THE MAKING OF A MISSIONARY

Paul was arguably the greatest missionary the Church has known. Interestingly, he had also been its greatest sinner (1 Tim. 1:15-16). How was God able to take a man who had been a hard-hearted oppressor and to convert him into a tender-hearted servant? Once, he had been forcing Christians to renounce Jesus, and now he was pleading with them, by any means, to receive Him:

·       To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:22; ESV)

What brought about this transformation? This is a question that all of us who want to be Christ-like ask.

The faithful Christian, Ananias, could hardly believe that such a transformation was possible. After God had told him to go to Paul and to lay his hands on him in prayer to receive his sight back, Ananias assumed that God was making a grave mistake. However, He explained:

·       “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15-16)

We can do nothing without God (2 Cor. 3:5; John 15:4-5). We must be chosen and equipped, but how does God equip? Paul wouldn’t be able to “carry my name before the Gentiles…” without suffering “for the sake of my name.”

I want to be everything to the Lord, but the extent of Paul’s suffering is mind-boggling. He related:

·       You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me… (Galatians 4:13-14)

Whatever his “bodily ailment,” it was a “trial to” the Galatians, something that might have caused them to “scorn or despise” Paul. How humiliating!

We do not know what this horrid ailment was. However, Paul understood that it had mysteriously enabled him to preach the Gospel.

Perplexing? Paul was taught that his work depended on learning to trust in God. This meant that he could no longer trust in Himself – his own abilities and winsomeness:

·       For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. (2 Corinthians 1:8-9)

To learn to not trust in ourselves is horribly painful. It means being stripped of our pride and even our confidence that people will like, respect, and receive us. Paul’s ailment had caused him to despair of such confidence.

However, the stripping away of self-confidence and our pleasures took many other forms:

·       To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things. (1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

Am I willing to pick up such a Cross? Can I? Certainly not by my own strength! “Lord help me!” And He does. Paul extended to us the promise of Christ-like-ness, one that would come with a price-tag:

·       Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. (2 Corinthians 4:10-11)

How can we endure this? Humanly, we cannot. Why am I relating this? To encourage you that our Lord has a purpose for your suffering. He is preparing you. Use this gift of suffering, knowing that it is not about you but about Him (Gal 2:20)!

The extent of Paul’s suffering was unbelievable:

·       With far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. (2 Corinthians 11:23-27)

Through God’s incomprehensible ministrations, instead of breaking Paul, God used suffering to produce in him a heart of compassion, as the next two verses demonstrate:

·       And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?

As if this wasn’t enough suffering, God added a “thorn in the flesh” in order to keep Paul humble and dependent. But He also gave Paul the understanding that His grace was enough to keep him afloat:

·       But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)

If only we might learn that weakness is a gift. It forces us to look above to our only source of hope and strength. This is the only way that we can serve Him. “If God is for us, who can be against us” (Romans 8:31-32)!

Consequently, I inform my students that I no longer trust in myself; nor do I want too, lest I be deprived of the power of God.

Our Lord is able to make the least and most unworthy of us to stand for Him:

·       Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

I trust that the Lord will equip me to serve Him, even in martyrdom, if this is His calling. Therefore, let us take up our Cross.

ARE THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES AS INSPIRED AS THE WORDS OF JESUS?

Are Paul’s writings just as infallible and authoritative as the Gospels containing the teachings of Jesus? Should we regard both sets of writings equally as Scripture? Some argue that we should not. They cite this passage to support their claim:

·       To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (1 Corinthians 7:10-12; ESV)

Some interpret Paul words, “I, not the Lord,” as an admission that he is not writing by divine inspiration but his own. If this is true, perhaps only where Paul has written “not I, but the Lord” should be regarded as fully inspired. This would mean that almost everything that Paul had written could possibly be regarded as simply his own judgments rather than Scripture. However, this clearly was not Paul’s intent. Instead, he regarded the entirety of his writings as Scripture:

