse 16)

      Now as I mentioned previously, Paul was a Pharisee, and indeed, as he described himself, he was a Pharisee's Pharisee. It was unlikely then, that in his past practices, he would be found on the radical side of prophecy (who would appreciate being called a ‘Sodomite' who ‘practiced abominations'?) Not surprisingly Paul was a reactionary and a conservative in religion, and when you consider how radical the early church was you can understand why Paul was murdering and beating and whipping and arresting and persecuting the early church so viciously (continuing the traditions of the Pharisees in the gospels). As he himself said, he was

"circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church." (Philippians Chapter 3 verse 5)

      However after he became a Christian he found himself on the radical side of things, and like the prophets before him, became one of the critics of his former Torah traditions.

"Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of everything, and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ." (Philippians Chapter 3 verse 8)

      Included in this ‘pile of rubbish' he was led to reject, was his much boasted circumcision. Soon Paul found that rather being the persecutor of the new movement, he was now the radical who was being persecuted. He also includes a reference to the teaching of the prophet Isaiah who referred to God placing a ‘stumbling stone' (a ‘rock of offense') before the religious Pharisees over which they which stumble and fall. Paul insists that he would not want to remove this stumbling stone. Better to be persecuted, he concluded.

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." (Galatians Chapter 5 verse 6)

"But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!" (Galatians Chapter 5 verse 11)

"It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ." (Galatians Chapter 6 verse 12)

      The traditional interpretation of Paul, and the book of Romans, is that Paul preached ‘the fulfillment of the whole offerings sacrifice as God commanded those people when they came out of Egypt.' In otherwords, Christ died to ‘be a Leviticus whole offerings sacrifice to pay for sins' (to use the language of the non-Pauline book of Hebrews, ‘Joshua was the last, and final, thoroughly complete, whole offerings sacrifice'. And it is interesting to note that before making this argument, the author of Hebrews makes a specific point of nullifying and misinterpreting Jeremiah, which, when your going to make an argument like this, really is necessary as I am sure you can understand. The book of Hebrews is reactionary, and certainly does not represent the thought of Paul as he presents it in his authentic letters, or the thought of Jeremiah, the radical prophets, or Mark.)

      Nullification of radical Jewish prophecy is required in order to maintain traditional Christian theological dogmas regarding ‘a whole offerings sacrifice of Christ.' In just this way the teachings of the radical prophets and the radicalism of the early church is nullified and replaced with an extremely reactionary and conservative interpretation of the gospel (always combined with a doctrine of ‘Biblical inerrancy' so necessary if one is to harmonize the Torah into the prophets and then into the church). This doctrine has always offended me to the very core of my being, but what would you expect, since I belong to the radical school of prophecy. In addition to incorporating this false belief about Biblical infallibility, this ‘whole offerings' theology also twists and corrupts the meaning of Paul, but it has become so entrenched in Christian thinking, that I find it necessary to reinterpret the book of Romans myself, in the light of prophecy, rather than of whole offering animal sacrifices, to illustrate the point that the interpretative framework applied to a manuscript then determines its meaning.

