Questioning Paul
Chapter 2
part 3
This has been a horrendous beginning, with the rejection of his Hebrew name, the selection of a Roman moniker, the unfounded boast of being named an apostle, denying his rabbinical training and its influence, inverting the order of Yahowsha’s title and name not once but twice, inferring that God slept through the most vital aspect of His mission and that His corpse was reanimated, suggesting that he had followers, specifically noting that the pagan Graces were now operative, revealing that his god was the Lord, inferring that there had been no plan, that God’s schedule and timing were irrelevant, only to write that his Lord was now plucking us away from something. But from what do you suppose was Paulos’s Lord tearing us away from?
To answer that question we have to isolate the specific "aionos – prolonged circumstance, old or new system, or era, past, present, or future" Paul is labeling "corrupt and worthless" with the adjective poneros. And fortunately, our first hint comes from "enistamai – the system in which we had been placed" by the inclination of God. With the verb scribed in the completed variation of the past tense where there is a lingering effect, we can be fairly sure that subject this verb and adjective are addressing with aionos is a "previous or old system" under which people, at least according to Paul, are still being adversely influenced. So while the identity of this entity should be obvious, since knowing for certain is vital to our understanding of Sha’uwl’s intent, please bear with me a while longer as we uncover something which is, well, disturbing.
In a general sense, aionos can be used to address any era or age, past, present, or future. It speaks of prolonged periods of time, even of so many lifetimes these periods might seem as forever. It reflects eons and ages, which is why it is often translated "forever" or "into perpetuity." Aionos is used to describe "worldly systems" and "universal circumstances." But not every condition can be conveyed using aionos, because it is based upon "aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible." This is telling because this is similar to how Sha’uwl describes Yahowah’s Torah.
Paul uses aionos as if it was synonymous with the "world as it presently exists" in 1 Corinthians 8:13. It is used to mislead people into believing that there is an "order of" Melchisedec in Hebrews 5:6. Then in Ephesians 3:9, Paulos again deploys aionos to speak of a mystery which has been hidden by God from the "beginning of the world."
But it is his selection of aionos in Colossians 1:26 which is especially telling. There, and once again in association with "mysterion – something which is a mystery, both secret and mysterious, something unspoken" and also "apokrypto – deliberately hidden and concealed," we find aionos depicting "past ages," especially with regard to previous generations.
So let’s turn to that letter and examine what Paulos had to say about the mysterious and hidden aionos. This discussion begins with the self-proclaimed apostle arrogantly and erroneously presenting himself as the "co-savior" and "co-author" of his new religion in Colossians 1:24-25: "Now (nyn – at the same time), I rejoice (chairo – I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) in (en – by and in association with) the sufferings and misfortunate afflictions (tois pathema – the evil calamities and adverse emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy – for the benefit of you, beyond you and over you), and (kai – also) I actually complete (antanapleroo – I fill up and fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he is signifying that subject, which would be either Sha’uwl or the afflictions is performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema – that which is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior performances) of the (ton) afflictions (thlipsis – pressing troubles, anguishing distresses, burdensome tribulations, oppressive pressures, straits, and persecutions) of the (tou) Christou (XPU) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx – corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper – for the sake of, on behalf of, beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma – the human and animal nature of) Him (autou) who (os) is (eimi – He presently, and by His own accord, exist as (present active indicative)) the (e) called out (ekklesia – called-out assembly, congregation, meeting), of which (hos – that means), I (ego), myself, exist as (ginomai – myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to, appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos – one who serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata – in accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration and arrangement (oikonomia – the management, task, job, oversight, dispensation, or plan) of this (tou – the) god (ΘΩ), the (ten) appointment having been produced and granted (didomi – one caused, assigned, entrusted, committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist participle this one time appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this god was influenced and acted upon, and in the accusative singular this appointment was solely granted) to me (moi – to and for myself (in the dative, Sha’uwl is saying that this belongs to him)) to (eis – for and into) you all (umas) to complete and fulfill (pleroo – to fully provide, completely enable, and finish, bringing an end to) the (ton) word (logon – statement, speech, and account) of the (tou) god (ΘΩ).” (Colossians 1:24-25)
Like I said, in addition to calling himself the "co-savior," Paulos would have us believe that he is the "co-author" of God’s Word. If we are to believe him, God personally granted Paulos the authority to complete Scripture and the Plan of Salvation. It all sounds a bit Muhammadan, doesn’t it? On a one to ten scale of presumptuousness and ego, of intoxicating and deadly deceit, this would be off the planet.
