5

Why did Peter say Paul's teachings are hard to understand?

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, 16 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 ESV)

What are those things things in them that are hard to understand in Paul's teachings, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction?

Note:

In my view, Peter, the Bishop of the Church really wished for all the believers to receive Paul and his teachings warm-heartedly and to give him the right hand of fellowship. While he made this address in his second epistle, he added that Paul's teachings are hard to understand.

  • 5
    I should think Peter said it because he found some of Paul's writings hard to understand. – Nigel J Oct 15 '18 at 22:22
  • Good point @Nigel J. So what was his parameter for discarding some of Paul's writings as hard and what are those teachings of Paul that Peter has specifically judged thus? – Ernest Abinokhauno Oct 17 '18 at 10:36
  • 2
    There is no indication that Peter 'discarded' any of Paul's writings. That they are hard to understand - and some of them, indeed are - is not a reason to discard the truth. In maturity, one discovers more and understands more. – Nigel J Oct 17 '18 at 16:18
  • "Discarded" not in the literal sense. – Ernest Abinokhauno Oct 17 '18 at 19:23
  • 1
    Given the description "which the ignorant and unstable twist ... as they do the other Scriptures", it might be more appropriate to think of "hard to understand" as meaning "easy to misunderstand" or "easy to abuse in order to misrepresent". That is, people that sound like they know what they are talking about can use some of Paul's teachings and explain them (deliberately or unintentionally) as meaning something other than what Paul intended. – Ray Butterworth Mar 23 '19 at 13:37
2

I think the answer is simpler than first appears. It is true that Paul's theology is "advanced" in every sense of the word. However, note Peter's statement in 1 Peter 5:12 suggests that he may not have been literate in Greek and had to use Silas (= Silvanus) to help him, presumably by dictating in Aramaic while Silas wrote in Greek as is obvious from the sentence structures etc. If we accept that Peter was also responsible for the 2 Peter, whose style is vastly different, then this might have been written by a different translator for Peter.

By contrast, Paul was highly educated and fluent in Greek (Acts 27:37) - and very good Greek too. His vocabulary is much larger than other NT writers (except Luke who was also well educated), and Paul's sentence structures are often tricky because of their convoluted constructions and elliptical references. Today, when students of koine Greek are starting, they steer clear of Paul for a year or two and concentrate on John's much simpler Greek.

Even today, Paul's writings present the greatest challenge to translate and understand effectively - We still debate them! Therefore, Peter's statement about Paul is consistent with modern experience as well.

| improve this answer | |
  • I Peter was written very early on, at the time of Diaspora. II Peter comes later. I know that my own style of writing has changed remarkably even over the past five years. I think the matter of 'translators' is speculative, myself. More likely, the difference in the two epistles is simply due to further maturity and naturally increasing vocabulary. Epistles were dictated by both Peter and Paul. There is no indication that they were 'translated'. – Nigel J Oct 17 '18 at 20:56
1

See Paul doesn't write in plain words, and he uses analogies or drashes. Paul was a Pharisee practically on Rabbi level very educated in his words are not simple, see Peter was an uneducated fisherman compared to Paul. See I have found a complexity like Paul saying the word flesh but meaning different things. Then as you said people taking words out of context Paul does also.

Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are clear: sexual immorality, impurity, indecency,

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, come evil intentions, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

See here the flesh is not the body but neither a sinful nature those words don't exist in the New Testament in Greek. See something I realized by studying a lot that sin is conceptual of the heart and mind. I not only studied this by the scriptures but studying observing my own sins or sins of others as a realist. It is way more complex I even realized nobody has interpreted Genesis 3 right like "the man has become like one of Us" See God knows Good and Evil, God has the Knowledge of Good and Evil but humans gained it and it enabled us to sin. It is a lot complex I started unpacking it. See a Gnostic worldview that sin is a primal animalistic (meaning savage) nature that makes us sin a sinful nature in other words. Then I realize they have been using the word naturalem(physin physis, physikon) and confusing it with carnis and animale (soul, psychikos (also mind) we are souls). See God created all things natural even and made humans living souls, So I realized sin is artificial and unnatural sort of like Pantheonistic idol worship is, then tell me what animal even a Chimpanzee will naturally worship and idol and burn their sons and daughters to an idol to appease it? See sin is conceptual because idol worship is conceptual and collective meaning masses of people worshiped those idols.

