Paul’s Directed Audience Was Hebrew. from Simon Yap

 

The biggest problem with modern readings of Paul is that people automatically assume the word “Gentiles” means every non-Jewish person on earth in the modern sense. That assumption is exactly where the confusion begins.

When Paul wrote to Galatia, Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, he was not writing random twenty-first century Malaysians, Americans, Africans, or Europeans. He was writing to communities living within the world of Second Temple Judaism — a world obsessed with Torah, circumcision, Abraham, Moses, temple identity, food laws, and covenant status.

That alone should already raise an obvious question:

Why would Paul spend entire letters arguing about circumcision, Mosaic Law, Sabbath observance, Abrahamic descent, and temple covenants if his audience were ordinary pagan foreigners with no connection to Israel’s covenant world?

A Greek pagan in Athens did not care whether Abraham was circumcised before Genesis 17.

A Roman soldier in Spain did not lose sleep over whether Moses came 430 years after Abraham.

Yet Paul’s audiences clearly cared deeply about these things.

Why?

Because these communities existed within the orbit of Israel’s covenant identity.

Look carefully at how the New Testament itself frames these audiences.

1 Peter 1:1 says:

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.”

Notice the language: scattered exiles.

That is dispersion language.

It echoes the long-standing Jewish concept that Israelites had been scattered among the nations after exile. This is why James also opens his letter to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (James 1:1).

The apostles were not inventing a brand-new global religion detached from Israel. They believed they were participating in the restoration of scattered Israel promised by the prophets.

This is precisely why Paul constantly debates the Law.

Galatians is saturated with arguments about:

* Circumcision

* Abraham

* Moses

* Sinai

* Sarah and Hagar

* Covenant inheritance

* Being under the Law

These are not random topics relevant to modern Gentiles in Kuala Lumpur or London. They are Israelite covenant arguments.

Even Paul’s famous “Jew nor Greek” statement is misunderstood today.

In the ancient world, “Greek” often functioned as a cultural designation for Hellenized people within the diaspora world. The northern tribes had long been scattered and absorbed among the nations. By the first century many Jews viewed diaspora Israelites as compromised, unclean, or effectively “Gentilized.”

This is why Ephesians 2 speaks of people once being “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.” You cannot be alienated from something you were never connected to in the first place.

Paul’s argument was not:

“Every human being on earth is now literally Israel.”

His argument was about covenant restoration through Messiah.

That is why the prophets matter here.

Hosea spoke about the northern kingdom becoming “not my people” and later being restored.

Ezekiel spoke about the reunification of Judah and Ephraim.

Jeremiah spoke about a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah — not with modern secular nations thousands of years later.

Even the famous Abraham passages are still operating within Israel’s covenant framework.

Yes, Abraham preceded Moses.

Yes, Abraham was counted righteous before circumcision.

But Paul’s purpose in Galatians was not to create a future universal religion detached from Israel. His purpose was to argue that covenant inclusion came through faithfulness and promise rather than Torah boundary markers.

That debate still existed entirely inside the biblical covenant world.

Modern Christianity often commits a massive historical jump:

it takes first-century intra-Israel covenant disputes and universalizes them onto every human being who has ever lived.

But Paul never wrote letters to Chinese Buddhists, Malaysian lawyers, Viking tribes, Aztecs, or Australian atheists.

He wrote to assemblies embedded within the Jewish-diaspora world of the Roman Empire.

That is why his letters constantly assume knowledge of:

* Abraham

* Moses

* Torah

* Circumcision

* Temple theology

* Israel’s promises

* Prophetic restoration

The irony is that many modern readers unknowingly practice replacement theology while accusing others of doing so.

They detach Israel’s covenant texts from their historical audience and apply them wholesale to modern populations Paul never met, never addressed, and never even conceived of.

The New Testament only makes proper sense when read inside its original first-century Jewish context — not as a floating religious manual written directly to the modern world.