·       And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Paul elsewhere claimed that “Christ is speaking in me” (2 Corinthians 13:3). In many other places, he declared his teachings as authoritative:

·       Therefore whoever disregards this [what Paul had just written], disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thessalonians 4:8)

He claimed that He was teaching the infallible Gospel, which he had received “through a revelation of Jesus Christ”:

·       But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed…For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:8-12)

Nor should we regard the Gospel that Paul had been given supernaturally as just a minor aspect of everything Paul had taught. Instead, it seems that in Paul’s mind, everything, even judgment, was part of the Gospel:

·       on that day [of judgment] when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:16)

Because Paul realized that his Gospel came from God, he did not hesitate to proclaim to dismiss those who were teaching a different gospel:

·       If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth... (1 Timothy 6:3-5)

Paul never gave any indication that any of his teachings could be set aside. He consistently claimed, even in the letter in question, that his teaching was of the Spirit:

·       My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. (1 Corinthians 2:4)

·       Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. (1 Corinthians 2:6-7)

Paul claimed that he taught a wisdom that could only come from God. Consequently, since his teachings were of God, he expected others to submit to it, presumably even to the passage in which he acknowledges that his teaching didn’t come directly from Jesus:

·       If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37)

He also claimed that, even in regards to the verses in question, his teaching was of the “Spirit of God”:

·       Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:40)

We should not suppose that since Paul used “I think” rather than “I know” that this implied any uncertainty on his part, as we usually associate with “I think”. Instead, his teachings did not seem to leave any wiggle-room for anyone to conclude, “Well Paul, since it is just your opinion, this is not the Lord’s command, and I am free to do what I want.”

Even though Paul claimed that this teaching was a matter of “my judgment,” it was a judgment based upon the “Spirit of God” and therefore inspired:

·       Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. (1 Corinthians 7:25)

His judgment is “trustworthy,” because “by the Lord’s mercy [it] is trustworthy.” Clearly, this doesn’t imply that Paul was making a judgment independent of divine inspiration.

Even though Peter had clashed with Paul, nevertheless, he too regarded Paul’s writings as “Scripture”:

·       And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter equated Paul’s writings with Scripture. In the same way that people could twist Scripture to their destruction, they could also twist Paul’s writings to their destruction.

Based upon the above evidence, there is no biblical basis to regard Paul’s writings as less than authoritative. In fact, God even placed His seal-of-approval upon Paul’s ministry, as Paul often acknowledged:

·       The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. (2 Corinthians 12:12)

Did the Other Apostles also Regard their Writings as Scripture?

Evidently! Peter equated the writings of the Apostles with the writings of the Hebrew Prophets:

·       that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. (2 Peter 3:2)

John had equated his writing with those of Moses in another way. He claimed that what he had written was just as inviolable as the writings of Moses:

·       I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

This is the same warning that Moses had issued against tampering with what he had written (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). Clearly, John realized that he was writing the Word of God.

Jesus equated His own teachings with Scripture (Matthew 24:35; 28:19-20). He also reassured His Apostles that the Spirit was able to give them His words as they needed them (Matthew 10:20). It seems that they understood this. We should understand likewise.

Did Paul Wrongly Impugn the Mosaic Law?

According to the Rabbis, Paul misunderstood the Hebrew Scriptures and attempted to impugn Judaism by alleging that the Mosaic Law inevitably placed everyone under a curse (Gal. 3:10-12). The Rabbis also correctly point out the many salutary effects of the Law: that it imparts wisdom and conversion (Psalm 19) and that it delights the soul and imparts blessing and peace (Psalm 119). In light of this, it seems that Paul is missing the boat when he proclaims that the Law kills.