So Paul is not easy to understand sometimes I am reading Paul and think he is being a Gnostic by saying the natural or material heavens and earth God made was evil. Though I realize I am mistaken he is not. Then I think Paul is being anti-Semitic ( I am part Ashkenazi Jewish and mostly a Gentile) but I read Acts and realize he is not. I am also from a Catholic and Protestant mixed family so I hate the religiopolitical factionism. I regard myself as Disciple of Messiah Yeshua the Lord as a Talmidi is to a Rabbi. I regard community not a congregation building for the disciples were communal in the book of Acts. People go to a congregation building sing, pray do a ritual, and leave, and sometimes they don't even know the person they sit next to it is also a Disciple of Messiah Yeshua the Lord. See I had to bring it back Christianoi means a Disciple of Messiah Yeshua the Lord it doesn't mean laity and clergy. We don't become laity or clergy but disciples, then we are no disciples of the clergy but Messiah Yeshua the Lord He is our Rabbi, Master, and Lord.

Though the apostles were to make disciples but not of themselves, though there were preachers, teachers, pastors, apostles, and prophets. So back to the answer Paul is not easy to understand even Marcion took Paul's words and interpreted then to align with his Gnostic views of the creator being the satan instead of God because he hated God in the Old Testament or Tanakh. See Marcion has a version of the NT and all Paul's letters were in it, so Marcion basically interpreted things to be Gnostic. Then sometimes I am suspicious that the versions we have were altered by Marcion also. Then Marcion was into Zoroastrian forms of Dualism also concerning Good and Evil. See G-d when mentioned in Genesis He floods the whole earth killing everything on land, see to a Dualistic minded person that would be evil, so God would be evil. See why people misunderstand Biblical Good and Evil, see according to Genesis God has the Knowledge of Good and Evil and he also Blesses and Curses and Blessings and Cursings were part of the Torah and blessings=Life= Good, Cursings=Death= Evil. So basically a blessing brings well effect, and a cursing brings ill effect. God does all these things, like the Great Deluge but it was a just Evil. See Cain murders Abel unjust Evil, Yael kills Sisera a just Evil.

So as you see people interpret Paul as being anti-Torah but also anti- God of Israel. Though as 2 Peter and Jude are the same they parallel. See it said the angels that sinned were locked up, notice the satan is considered an angel that sinned or rebelled but was not locked up in Tartarus. So this made me think the satan doesn't really sin as a human would or he is like a mafia boss who can't be found guilty. See that is the flaw the satan is not the embodiment of all sin or evil. See notice the satan never committed adultery because that is a sin only humans or the creature can do unless angels can mate. Then murder is not killing for even God ordered Israel to kill in warfare. So murder is to kill a fellow citizen or a peaceful visitor to your land or a family member, so can angels murder each other? See if angels can't murder each other than the satan has not truly murdered. Then the satan according to Job couldn't affect Job's life unless he had permission from God, So God allowed the satan to destroy Job's children, though you see God also destroys( Misunderstanding Good and Evil.) but if God allows it how can that be murder? Though he probably can get humans to murder other humans when they do think they are doing service to God or they think they are the good guys on the right side of justice killing Messiah's disciples. So I don't twist scripture but I look at things from different angles, because I am trying to understand reality also.

I am sorry but I write in this style if you reject it I can't help it.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Welcome to BH. Please see the Tour and the Help as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. I have edited only to demonstrate how to highlight quotations. I have not altered your text. – Nigel J Aug 5 at 17:32
0

Some Context First

One can only guess. My take is as follows.

Let's look at the context of what St. Peter is writing in this chapter (and Epistle in general)

2 Peter 3 (DRB)

Behold this second epistle I write to you, my dearly beloved, in which I stir up by way of admonition your sincere mind: 2 That you may be mindful of those words which I told you before from the holy prophets, and of your apostles, of the precepts of the Lord and Saviour. 3 Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God. 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men. 8 But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to [repentance]. 10 But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up.

He explicitly says he is admonishing them not to forget that which was taught by Jesus (e.g. His coming as a thief in the night: Rev 16:15; Mt 24:43 etc.) and that one day is as a thousand years—the supposed 'long time' taken for God to return is nothing other than the shortness of our lifetime, not His slackness. Chief of all, that this perceived 'slackness' is time to be taken advantage of for repentance—His delay is "for your sake" at least in part. (See the next verse)

11 Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness? 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat? 13 But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth. 14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Where did Paul write such things as "account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you?"

Well, something comes to mind right away:

Romans 2:4-11 (DRB)

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to [repentance]? 5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God. 6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. ...