Who Is the Real Satan: Religion or Science When It Comes to Pigs? from Simon Yap

For centuries pigs have been treated by many religious traditions as symbols of impurity, filth, and moral corruption. Entire populations were taught to fear them, avoid them, and even associate them with spiritual uncleanness. Yet modern science tells a completely different story. Ironically, the very animal condemned by religious taboos has helped save millions of human lives.

So the uncomfortable question must be asked: who was really helping humanity — religion or science?

Religion often framed pigs as dangerous to the soul. In some traditions, touching or eating pork was seen as defiling. The pig became a theological villain. It was not viewed scientifically, medically, or rationally, but symbolically. Ancient people living in hot climates without refrigeration naturally associated pork with disease risks. Instead of understanding bacteria, parasites, hygiene, or food preservation, societies wrapped practical concerns in divine language and eternal commandments.

That is how ancient religion frequently operated. Ignorance was transformed into sacred law.

Science, however, approached pigs differently. Instead of asking whether pigs were “spiritually clean,” scientists asked whether pigs could help improve human life. The answer turned out to be yes — enormously.

Pig heart valves have saved countless cardiac patients around the world. For decades surgeons have implanted porcine valves into human beings because they function remarkably well inside the human body. Many people alive today owe their lives partly to pigs.

Pig skin has also been used in treating severe burn victims. Its biological similarity to human skin makes it useful as a temporary protective covering that reduces infection and fluid loss. Again, what religion condemned, medicine used compassionately to save lives.

Before synthetic insulin became common, insulin extracted from pigs helped diabetics survive. Thousands who would otherwise have died young were able to live because of medical research involving pigs.

Today the field of xenotransplantation — transplanting animal organs into humans — is advancing rapidly using genetically modified pigs. Scientists are studying pig kidneys, hearts, and organs because their size and physiology closely resemble those of humans. This research may one day solve the organ shortage crisis entirely.

So while religion was busy calling pigs unclean, science was using them to heal the sick.

This contrast exposes a broader problem with rigid religious thinking. Religion often freezes humanity in the mindset of the past. It preserves ancient fears, tribal customs, and primitive understandings long after knowledge has advanced. Instead of adapting to evidence, it demands obedience to tradition.

Science works differently. Science changes when new evidence appears. It tests, questions, revises, and improves. It does not ask whether a pig is spiritually offensive. It asks whether knowledge can reduce suffering.

One worldview protects ancient taboos.

The other saves burn victims, diabetics, and heart patients.

This is why blind religious thinking can become socially regressive. It conditions people to fear inquiry itself. Once something is declared sacred, questioning it becomes dangerous. Entire generations can inherit prohibitions without understanding their historical origin.

Many dietary laws made practical sense thousands of years ago in harsh desert environments lacking sanitation and refrigeration. But religion often refuses to admit that these rules reflected ancient survival conditions rather than eternal cosmic truths.

Science, on the other hand, openly admits its limitations and continuously evolves. Modern medicine does not care about ritual purity. It cares about whether a patient survives surgery.

That is the difference between dogma and progress.

None of this means every religious person is anti-science. Many religious individuals contribute enormously to medicine and research. But institutional religion historically resisted scientific advancement repeatedly — from astronomy to evolution to medical discoveries. The pattern is difficult to ignore.

The irony surrounding pigs is therefore symbolic of something much larger. The animal once condemned as unclean has become one of humanity’s greatest medical allies. Meanwhile many people still cling to ancient fears written in a world that did not understand viruses, genetics, or organ transplantation.

Perhaps the real danger was never the pig.

Perhaps the greater danger was teaching humanity that questioning old beliefs was sinful while discouraging the pursuit of evidence, medicine, and knowledge.

Because when a worldview values superstition above human wellbeing, it does not protect civilization from darkness.

It keeps civilization inside it.

What “Under the Law” Really Means.

One of the biggest problems in modern Bible teaching is not disagreement. Disagreement is normal. The real danger comes from people who confidently teach Scripture without understanding chronology, literary context, covenant structure, historical development, or even the most basic meaning of words inside the Bible itself.