Did the Law really bring death (Rom. 3:19-20; 11:32; Gal. 3:22)? Didn’t the Apostle Paul misconstrue the Hebrew Scriptures? Didn’t he erroneously impugn the Law of Moses as the inevitable source of condemnation and death, rather than a source of wisdom, blessing, and conversion (Psalm 19:7-8)? In Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, offers a resounding “yes!” He charges that Paul so badly twisted the Hebrew Scriptures that he became “the first person to imagine the essence of what would become Christian theology.”[1] Klinghoffer contends that Paul’s interpretation was so novel and distorted, that no one else would have come up with it, not even Jesus. More specifically, Klinghoffer alleges,

• Paul had misunderstood the verse just quoted from Deuteronomy: ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.’ The Hebrew word he took to mean ‘abide by’ really means ‘uphold.’ In other words, the Jew was expected to uphold all the Torah’s commandments, affirming that they were God’s will. But there was no expectation of perfect conformity in his actions. The rabbis made this clear.[2]

While Paul understood the Law to teach that any infraction resulted in a curse, Klinghoffer insists that the Law requires Israel to merely, “uphold all the Torah’s commandments.” Mustn’t Israel also actually perform all the laws? Not according to Klinghoffer! For him, it seems that to uphold them simply means “affirming that they were God’s will.” From where does he derive this piece of sophistry? From the Talmud! His endnote cites B. Sanhedrin 81A.[3]

Clearly, Klinghoffer is not alone in this assessment. The thirteenth century sage and Talmudic jurist, Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman (Nachmanides), wrote regarding Deuteronomy 27:26, “This refers to a person who denies the Divine origin of any commandment of the Torah and considers its fulfillment valueless.”[4] Conspicuously absent was any acknowledgement that Israel had to obey all God’s commands, and that they would fall under His curse if they failed to do so. Similarly, Gerald Sigal wrote,

·       [Deuteronomy 27:26] does not refer to the breaking of the Law by an ordinary individual. It is, as the Rabbis explain, a reference to the authorities in power who fail to enforce the rule of the Law in the land of Israel (J.T. Sotah 7:4). The leadership of the nation is thus charged, under pain of the curse, to set the tone for the nation and make the Law the operative force in the life of the nation.[5]

As appealing as it might be to the ordinary Israelite that the curses would only apply to the “leadership,” the context rules against this interpretation. Instead of addressing the “leadership,” the curses are explicitly addressed to “all”:

• And the Levites shall speak with a loud voice and say to all the men of Israel: “Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image. (Deut. 27:14-15)[6]

Paul did Maintain that the Law Brings Condemnation as Klinghoffer Charges

           

Paul had often asserted that the Mosaic Law kills, and that it is removed through the Messiah’s atoning work:

• For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’ (quoting Deuteronomy 27:26). But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them” (quoting Leviticus 18:5). (Galatians 3:10-12; also Col. 2:13-14; Rom. 7:9-11; 3:19-20; 2 Cor. 3:6, 9)

According to Paul, the Law is strictly about performance. One violation brought guilt and consequences. Did Paul misread Jesus in this respect?

Paul’s Interpretation Matched Jesus’ and His Apostles’

           

Jesus also taught that a single infraction was enough to bring condemnation. One wrong motive or word could open the mouth of hell:

• You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!” shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

A portfolio of sins wasn’t required for condemnation; a single word was enough! Even looking at a woman lustfully established candidacy for the fires of hell (Mat. 5:27-30). James wrote similarly (James 2:9-10). For all the Apostles, the commission of the slightest sin provided grounds for concern. Peter wrote that our model is perfection Himself (1 Peter 1:15-16). Nothing short of this is adequate. In order to support his claim, he cited Leviticus 11:44-45, affirming that the Law represented an uncompromising standard. John assured his readership that any sin was damning, but more importantly, that Christ had trumped them all (1 John 1:9; 2:1-2; 3:4).

           

Uniformly, the Apostles maintain that the Law is about doing as opposed to merely acknowledging that it is God’s will. Nowhere in the Bible do we find any excuse for a cavalier attitude about the commission of even one sin!