Cf. Mt 24:13. Luke 21:19. Rev 16:15.

When, then, did St. Paul write "of these things" which St. Peter mentions in general in this chapter (such things as walking so as to be found blameless in the day of the Lord, that God delays so as to give place for repentance, etc.)? In a great many places. Here is just one for each.

Walk to as to be found blameless by him.

Philippians 2:14-15 (DRB) And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; 15 That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 (DRB)

For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night.

Romans 2:4 (DRB)

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to [repentance]?

Which Things are "Hard to be Understood?" and Easily Twisted by the Unlearned?

It's easy to take St. Paul's words in many different ways, perhaps more so since, according to his own admission, he was "unskilled in speech." His simple mode of speaking readily engenders many interpretations—if context is not rigidly observed, respected and considered. By which I mean 'prooftext reading' is all to easy for the 'unlearned' to fall pray to. There are simply too many things, deep topics, on which St. Paul touches, to even begin to enumerate them all. Since St. Peter says that misconstruing the things he talks about specifically result in damnation "to their own destruction," this must pertain so a doctrine of justification/salvation, in my opinion (you won't go to Hell for assuming something wrongly about the date of the coming of Christ, for example). So...

One Example Looked At

I would consider the most woeful, notorious, but classic 'rending' of his words (at least in recent centuries) to be 'faith alone' justification (given the above passages, but also how verses supposed to teach it actually do not teach it positively) for one example, but there are so many things in the relatively large Pauline corpus which could be misconstrued not only by 'unlearned' Christians but by non-Christians of every variety.

Romans 4:5 (DRB)

But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.

'There you have it,' says the render of Paul's words (tongue in cheek), 'works don't enter into justification, only faith alone.' (Just as clear, if not just as much, as the single line quote in James: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.")

This ignores even the immediate context which is contrasting a work based and grounded justification, over and against a faith based and grounded justification.

Romans 4:1-4 (DRB) What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh. 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. 4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt.

What did St. Paul line these words up with? What specific view of works does he here condemn as regards justification? Obviously the view of works where they correspond directly to a just demand of God to grant entrance to heaven. Hence, "what is owed," and, "he has something of which to boast.' THIS IS A VIEW OF WORKS WHICH MAKES FAITH AND GRACE REDUNDANT! (Romans 11:6!) To 'work' in this context is to be a worker for a wage. Not to render obedience to God because "we ought" (Luke 17:10!).

So already, St. Paul doesn't even have in mind here the kind of Christian good works spoken of in the rest of Scripture, but a specific view of doing works which correspond directly to something you are owed by God—making grace redundant, as well as faith.

Something which helps drive this point through is reading what St. Paul points to: Abraham and his justification.

Since St. James speaks of the exact same justification of Abraham, even quoting the same Scripture, but says a little more about the event specifically, let's look at what the equally authoritative Apostle has to say about what St. Paul also refers to:

James 2:21-24 (DRB)

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?" And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Clearly his justification before God is spoken of (not 'vindication'):

James 2:14, 20, 23 (DRB) Shall faith be able to save him? ... But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

Obviously this is about the ability to save of faith alone, or "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6; 1 Cor 7:19). He isn't talking anywhere here of garnering respect or approval or vindication before men in order to make faith complete and not dead. For that can't happen: faith can't be complete only when other men see your works, if they are merely showing you have said faith! Which Genesis, to which he is directly referring, makes plain:

Genesis 18:12, 16 (DRB)

And he said to him: Lay not thy hand upon the boy, neither do thou any thing to him: now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake. ... By my own self have I sworn, saith the Lord: because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake: 17 I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Note that he says "Abraham believed God" was fulfilled when he did the work: "faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect.. And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God.." He is defining the same faith as Paul as being completed by works, before which time it is then incomplete (yet both are viewed as a unity before God Himself, since He knows the works follow the faith, for which reason He can justify on the basis of the initial faith, and why the entire Bible teaches we can fail to do our duty and forfeit our friendship with God). It at this point in time became more than a promise to do good and go along with God's plan (branches but no figs), but a fruit. But it wasn't his doing this that made the promise itself. That was God. It was by faith that his works became meaningful, but still not deserving of or directly corresponding to the things rewarded by grace through faith.