So now after revealing that he is both "co-savior" and "co-author," God’s means to make up for His own deficiencies, Paulos turns to mythology to say that his enormous contribution and this marvelous accommodation had been unknown to the Jews, which is to the descendants of Abraham and the Covenant, to those blinded by the old system. He writes:
"The mystery and mythology (to mysterion – the sacred secrets, used as a technical religious term in the pagan cults of Greece and Rome to depict a secret rite or esoteric knowledge confided only to the initiated and not spoken to mere mortals) of the one having been hidden and concealed (to apokrypto – the one kept a secret) from those of (apo) the past age (ton aionos – the old system), and from (kia apo) their generations (genea – the descendants who were related, thus speaking of the offspring of the old system who were Abraham’s descendents, a.k.a., Yahuwdym), but right now at this exact moment (de nyn – however presently at this time as part of this current discourse) it is being revealed (phaneroo – it is being disclosed and displayed) to (tois) his (autou) holy and pure ones (hagios – dedicated, consecrated, sacred, and set-apart saints)." (Colossians 1:26)
Since this has been all about Paul’s contributions, it would be reasonable to assume that he was inferring that God wanted him to become known to the world in this way – by Paul’s own hand. But that is not why we turned to the Colossians letter. We were seeking to define aionos which, now having been linked to the "genea – descendants," can be none other than the Towrah and its Covenant. In Paul’s mind, that was the "old system."
Returning to Galatians 1:4, as I mentioned before, with "enistamai – had been placed in" scribed in the perfect tense, thereby describing something that had been completed in the past but with a legacy influence, we have yet another affirmation that aionos was being deployed to depict an "old, or previously existing, system." And then when these circumstances are presented in context to "to thelema – the intent and decision" of God, the aionos is most assuredly the Torah.
That is a problem for a number of reasons. First, Paulos is describing God’s "old system," His Towrah, saying that it is: "poneros – disadvantageous and harmful," when Yahowah’s perspective on His Towrah is the opposite. Just imagine having the gall to call God’s teaching and guidance "wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant." No. Sorry. Not even remotely. Just the opposite.
Second, Paulos is introducing the myth which would forever haunt Christendom: that of an "Old Testament" being replaced by a "New Testament." And yet God only has one testimony. His message has not changed. Likewise, Yahowah only has one Covenant, and it has yet to be renewed. Yahowah and Yahowsha’ emphatically affirm that the Towrah is forever. Nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. And yet here, it is being discarded as trash, as porn.
Third, why would anyone in their right mind believe that God authorized someone to be His Apostle so that he could malign and discredit Him? Associating poneros with His system, with His Way, is about as slanderous as words allow.
And fourth, if God’s original system was so worthless and immoral, why would anyone suspect that His revision would somehow be worthy? How is it that the Author of such a disadvantageous and harmful scheme could ever be credible? Moreover, if this is God’s history, if what He has revealed and promised through His previous prophets is so awful, so counterproductive, why believe this apostle?
And as mind-bendingly atrocious as all of this is, and it is as bad as bad ever gets, there is yet another implication so rotten, so insidious, once I saw it, I had to put my response off for a day just to cool down. Paul is saying that his "Lord Iesou Christou" is "tearing us away from" the Torah. It is the unspoken secret of Christianity.
While Yahowsha’ bluntly and boldly declared to all who would listen that He came to fulfill and affirm the Towrah, and that no one should think that He came to discredit or discard it, Paulos is refuting all of this. He is literally turning everything Yahowsha’ represents upside down. After demeaning the Word of God, he is tossing it away.