Did Paul Misconstrue the Hebrew Scriptures?

           

If Deuteronomy 27:26 alone had posited that a single infraction was enough to bring down a curse, we might have grounds to attempt to reinterpret this verse to bring it into line with other teachings on the subject. But this verse is part of a much greater chorus. Throughout the Law, Israel is repeatedly warned that they had to obey and not just acknowledge every command (Lev. 26:14-16; Exodus 20:6; 23:21-22; 24:3; Deut. 5:29; 6:24-25; 8:1; 10:12; 11:8, 26-28, 32; 12:28; Jer. 11:3-5; 7:22-23).

           

This truth is poignantly illustrated by God’s first law: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Contra Klinghoffer, Adam’s problem was never that he had failed to acknowledge that this command had come from God. This was never an issue.

           

Of course, sins could be forgiven, but this is a far cry from Klinghoffer’s assertion that merely acknowledging that the Law came from God was enough. The damning reality of just one sin is brought home graphically by Ezekiel:

• But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. (Ezekiel 18:24)

It’s important to note that punishment never had to wait until sin reached a certain number. There is no “wait-and-see” policy; nor does grace require God to extend a second or third chance. Ezekiel simply mentions “the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed.” This could be a matter of just one sin! In other words, it was presumptuous for any Israelite to think, “With my perfect record, I’ve got it made and now can afford to relax!”

           

The reality of the sacrificial system further enforced the idea that every Israelite had to make payment for every offense. It wasn’t enough to merely acknowledge a lapse; a sacrificial offering had to be made. Nowhere in Hebrew Scriptures can we find any justification for the idea that it was acceptable to renege on any law. Instead, every transgression carried with it a penalty.

Hebrew Narratives Also Demonstrate the Damning Power of Even One Sin.

           

Even more problematic for Klinghoffer’s thesis that “there was no expectation of perfect conformity in his [the Israelite’s] action,” are the numerous Old Testament narratives that show just how damning a single infraction could be.

           

Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it, as the Lord had directed. Consequently, the Lord informed him that "Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them" (Numbers 20:12).  It would have been ludicrous for Moses to protest, “Lord, since you don’t require perfect conformity to Your Word but rather my acknowledgement that this Word is indeed Your Word, You are acting a bit heavy-handed in my regards.”

           

Klinghoffer would have had a better case had Moses habitually transgressed, but this was Moses’ only recorded sin during his forty desert years with Israel. In Leviticus 24, during a fight, one Israelite cursed God. The Lord determined that he should be put to death. Clearly, the Lord did expect perfect conformity to His Law and not just an acknowledgement that it was God’s Law. The punishments for Adam’s sin, Cain’s sin, and Achan’s also speak elequently in support of this fact.

           

Klinghoffer’s interpretation fails to accord with any aspect of the Hebrew Scriptures, but is the New Testament interpretation Scripturally accurate?

Making Sense of the New Testament Interpretation

           

From the New Testament perspective, it’s easy to wrongly conclude that God had set up Israel for failure. Who was righteous enough to avoid the curse? Nobody (Psalm 130:3; 143:2; Eccl. 7:20; Isaiah 64:6)! Had God demanded the impossible?

           

No! Uniformly, the Bible holds Israel accountable, not God. However, God was always merciful (Psalm 103:10; Ezra 9:13; Neh. 9:31; Dan. 9:18) when Israel humbled themselves and confessed. However, the condemnation was a necessary piece in the puzzle:

• Scripture [Law] has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:22-24)

According to Paul, the Law and its curse illuminated grace and Messiah. But was Paul merely imposing his own philosophy on the Hebrew Scriptures? No! This same message is implicit to the entire body of Scripture. It seems that the Law’s curse in regards to his sin with Bathsheba enabled David to see grace even more poignantly:       

• Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity…I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin. (Psalm 32:1-5)

In contrast, Klinghoffer’s distinction between obeying the Law and upholding the Law (merely “affirming that they are God’s will”) will not produce the desired results. Such a law will not convict or condemn anyone! Why should it as long as we have the recourse of easily acknowledging that the law is “God’s will?” If no one is convicted, then no one needs to be forgiven. No one will cry out for mercy, and therefore receive mercy. Grace is then irrelevant—so too the sacrificial system, Christ and His New Covenant, and the need for a circumcised heart (Deut. 30:6).