     (For example it is said that Paul's OBVIOUS criticism and rejection of the Torah was really meant to say, ‘you can't be saved by works, only by a whole offerings sacrifice.' So then, it is said, ‘even the unsaved good burn in hell for you can't be saved by being good and kind. That's works, and Paul rejected works.' Therefore, according to this Levitical interpretation, Paul taught that one should condemn the harmless and the innocent, for it is ‘sacrifice God requires, and not mercy.' What this conservative attempt to impose meaning on Paul's rejection of the Torah neglects to take into account, is that Paul (and the prophets) rejection of the Torah was just that, a rejection of the Torah, and this requires no ‘convoluted harmonization' to impose a meaning upon what was going on, for the Bible is NOT infallible, and that is a core doctrine of the early church. Furthermore, this attempt to ‘redefine' Paul and Jewish prophecy to fit traditional Christian dogma only results in a cruel, cruel and merciless interpretation. It is also an example of the church following after Israel and ‘not submitting themselves to God's way of righteousness, but rather always trying to set up their own.' That this dogma is a misinterpretation of the radical stream of Jewish prophecy, a deliberate twisting of the meaning of Paul on the Torah, and a reversal of the doctrine of the gospel should be obvious. But to validate a ‘whole offerings sacrifice of Christ' it is necessary to make it a mandatory sacrifice and that means burning even the ‘unsaved good' who those damning them will admit are innocent, for to do otherwise is to drain the meaning out of Leviticus and to break the interpretative connection to Christ. To show mercy even once is to make the sacrifice not mandatory and thus declare the sacrifice worthless. It cannot be optional and retain its meaning. Mercy or sacrifice then, but not both. In this section I am going to attempt to not belabor the point and become purely reactionary myself, but will proceed to reinterpret Paul's language in Romans in a manner suitable to a radical and in the light of the radical school of thought that characterized Paul, the early church, the gospel of Mark, and the Jewish prophets, so that, like the gospels and the prophets we can then say, ‘it is mercy that God requires, and not sacrifice,' for, as Joshua told the Pharisees, ‘if you would have understood what this meant you never would have condemned the innocent.' To understand what this means we must retrieve the radical elements of the Jewish prophetic tradition, something conservatives are always utterly loathe to do, having already decided through their theology that it is sacrifice that is required, and it is to retain this archaic dogma that it is then necessary to get embroiled in ‘harmonizations' to ‘prove' that ‘the Bible is infallible', for without this doctrine standing in place, the whole structure of Christian theology collapses in ruins, based as it is upon distortions and deliberate falsehoods. But let me continue with my reinterpretation...)

     As I noted previously, Paul was a Christian and the prophets were followers of Yahweh in their own way and in their own time. Nevertheless, even when Paul speaks as a Christian there are parallels between what he believes (which is uniquely Christian in its perspective) and what the prophets believed and preached in their poetic imagery. Speaking specifically of the crucifixion of Christ, Paul stated that

"This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Joshua." (Romans Chapter 3 verse 25)

     He explains that Christ was crucified as a judgment against sin, in order to reveal that sin was sinful, and so expose and condemn sinfulness in that it resulted in the death of the innocent. Here we are given valuable information about thinking in the early church about the meaning of the crucifixion. This agrees in general terms with the picture painted in the gospels, where Christ was persecuted for the most part by the religious pharisees of his day, who considered themselves righteous, but then were exposed as sinners by the crucifixion. Paul was one of these religious pharisees, and thus he reveals the experience of one of these ‘pharisees' (something absent in the gospels, where we are only told that ‘the religious pharisees and ‘Herod's men' wanted to kill Joshua' and no explanation offered, rather it remains enigmatic. Paul's experience as one of these Pharisees not only rounds out the gospel account, by giving a look at things from the other side of the fence, but also explains WHY the crucifixion took place.)

      Writing of this exposure of sin and the consequent judgment that followed he stated,

"But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Romans Chapter 5 verse 8)

     He expands on the concept in a later section, and speaking from his own personal experience, he states that God achieved repentance and righteousness in him by

"sending his own Son in the likeness of the sinful nature and for sin, he condemned sin in the sinful nature, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." (Romans Chapter 8 verse 3)

     The statement ‘he condemned sin in the sinful nature' is the reflection of a guilty pharisee post mortem (and post resurrection) on the execution of what would prove to be an innocent man. Paul was then clearly guilty (although when he was horse whipping all those churches, and participating in murders, he should have known he was guilty, but in his fanaticism for his traditional religion, he thought he was doing God a favor by doing such cruel and evil things, which shows the power religious ideology can have over a human mind, for the history of religion is replete with examples of cruel, cruel ruthless viciousness done supposedly in the name of God and for the sake of holiness.) First Paul's (obviously) sinful nature was condemned by the crucifixion, but then, perhaps to Paul's shocked surprise, Paul found mercy and grace rather than condemnation. Paul was condemned, Paul repented, and Paul was justified for when he was convicted he moved into faith in God through Joshua Messiah.