Yahowah’s entire plan has been torn asunder. Yahowsha’s mission is now for naught. The Covenant is meaningless. The Invitations to Meet with God will go unanswered. The Torah is public enemy number one. And yet by writing in God’s name, by claiming God’s authorization and sponsorship, Paulos with the stroke of a pen has handed billions of unsuspecting souls over to Satan.
We are witnessing the creation of Christianity. Paul’s religion would be based upon the lie that the "Lord Jesus Christ came to save us from the evils of the Torah and from its mean and incompetent God." In Christendom, rather than the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ being the corporeal manifestation of Yahowah saving us by affirming and fulfilling the Torah’s promises, the "Lord Jesus Christ" would be "kata – in opposition to" the "thelema" will and intent" of God, "exaireo – ripping us away from" His "poneros – disadvantageous and harmful" "aionos – Old System."
I am reminded of what Yahowah said of this man some 2,500 years ago: Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are upright and vindicated live. (2:4)
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places. (2:5)
But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?’" (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)
While it is a painful reminder, in his opening line, Paulos actually wrote: "…the one having produced and given Himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, He might possibly gouge or tear out, pluck or uproot us from the past circumstances and old system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant extended downward from and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent of God and Father of us…" (Galatians 1:4)
Reflecting some, but not all of this, the McReynolds translators, who provided the Nestle-Aland Interlinear, opted to ignore the caustic and confrontational nature of Paulos’s greeting when they offered: "the one having given himself on behalf of the sins of us so that he might pick out us from the age the present evil by the want of the God and father of us." And not surprisingly, the dark side of the message laden within the Greek text was also ignored in the version of Galatians 1:4 found in the KJV: "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father," Other than "present wicked age," the Vulgate is identical.
The NLT, however, decided to be more creative: "Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live." While the inclusion of a subject is required, "Jesus’" name isn’t part of this clause. Further, arbitrarily adding a subject to the clause artificially elevates the writing quality, giving the false impression that this could have been inspired by a rational being. Furthermore, there is no basis for "his life" in the Greek text.
Although the words Paulos selected, taken on their own merits, provide convincing proof that what he was proposing was nefarious, since the accusation that I’ve leveled against him, if true, would make him the most evil man in human history, I’d like to share something germane from this same man’s sixth letter, the one he wrote to the Romans.
This particular discussion begins in clever fashion, albeit in an arrogant and condescending manner, and by using an ill-suited straw man. Before I share it, it is important that you know that the Towrah provides very few instructions regarding marriage. It reveals that men and women become one in marriage and that adultery is highly inadvisable. It speaks against incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. There is some guidance regarding a woman’s menstrual period and on showing compassion to enslaved women. And as for divorce, it is as simple as having the man hand his estranged wife a certificate. The lone rule regarding divorce says that if the woman remarries and divorces again, the first husband can’t have her back. Beyond this, there is a non-binding recommendation on how a man can assist his brother’s widow in the case of a childless marriage.
"Or alternatively (e), are you presently ignorant (agnoeo) brothers (adelphos)? Knowing and understanding (ginosko) then (gar) the Torah (nomon), I say (laleo) that (hoti) the Torah (nomos) is lord and master, ruling over (kyrieuo) the man (anthropos) for (epi) however long and to whatever degree that (hosos chronos) he lives (zao)." (7:1)
The Romans were not ignorant, but since they knew very little about the Torah, they were susceptible to what may be one of the most twisted and disingenuous arguments I’ve ever witnessed. Here, Paul is claiming that he is an expert on the Torah, telling the Romans that he "knows and understands it." But rather than revealing what it actually says, Paul speaks of the Torah being akin to a Lord and Master. And yet in actuality, there is no correlation between the Yahowah’s Towrah and the mannerisms of Satan, who is the Lord. The Towrah emancipates the Children of the Covenant from slavery, from being oppressed by human religious and political institutions. And as a liberating document from our Heavenly Father, it does not function as a "lord."