As you can see, it takes a little time to put in the effort of reading the Scriptures quoted in some depth (context assumed to be known by St. Paul's readers by the mere introduction to a verse) than just 'ha! no works will enter into whether I'm saved!' which some are happy to haphazardly run away with and make the basis of a new religion entirely (making baptism optional or even reduced to symbolic terminology for 'faith,' the Eucharist not qualifying for salvific in any remote way, confessing your sins something of a helpful way to 'heal,' and not absolutely necessary, etc.)

I would say it is the single biggest misrepresentation of St. Paul to date, but again, St. Paul speaks in such a way (his palpable joy in the gospel, and his wanting to convey it in the most God-honoring way possible, including avoiding as much as possible the downsides) that it is easy to run off with a nice 'soundbite' out of its larger context—in a way not necessarily as true for other New Testament writers.

For example, you won't mistake what Jesus means when He says:

John 15:1-10 (DRB)

I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and become my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love.

But every now St. Paul will of necessity, because of the specific point being made, sound more straight to the point, serious, and Jesus-like.

Romans 11:20-23 (DRB)

Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. 21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Point being that St. Paul touches upon many deep topics ("hard to be understood") sometimes with an almost childlike simplicity (sometimes not), and in simpler and less explicit language (and thus more susceptible to reinterpretation): to the degree that many who are eager already to believe some thing, will find in him a great advocate for their heresy.

| improve this answer | |
  • To Peter, justification with works would not be "hard to understand". What he found hard to understand was faith without works. The non-Pauline scriptures (the gospels, first half of Acts and Jewish epistles including To the Hebrews and Revelation are all "faith with works" not "faith without works (ala Paul)". So if you eliminate all of that, you will have a much smaller post that won't be too cumbersome to interact with. – Ruminator Oct 16 '18 at 17:44
  • This is incompatible with the facts I mentioned: 1) Peter says that Paul agrees and teaches what he is saying in "all his epistles"—not something else 2) the unstable and unlearned, not Peter, twist Paul's Scriptures. Moreover, Acts and other documents speak of Paul and Peter's doctrinal agreement, as well as Paul's own letters. Lastly, a whole three quarters of this 'answer' is challenging the idea that Paul taught and meant something else by faith than the rest (taught faith without works), and I provide Scriptural references to that end. – Sola Gratia Oct 16 '18 at 21:28
  • Are we at least in agreement that Jesus was under the law, sent to Jews, taught Torah observance, taught the imminent arrival of the kingdom and did not teach Paul's gospel? – Ruminator Oct 16 '18 at 22:40
  • Never. I agree with both St. Luke and St. Paul that on the contrary, Jesus personally chose Paul to preach His gospel to the Gentiles. Perhaps not these, but you have misunderstood Paul .. as my answer posits. – Sola Gratia Oct 16 '18 at 23:34
  • As I see it the failure to distinguish between the ages (Jewish age vs "Church" age) is the mother of all errors. Well, a lot of errors anyway. Enough said for the moment, thanks. – Ruminator Oct 17 '18 at 0:30
-1

Could be for example the letter to the Hebrew Christians were Paul explaines that Jesus is God's High Priest and the spiritual Temple is far better than The Old Stone one.

He is like Moses a go between for God and humans.

That Jesus is an Apostle sent by God like Moses to teach humans truths that Moses did not know fully.

Why Jesus was like Melchizedek.

why the Tabernacle has a heavenly significance. 

And like matters.

Hard to understand.

Cannot be more spacific than this as Peter was not spacific!

| improve this answer | |
  • In case you aren't aware, many people dispute that Paul is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, since it nowhere mentions Paul, normatively uses the pronoun 'we,' and has only ever had the superscript "To the Hebrews" attached. However, people who think Paul wrote Hebrews aren't by any stretch of the imagination alone, as some early Christian authors did, too. In the (rather ancient!) Roman Liturgy, I always hear, "Lectio Epistolae beati Pauli Apostoli ad Hebraeos" (Letter from blessed Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews), for example. – Sola Gratia Oct 19 '18 at 16:25
  • OK. Who did pen the book of Hebrews Sola Gratia? – user26950 Oct 19 '18 at 17:27
  • That's the point. It doesn't say itself. Tradition alone (small 't') could be of relevance here, then—and even it is divided. My view is that St. Luke penned it, but it is St. Paul's teaching—for now. – Sola Gratia Oct 19 '18 at 18:01
-1

2 Corinthians 10:6 is lying false translation that has the apostles saying in obedience to Christ we shall be ready to take revenge and hand out punishment to anyone who sins ( is disobedient)

Full obedience is the obedience of obeying God of his command to listen to and Believe in JESUS CHRIST his son.

https://biblehub.com/topical/a/avenge.htm Anonymous View to vindicate, to avenge. Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: ekdikeo Phonetic Spelling: (ek-dik-eh'-o) Short Definition: I give justice over, defend, avenge

Topical Bible: Avenge - Bible Hub https://biblehub.com/topical/a/avenge.htm Anonymous View Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. 1. ... In the New Testament avenge is translated from the Greek ekdikeo, "to do justice," "to protect" (Luke 18:3 et al.