This creates a form of theology that is emotionally loud but intellectually shallow. It spreads rapidly online because it sounds convincing to people who have never examined the texts carefully.

A perfect example is the argument:

“Cain was punished for murder before Moses, therefore everyone was always under the Mosaic Law.”

This logic does not merely fail. It collapses immediately under the weight of its own confusion.

The problem is that many people completely misunderstand what “the Law” means in biblical discussions. They imagine “the Law” simply means morality in general or the idea that murder is wrong. But that is not what Paul, the prophets, or the Torah itself mean when they speak about “the Law.”

“The Law” refers to Torah.

And Torah was not merely the Ten Commandments.

It was:

* the Sinai covenant,

* circumcision regulations,

* priesthood laws,

* purity laws,

* sacrificial systems,

* feast days,

* dietary restrictions,

* land inheritance structures,

* temple obligations,

* national covenant curses and blessings,

* and the entire covenant arrangement between Yahweh and Israel.

In other words, “the Law” was not just a moral principle floating around the universe. It was a covenant system specifically tied to Israel’s national identity.

This is why passages like Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews constantly connect “the Law” to:

* Moses,

* Sinai,

* circumcision,

* Abraham’s descendants,

* temple worship,

* and covenant membership.

So when someone says “only Israel was under the Law,” they are not claiming murder suddenly became acceptable outside Israel. That would be absurd.

They are saying only Israel stood under the Mosaic covenant framework.

This distinction should not be difficult.

Modern people understand this instinctively in every other context. Malaysian law applies to Malaysia. Roman law applied to Rome. Ancient Babylonian law applied to Babylon. Nobody hears “Rome was under Roman law” and concludes other civilizations were therefore allowed to commit murder freely.

Yet somehow when it comes to the Bible, people suddenly abandon basic reasoning.

The Cain argument exposes this confusion perfectly.

Cain existed before Moses.

Before Sinai.

Before Torah.

Before Deuteronomy.

Before Leviticus.

Before the covenant code.

So quoting Deuteronomy 5:17 — “Thou shalt not kill” — to explain Cain is chronologically incoherent.

It is like quoting modern traffic regulations to prosecute a Bronze Age shepherd.

The timeline itself destroys the argument.

Even within the Bible’s own structure, the Mosaic Law had not yet been given.

In fact, Paul explicitly states in Romans 5:13:

“Sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

That verse alone should force readers to slow down and think more carefully about how biblical writers understood covenant and law.

The issue is not whether violence existed before Moses. Of course it did. The issue is whether the Mosaic covenant existed before Moses.

It clearly did not.

Genesis itself reflects this distinction repeatedly. The patriarchs build altars differently from later Israelites. Dietary laws fluctuate. Sacred locations vary. Ritual practices are inconsistent. Why? Because the Torah system had not yet been formally established within the narrative world.

Many scholars recognize that Genesis was written or finalized much later by writers already shaped by Israelite covenant traditions. As a result, later theological ideas are often projected backward into ancient legendary narratives.

That does not mean the texts are meaningless. It means they are theological literature shaped by historical development.

But meme theology ignores all of this complexity.

Instead, modern teachers grab disconnected verses from different centuries, mash them together, and pretend the Bible operates like a single flat rulebook where every concept existed fully formed from page one.

This is dangerous because it trains people not to think historically or contextually.

It replaces careful reading with slogan-driven theology.

Worse still, it creates arrogant certainty among people who have never studied chronology, source criticism, covenant theology, Second Temple Judaism, or ancient Near Eastern literature.

The result is a culture where confidence is mistaken for understanding.

A loud voice becomes “anointed.”

A meme becomes scholarship.

A screenshot becomes exegesis.

And once that happens, serious discussion dies.

The irony is that the Bible itself is far more complex, layered, and historically developed than these simplistic teachers realize. But complexity threatens simplistic systems. So instead of engaging history honestly, meme theology reduces Scripture into emotional one-liners designed for applause rather than understanding.

And unfortunately, social media rewards exactly that kind of ignorance.