"To explain (gar), under the male (huphadros – subject to a man’s authority), a woman (gyne) to (to) a living (zao) man (andri) is bound, restricted and imprisoned (deo – tied, compelled, and forced, under his authority) in the Torah (nomo). But (de) if (ean) the man (o aner) should die (apothnesko), it provides release (katageomai – it makes inoperative, it abolishes and invalidates this, discharging her) from (apo) the Torah (tou nomou) of the (tou) man (andros)." (7:2)
It is Paul’s letters which subject women to men. The Torah says no such thing. So this, the premise of Paul’s argument, is not only a lie, he knows that it is invalid. Therefore, Paul was lying through his teeth when he set up this argument to explain how he claims we have been released from the "old written system" "of the Torah." But by considering his preamble, we are witnessing just how devious and convoluted a misguided man’s arguments can be.
"As a result then (ara), accordingly (oun) with the man living (zao tou andros), an adulteress (moichalis) she will be considered (chrematizo – based upon what God makes known and instructed) if (ean) she may come to be (ginomai) with another man (heteros andri). But (de) if (ean) the man (o aner) might die (apothnesko), she is (estin) free (eleutheros – no longer a slave) from (apo) the Torah (tou nomou), her (auten) not being (me einai) an adulteress (moichalis) by being with (ginomai) another (etero) man (andri)." (7:3)
Here again, after inverting the evidence by mischaracterizing the Torah, Paul is negating reason. The woman’s relationship to the Torah is unchanged by her husband’s death. If I were to die, for example, while my wife would be free of me, she would not be released from the American judicial system. The Constitution of the United States is unaltered by my demise, as would be my widow’s rights under it.
The only reason that the widow wouldn’t be considered an adulteress for being with another man is that she is no longer married. Her changed status is irrespective of the Torah.
"So as a result (hoste), brothers (adelphos) of mine (mou), also (kai) you all (umeis) were put to death (thanatoo – you were all executed, made to die and deprived of life, even exterminated, ceasing to exist) in the (to) Torah (nomo) by way of (dia – through) the body (tou soma – the physical being) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples to convey Ma’aseyah) into (eis) you all (umas) become (ginomai) of another (etero), to the (to) dead (nekros) having been awakened and arising (egeiromai – being aroused and raised to life) in order to (hina) bear fruit (karpophoreo) of the (to) God (ΘὨ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty).” (7:4)
This is a leap out of irrational ignorance into mind-numbing stupidity. There is no correlation between the widow’s husband dying and the Romans being put to death. And while Romans murdered hundreds of thousands of Torah observant Jews, very few Romans were killed because of the Torah – and none in Paul’s audience. Yahowsha’s body, serving as the Passover Lamb, upheld and affirmed the Torah, so that we might live. Therefore, to suggest that the fulfillment of Passover equates to the death of the Torah is a non sequitur.
"For (gar) when (ote) we were (emen) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx), the suffering and misfortune (pathema – the evil afflictions and uncontrollable impulses and sexual desires) of being evil, offensive, and errant (hamartia – of being misled and of being sinful, doing wrong) was a result of (dia – by, through, and on account of) the (tou) Torah (nomou) operating and functioning (energeo – bringing about and producing) in (en) our (emon) bodies (melos – members) to (eis) bear the fruit (karpophoreo) of (to) death (thanatos – the plague, pestilence, and pandemic disease associated with dying and punishment)." (7:5)
Paul equates Yahowah’s Torah to the "flesh" because he was overtly opposed to the sign of the Covenant which is circumcision. And by the "flesh," he means "evil" – something he admits by calling the Torah a source of "pathema – suffering, misfortune, and evil afflictions." He even goes so far as to say that as a result of the Torah, "hamartia – that which is evil, offensive, and errant," is brought about in us. In other words, according to Paul: the Torah is the source of all evil.