     As Paul stated in the opening of Romans Joshua was

‘proved to be the son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead.' (Romans Chpater 1 verse 4)

     That settled the issue and it also ‘condemned Paul's sin'. Joshua ‘died for Paul's sin' and thus proved how much God loved Paul, for, rather than condemn Paul along with his sin, God showed tolerance for Paul's past sins and used the offence to condemn Paul's sinful behavior, forgive Paul, and lead Paul to genuine repentance ‘in Christ'. Paul then ‘had the mind of Christ' and was ‘saved through faith in Christ'. And so Paul became ‘the righteousness of God in Christ through faith in Christ' who shed his blood for ‘the salvation of Paul'. Paul's language and his terminology are uniquely personal in the Church Testament and all comes from his sense of guilt at being a persecuting Pharisee. Paul's personal experience of Christ, and his own guilt in the matter, infuses his imagery and his theology.

      Paul acknowledges that it is only those who follow the true law of God and put it into living practice who are justified. It is those who 'practice mercy' and who 'love their neighbour' who are justified in the sight of God, and not those who, like Paul before his conversion, hear the law and practice law breaking (being ruthless murderers, for example, like Paul once was).

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Romans Chapter 2 verse 13)

      Paul then compares a religious man (in this case those of the Jewish religion who, like him, were circumcised and had a written code of law) with someone who had no Bible and no Bible law and yet kept the requirements of God (showing mercy, loving ones neighbor, etc). If a religious man is law breaker, as Paul once was, then Paul concludes that a religious man is ‘unsaved' while an ‘unreligious man' (not circumcised, and not in possession of the written code, the Bible) who yet keeps the requirements of God then they will be judged ‘religious' by God and are considered saved, for it truly is mercy that God requires (not the religious sacrifices laid out in the written code). This contrasts sharply with the traditional Christian interpretation of Romans, which teaches that the ‘nonreligious' with ‘no Bible' are automatically damned to hell, or that showing mercy cannot save anyone (for it is said, Paul condemned their works as inadequate in the sight of God. That Paul never taught this doctrine, among others attributed to him by forced theological interpretations is obvious on considering these passages. Those who do right, Paul states, are ‘a law unto themselves' and are counted as ‘saved' since ‘it is mercy that God requires, and not religious sacrifices'.)

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their own thoughts sometimes accusing or else excusing them, on the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans Chapter 2 verse 14)

"Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge you, who have the letter and circumcision and yet break the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans Chapter 2 verse 26)

      Reflecting on his own experience with the crucifixion, Paul reminds his listeners that the whole point of the exercise is to lead people to repent, for if they will not be convicted of their sins and repent and instead become stubborn and rely on falsehoods, all they accomplish is that they store up wrath for themselves. Why then do they presume to judge others (confident no doubt in their religion) when they are in fact law breakers themselves. As Paul indicates, they even went so far to judge those who were not law breakers, strictly on the grounds that they were ‘uncircumcised' in the flesh (in otherwords for a violation of orthodox dogma of the day, rather than for any reasons of real justice. Paul ‘saves' those the religious would have condemned, as illustrated above.) Everyone will be judged by God on the basis of what they have done, Paul insists, not based on who they are (or who they think they are).

"And do you think, O man, you who judge them when they do such things, while you do the same things yourself, that you shall escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? Because of the hardness of your impenitent heart you are merely storing wrath for yourself against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans Chapter 2 verse 3)

      Justification then, in the sight of God, is found by repenting, and righteousness in the sight of God is keeping the requirements of God's law. Paul tempers his call to keep the requirements of God, by acknowledging human weakness, and the fact that no one is perfect. He finds that he often falls short of the mark. Failure can lead to feelings of guilt, guilt can lead to fear of punishment, and this can lead to a collapse of faith, the very faith Paul is trying to instill in his listeners, for the righteous he constantly insists, will by that very faith, that quiet, complete confidence and trust in God. Speaking of his own failings, he notes that

"For that which I do is not what I want to do: for the good which I would do, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do. If then I do that which I would not, with my mind I agree that the law is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that in me (that is, in my sinful nature) dwells no good thing: for the will to do good is present with me; but I find that I cannot perform that which is good. For the good that I would do I do not: but the evil which I would not do, that I do. Now if I do that which I would not do, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in the inward man." (Romans Chapter 7 verse 15)

Romans 3:23 "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."