Besides, a legal code that only requires affirmation is absurd. Imagine a police officer stopping you for going 60 in a 25 MPH zone. Would you say to the officer, “I didn’t violate the law, because I affirm that the law is the will of the state? The state doesn’t expect perfection from me.” It would be equally ridiculous to say, “Officer, I have been driving for 20 years without a speeding ticket. Therefore, I don’t deserve one now.” If such illogical reasoning had prevailed in Israel, any violation of Mosaic Law could be easily dismissed.

OT/NT Harmony

Rather than finding contradiction between Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, we find a glaring chasm between Klinghoffer and the Scriptural Tradition he claims to represent. In spite of Klinghoffer’s allegations, a rich and illuminating consistency emerges among Jesus and the Apostles on the one hand, and the Scriptures they embraced on the other.

           

How then is it that the Jewish establishment could be so wrong, while a handful of renegades led by a condemned Rebel would be so consistently right—unless, of course, they had Divine guidance?  

---

[1] David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 112. 

[2] Klinghoffer, 110-11.

[3] This citation reads, “When R. Gamaliel read this verse he wept, saying, ‘Only he who does all these things shall live, but not merely one of them!’ Thereupon R. Akiba said to him, ‘If, so, defile not yourselves in all these things  is the prohibition against all [combined] only, but not against?’ [Surely not!] But it means, in one of these things; so here too, for doing one of these things [shall he live].” While R. Gamaliel was disturbed by the obvious interpretation that an Israelite had to perform each command in order to live, R. Akiba felt that this couldn’t be the right interpretation.  Instead, he suggested that by “doing one of these things” [commands of God], it would be sufficient to “live.”  In this, Akiba falls prey to the all-too-human impulse to soften or “humanize” the Law.

              In a more recent commentary, the Jewish Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p.427), we read in reference to Deuteronomy 27:15-26, “In the context, the twelve curses correspond to the twelve tribes…The resulting incongruence points to the many editorial revisions that this chapter has undergone.” Since “incongruence” is left undefined, we are left to conclude that it refers to the fact that the Chosen People are issued 12 warning curses. However, rather than pointing towards human editorializations, this tends to point in the direction of Divine authorship. Why would any people stand for such threats and negative prognostications (Deut. 32) unless they were miraculously assured of God’s supernatural presence!

[4] The Socino Chumash, A.Cohen (ed.), (Hindhead, Surrey: The Soncino Press, 1947), 1123.

[5] Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1981), 18. However, after confining the curses to the leadership, Sigal then contradicts his argument: “Thus, Deuteronomy 27:26 could declare as cursed only those who reject the means by which atonement for sins may be achieved. If one does not repent sincerely for his sins, he is cursed because he failed to save himself from the clutches of sin.” Sigal is here on more solid ground. Although we might quibble with his wording, Sigal correctly acknowledges that the curse is not God’s last word. There is God’s forgiveness extended through the Mosaic sacrificial system. Although this “forgiveness” wasn’t the full forgiveness of the Cross, it was the means by which God, in His forbearance, passed over sin (Rom. 3:25). However, Sigal fails to realize that by shifting his argument to acknowledge the necessity of forgiveness, he is thereby acknowledging that the Law brings a curse with any and every sin. By admitting this, he has unwilling thrust himself into Paul’s embrace.

[6] All Bible quotations are from the New King James Version.