Forgetting for a moment that the opposite is true, where is the logic which connects the death of a woman’s husband to this absurd mischaracterization of Yahowah’s Torah? And how is it that God’s teaching regarding what is good and bad, suddenly becomes the source for bringing about that which is bad? That is like saying that a documentary film on the hazards of using illicit drugs is responsible for drug abuse.
Lastly, since Yahowsha’s body, representing the Passover Lamb, opened the doorway to life, something which was affirmed and celebrated during FirstFruits, it ought not be equated with death.
"But (de) now at the present time (nyni – at this very moment), we have been released and removed from (katageomai apo – we have made inoperative, abolished, and invalidated, having been discharged from the uselessness of) the Torah (tou nomou), having died (apothnesko) in (en) that which (o) inappropriately hindered and restrained us, holding us down (katecho – possessed and controlled us, holding us back) in order to (hoste – for the purpose and so as to) enslave us (douleuo emas – subjecting us to servitude, slavery, and forced obedience), to (en – in or with) different and completely new (kainotes – extraordinarily recent, unused, unprecedented, uncommon, and unheard) of spirit (pneuma) and not (kai ou) the old, inferior, obsolete, and former age and way of (palaiotes – the antiquated and arcane system, the ancient and worn out state of affairs of) that which was written (gramma – the written document)." (7:6)
This is so incongruous, it staggers the mind to realize that billions of souls have been beguiled by Paul’s rubbish. There is absolutely no connection between the death of a woman’s husband and her being released from the Torah. And there is no correlation between that hypothetical death, and either the Torah dying or us being released from it.
I’d be surprised if there was a single individual in Paul’s audience who had chosen to be bound to the Torah, which means they could not be released from it – nor would they want to be. The choice to accept or reject the Torah, and its promises and provisions, is ours alone. Yahowah does not impose it, or its benefits, on us.
According to God, His Torah liberates us, freeing us from slavery, from death, and from judgment. But not according to Paul. His garbled and concocted version of the Torah hinders and enslaves.
Paul’s answer is to reject the "palaiotes gramma – the old and obsolete way which was written" with a "kainotes pneuma – a completely different and recent spirit." But at least now we have come face to face with Paul admitting that my interpretation of his opening statement in Galatians was correct. The "Old System" that he was calling "poneros – corrupt and harmful" was none other than the Torah. Based upon his incessant use of Torah in this argument, we are left with no other viable alternative. Moreover, for those who would claim that Paul was assailing the Oral Law of the rabbis, think again. Paul’s enemy was the "gramma – written" "nomos – Torah." And let’s never lose site of the fact that in Galatians 3:10, a statement we considered in the previous chapter, Paul, himself, translates the Hebrew word "towrah" using the Greek term "nomou."
Of course, by calling the Torah a "palaiotes – an old, inferior, obsolete, antiquated, and arcane system of a previous age," Paul is once again projecting a message which is in complete and irreconcilable conflict with Yahowsha’s testimony regarding His Torah. One is not speaking for the other. Sha’uwl is contradicting Yahowsha’ on behalf of a "kainotes pneuma – a completely different and recent, unprecedented and unheard of spirit." And that means that the spirit Paul is advocating cannot be Yahowah’s Spirit, the "Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit" of the Towrah.
So what spirit do you suppose Paul is advocating? Do you know of a spirit adversarial to Yahowah who is also opposed to His Towrah? I know him and I suspect you do as well. So all I can say is that I’m glad to have this wicked man and his demonic spirit out of my life. Christians, you can have him.
As ignorant and irrational as this argument has been thus far, it is about to get ludicrous – ridiculous to the point of comical.
"What (ti), therefore (oun), shall we say (eroumen)? The Torah (o nomos) is misleading, errant, and offensive (hamartia – is evil, sinful, and wrong)? If only it were not so (me ginomai – may it not be or I wish it was not true (in the aorist, this state exists without regard to any process or plan, in the middle voice the subject, which would be Paul as the speaker, is acting on his own initiative, and with the optative mood, the implied subject is conveying his personal wishes and desires regarding a mere possibility)).