     There are interesting parallels here between Paul's experience (as one of the religious authorities of his day, and a persecuting Pharisee) and certain sermons found in the book of Isaiah. For example you can consider how the Pharisees were portrayed as constantly persecuting Joshua (and how Paul, a Pharisee as well, was constantly persecuting the church, validating the testimony of the gospels on this matter). Joshua was ‘full of the devil' they were said to have charged. If you consider their persecutions (which the prophets also endured) and then think of them in light of the resurrection (as Paul did) you can then see something ‘prophetic' in the statement of faith that follows from the book of Isaiah. While this statement is a generalized testimony to the faith of the prophet, and not a specific ‘prophecy of Christ' it is interesting to note how the prophecy dove tails with Paul's experience (he stumbled over the rock and injured himself). Later Paul would regard this ‘stumbling stone' to be vitally important and something that should not be removed at all costs. (After all, there were so many other Pharisees who needed to stumble over it as well, and you would not want to foil a plan of God, now would you?)

"For YAHWEH spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying: "Do not call conspiracy all that this people call conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But YAHWEH of hosts, him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he will become a sanctuary, and a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken." (Isaiah Chapter 8 verse 11)

      In the following passage Isaiah once again prophecies that people will ‘stumble over the rock' and in this prophecy he directs his attack against the religious authorities who he charges ‘rely on deception and lies'. Once again, there are parallels with what Paul experienced (his refuge of lies was destroyed by the resurrection and flood waters carried away his refuge. Or to use Paul's terminology, God used the death and raising of Christ ‘to condemn sin in the sinful nature'.) Paul claimed that he was ‘a Pharisee's Pharisee' and was ‘more zealous for my ancestral traditions than my comrades'. The prophet Isaiah first condemned conventional religious practice (how can you teach anyone anything here, he asks, for religion to them is rule after rule, line upon line.) Isaiah then attacks the religious leaders of his day and predicts that what actually happened to Paul would befall them. Once again Isaiah employs the image of stumbling over a foundation stone laid by God. God will speak to these people in a strange and unfamiliar way, Isaiah states, but those who have faith will not waver when they hear it (which echoes Paul's later doctrine that ‘the righteous will live by faith'). They would be stubborn about their religious ways, but they would wind up snared and trapped by their practices, Isaiah insisted. Paul's former religious practices would be destroyed by hail and swept away by Isaiah's flood. The prophet's religious opponents were confident that they had escaped ‘the scourge' and any wrath of God, but Isaiah insists that such was not the case. (This brings to mind Paul's statement that ‘Christ saved him from the wrath of God.') Once again Isaiah is making a statement of faith in God, and while this is not a specific ‘prophecy of Christ' it is interesting to note how Isaiah's proclamation of faith in the triumph of God's justice dovetails once again with Paul's lived experience. Isaiah' mockery of dogmatism (‘rule on rule, line after line) also neatly encapsulates the approach of ‘Biblical infallibility' and the type of rule based book quoting that so naturally follows upon this outlook (people being created to serve books, rather than the other way around).

"Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little. Nay, but by men of strange lips and with an alien tongue YAHWEH will speak to this people, to whom he has said, "This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose"; yet they would not hear. Therefore the word of YAHWEH will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Therefore hear the word of YAHWEH, you scoffers, who rule this people in Jerusalem! Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with the grave we have an agreement; when the overwhelming scourge passes through it will not come to us; for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter"; therefore thus says YAHWEH GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘He who believes will not waver.' And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plummet; and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter." Then your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with the grave will not stand; when the overwhelming scourge passes through you will be beaten down by it." (Isaiah Chapter 28 verse 9)

Note: This page is still being completed, but since it bears directly on the discussion on another page I have posted what is complete since it should be enough to give a reader the general idea...