The one who fears is not made perfect in love for fear has to do with punishment There is no fear in love

In obedience to christ? We are ready to punish ...? No ready to give legal protection , defend for ever disobedience! The gospel itself is legal protection for sinners! He christ Jesus was punished for sinners

The one who fears is not made perfect in love because Fear has to do with punishment, There is no fear in love. Fear is not of God!

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment; and the one fearing has not been perfected in love.

Torment is a faulty translation. The word means punishment, penalty. It occurs in the New Testament only here and Matthew 25:46. The kindred verb, κολάζομαι to punish, is found Acts 4:21; 2 Peter 2:9.

kolasis: Punishment Original Word: κόλασις, εως, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: kolasis Phonetic Spelling: (kol'-as-is) Definition: punishment Usage: chastisement, punishment, torment, perhaps with the idea of deprivation. HELPS Word-studies Cognate: 2851 kólasis (from kolaphos, "a buffeting, a blow") – properly, punishment that "fits" (matches) the one punished .

Ready to punish for every disobedience?

And in all the synagogues, punishing them often,

timóreó: to punish, to take revenge Original Word: τιμωρέω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: timóreó Phonetic Spelling: (tim-o-reh'-o) Definition: to punish Usage: I punish, to take revenge myself.

And in all the synagogues, punishing them often, I was compelling them to blaspheme. And being exceedingly furious against them, I kept persecuting them even as far as to foreign cities

I was compelling them to blaspheme. And being exceedingly furious against them, I kept persecuting them even as far as to foreign cities

The below translations are not the inspired word of God SUM PIC XRF DEV STU Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

New Living Translation And after you have become fully obedient, we will punish everyone who remains disobedient.

English Standard Version being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

Berean Study Bible And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, as soon as your obedience is complete.

Berean Literal Bible and having readiness within to avenge ** got it right but do you know what avenge means? all disobedience, when your obedience may have been fulfilled.

New American Standard Bible and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.

King James Bible And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled

ROMANS 2:23 You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law?

2 Corinthians 2:9 My purpose in writing you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything

https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/10-6.htm

ἐκδικῆσαι ekdikēsai to avenge V-ANA

Strong's Concordance ekdikeó: to vindicate, defend, give legal protection, to avenge Original Word: ἐκδικέω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: ekdikeó Phonetic Spelling: (ek-dik-eh'-o) Definition: to vindicate, to avenge Usage: I give justice over, defend, avenge, vindicate The parable of the persistent widow uses the same greek word ekdikeo when she is asking for legal protection to defend her from her adversary V-AMA-2S GRK: αὐτὸν λέγουσα Ἐκδίκησόν με ἀπὸ NAS: to him, saying, Give me legal protection from my opponent.' KJV: him, saying, Avenge me of INT: him saying Avenge me of

strong textPeter was aware Paul tested knowledge of the truth using the yeast of the Pharisees. By nature such tests are hard to understand as they appear as commands to do things contrary to obedience to christ, such as judging justified believers who were already saved from condemnation for sins. And such yeast of the Pharisee tests included remedies for believers for publicly known but not private known sins.

These yeast of the Pharisee remedies were of course not known to those in the truth who knew they were not needed and those in the truth passed the test knowing Their faith in Christ Jesus and his work on the cross and his position as advocate and high priest was and had been saving them .

So those who passed the test knew the truth . But the yeast of the Pharisee tests Paul used included ; judging those whom God had justified and who would not be judged and included another Jesus having the aid of satan in order to save justified believers by satan destroying the flesh and saving spirits.. So the yeast of the pharasees tests amounted to ; Another gospel Paul had never preached and they never recieved and another Jesus paul never preached and they never recieved and another spirit the corinthians never received... but were putting up with happliy enough, concluding nothing lacking (for the sake of ) or the (super) apostle , even if it was ones own private word and not the doctrine and we have made this clear to you in every way.strong text

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.