Nevertheless (alla – but however, making an emphatic and certain contrast), I would not have actually known (ouk ginosko – I would not be familiar with or recognize (aorist active indicative)) that which is evil, sinful, and wrong (hamartia – that which is misleading, errant, and offensive) if not (ei me) through (dia – by) the Torah (nomou).
For (gar – because) also (te – in addition to this), lust and craving (epithymia – strong impulses and desires), I would not have been aware of (ouk oida – I would not have been able to recognize (pluperfect active indicative)) if not (ei me) for the (o) Torah (nomou) saying (lego), ‘You will not have strong desires (ouk epithymeo – you will not long, lust, or crave, you will not be sexually perverted or licentious (future active indicative)).’" (7:7)
How is it that a notion so absurd became the foundation of a religion that influences billions of souls? Since Yahowah is the author of the Torah, Paul is saying that God and His testimony are "hamartia – misleading, errant, and offensive." And yet at the same time, he wants you to believe that this same God is not only speaking through him, but has authorized him to vilify Him. Beyond this, he wants us to believe the God who has deliberately misled everyone thus far. It is little wonder faith and religion are synonymous.
The God Paul claims enslaved and killed everyone, now under Paul’s stewardship is suddenly transformed as a new and different spirit providing freedom and life. And the means of our salvation is through disassociating everyone from His foundational thesis. Moreover, the book which discourages us from going astray and being evil is actually the source of evil and of being misled.
The basis of his argument is as follows: 1) you are ignorant, 2) Paul is brilliant, 3) he says the Torah acts like a Lord, 3) women are under men, 4) the Torah binds, restricts, and imprisons women to men, 5) when a man dies a woman is released from the inoperative Torah, 6) as a result, the woman is no longer an adulteress, 7) when the widow goes to be with another man she is no longer a slave to the Torah, 8) as a result, you were put to death by the Torah, 9) the body of Christou caused you and the Torah to die, 10) you came to another by dying, 11) by being awakened and arising you bear the fruit of God, 12) for then in the flesh you suffer evil afflictions and uncontrollable urges, 13) you are evil, offensive and wrong because the Torah is operating within you producing the fruit of death, 14) but now, you have been released from the invalidated Torah, 15) you have died, 16) you were inappropriately hindered and held down by the Torah, 17) the Torah’s purpose was to enslave you, 18) you have been released into the care of a different and completely new spirit, 19) you have been freed from the old, obsolete, and inferior way which was written in the Torah, 20) we should say that the Torah is misleading, evil, and wrong, 21) we don’t want to say this, 22) nonetheless, Paul would not have known that he was evil if it had not been for the Torah, 23) so therefore, the Torah is responsible for Paul’s lustful cravings, coveting, and sexual perversions, 24) it also killed him, but he is not dead.
On what planet does any of this make sense? I don’t suppose that with such sublime rhetoric anyone is going to confuse Paul with Plato anytime soon.
"But now (de) the opportunity, excuse, and pretext (aphorme – the basis and starting point of the favorable environment and the opportune circumstance) to grasp hold of and experience (lambano – to select and be exploited by) that which is evil, sinful, and wrong (hamartia – that which is misleading, errant, and offensive) through (dia) the commandment (entole – the regulation) it was brought about thoroughly (katergazomai – it was performed, effected, committed, accomplished, and worked) in (en) me (emoi), including every and all (pasan) deep desire and longing (epithymia – lust and craving, uncontrollable urges, sexual perversion, and licentiousness).
For indeed (gar – because certainly), without (choris – apart from, by itself, or separately from) the Torah (nomou), that which is misleading, errant, and offensive (hamartia – that which is evil, sinful, and wrong, even guilt and the consequence of sin) is dead and no longer an issue (nekros – is lifeless and has departed, and thus is useless, futile, ineffective, and powerless)." (7:8)
Beyond the fact that there are no "Commandments," but instead "Three Statements and Seven Instructions," not one of them says: "You will not lust, crave, desire, long, or have uncontrollable urges." There is none which speaks of restraining a person’s capacity to engage in "sexual perversions" or "licentiousness, either. Not only isn’t passion or promiscuity addressed, not one of the Ten Statements was written in the future tense. Most, if not all, were scribed in the imperfect, which speaks of ongoing and habitual behavior without reference to time. Additionally, reasonable people realize that a document which discourages harmful behaviors, does not facilitate sin.
Also relevant, adultery, murder, lying, and stealing don’t go away by discarding the book which opposes these things. If anything, if everyone ignored the Torah, there would be more adverse behavior, not less. Moral individuals the world over have always known that adultery, murder, lying, and stealing are wrong.
However, since Paul has been fixated on his lustful urges, since he never married, and since the only person he admits to actually loving was a young man named Timothy, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that he was a homosexual, especially now that he has said that his sexual urges were not only uncontrollable, but that he was motivated to do what the Torah disapproves. So I suspect that we are witnessing yet another confession. And as usual, rather than blaming himself for his licentiousness, Paul is blaming God. He is inferring that God made him a pervert.
And speaking of God, in the next chapter, you will discover that in His prophetic warning against Sha’uwl, Yahowah exposed Paul’s fascination with male genitalia. It is almost as if God read Paul’s letters before commenting upon them – and that He came to the same conclusion.
Mind you, so long as he wasn’t a rapist, incestuous, or a pedophile, as was the case with Muhammad, Sha’uwl’s sexual orientation is irrelevant up to a point. It becomes fair game, however, when he denounces what he, himself, practices, whether that be homosexuality or promiscuity. Beyond this, since Paul is fast becoming a model for the man known as the "Antichrist," it is relevant to note that he, too, will be gay.
And on the subject of gaiety, what are we to make of the connection between Paul’s uncontrollable lusts and Charities, known as the Gratia or Graces in Rome? After all, these naked beauties were the pagan embodiment of lasciviousness.
The indulgent and unrestrained one’s fixation on death continues, along with his animosity towards God’s Torah...
"So then (de – therefore) I (ego) was living (zao – was alive) apart from and without (choris – disassociated from and independent of, separated from and devoid of any relationship with) the Torah (nomou). But (de) once (pote – at the point that) having happened upon (erchomai – come to) the commandment (tes entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept), the evil sin (hamartia – errant wrongdoing, being misleading and offensive) sprung to life again (anazao – became alive again, was revived, started anew, functioning and operating once more). (7:9)
They say that confession is good for the soul. But methinks this isn’t helping. Paul has again admitted that "evil and sin are all thriving within him, having sprung to life." He is "operationally offensive and functionally errant."
Now if we are to believe Paul, a mythical commandment saying, "Thou wilt not be passionate, indulgent, lustful, or sexually perverted" killed him.
"So then (de – therefore), I (ego) died (apothnesko – ceased to exist) when (kai) was found (heuriskomai – was discovered and experienced) in me (moi) the commandment (e entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) with reference to (e eis) living (zoe – how to live life), this (aute) brought (eis) death (thanatos). (7:10)
If only.
"For indeed (gar), this evil sin (e hamartia – this means to be mistaken and to mislead, this offensive wrong-doing, this moral consequence, and the guilt) took hold of this opportunity (aphorme lambano – ceased this pretext to grab hold of and exploit) through (dia – on account of) the commandment (e entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) to thoroughly deceive and completely beguile me (exapatao me – to systematically entice and utterly delude me, unscrupulously and methodically cheating me), and so (kai) through it (dia autes), it killed (apoktenno – depriving me of life). (7:11)
Then proving that he was wholly beguiled and completely deceived, unscrupulous and delusional, after systematically attacking the restrictive, enslaving, and murderous Torah and its evil and deadly commandment, the duplicitous one wrote...
"So as a result (hoste) this (o) affirms (men – shows and reveals) the Torah (nomos) is holy (hagios – sacred, dedicated, and consecrated) and also (kai) the commandment (e entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) is worthy of veneration (hagion – sacred, holy, and sincere), also (kai) good (agathos – valuable and generous)." (Romans 7:1-12)