Jesus Was Not Teaching Eternal Hell in Mark 9 — Gehenna Was About Judgment on Jerusalem by Simon Yap

Christians often quote Mark 9:47–48 as if Jesus were describing a place of eternal conscious torment after death. But the moment you read the source Jesus was quoting, that doctrine starts collapsing.

Jesus says:

“It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’”

That final line comes directly from Isaiah 66:24. Jesus was not inventing new imagery. He was quoting a prophetic text his audience already knew.

And what does Isaiah describe?

Not immortal souls screaming forever.

Not spirits trapped in another dimension.

Not demons torturing humans underground.

Isaiah says:

“And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me…”

Carcasses. Dead bodies. Corpses.

The Hebrew word refers to physical remains. The imagery is about shame, destruction, and public judgment after death. Worms consume the dead. Fire destroys what remains. The point is irreversible destruction, not eternal conscious suffering.

This is exactly why context matters.

Isaiah 66 is about covenant judgment and the vindication of Jerusalem. The chapter contrasts faithful worshippers with rebels inside Israel. It ends with the enemies of God destroyed outside the city as a warning sign to others.

Jesus takes that imagery and applies it to his own generation.

And here is where most modern Christians completely miss the point:

The “hell” Jesus warned about was tied to Jerusalem’s coming destruction.

The Greek word translated “hell” is not some generic underworld. It is Gehenna — from the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. This valley had long become associated with defilement, judgment, burning, and national disgrace in Jewish memory.

Scholars like N. T. Wright repeatedly stress that Gehenna was a first-century Jewish symbol connected to catastrophe and judgment upon Jerusalem, not the later medieval idea of an eternal torture chamber.

In fact, Jesus constantly warned that generation about impending destruction:

* “This generation shall not pass…” (Matthew 24:34)

* “Your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23:38)

* “Not one stone here shall be left upon another.” (Matthew 24:2)

What happened in AD70?

Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome.

The Temple burned.

Bodies filled the streets.

Thousands upon thousands died in famine, fire, crucifixion, and civil chaos.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus described horrific scenes of decay, corpses piled in the city, and fires consuming Jerusalem during the Roman siege. The imagery sounds disturbingly close to Isaiah 66 and Jesus’ warnings about Gehenna.

This is why many scholars and historians understand Jesus’ Gehenna sayings as prophetic warnings about covenant judgment culminating in AD70.

Even the phrase “the fire is not quenched” does not mean eternal torture. In the Old Testament, “unquenchable fire” means a fire nobody can stop until it finishes destroying its target. Jeremiah used the same language for Jerusalem’s destruction centuries earlier. Those fires are obviously not still burning today.

Likewise, “their worm does not die” does not mean immortal maggots. It means the process of decay and disgrace is uninterrupted until complete destruction occurs.

Edward Fudge correctly notes that Isaiah’s imagery concerns destruction of the wicked, not eternal conscious torment. Bart Ehrman also argues that Jesus’ teachings fit Jewish apocalyptic destruction imagery rather than later Greek concepts of immortal souls suffering forever.

That later doctrine developed much later through a mixture of:

* Greek philosophy about immortal souls

* Latin mistranslations

* Medieval fear theology

* Institutional religious control

By the time of Dante’s Inferno, Gehenna had been transformed from a prophetic warning about Jerusalem into a cosmic torture prison.

But that is not what Jesus was talking about.

Jesus was speaking as a Jewish prophet to a Jewish audience about covenant judgment coming upon covenant breakers.

And history vindicated the warning.

AD70 became the living manifestation of Gehenna.

The city burned.

The Temple fell.

Bodies filled Jerusalem.

The old covenant world collapsed.

This also explains why Jesus constantly spoke with urgency:

* “The kingdom of God is at hand.”

* “The time is near.”

* “This generation will not pass.”

If Gehenna meant an eternal hell thousands of years later, those warnings become bizarrely misleading. But if Gehenna referred to the catastrophic covenant judgment climaxing in AD70, the language suddenly makes historical sense.

The truth is uncomfortable for many religious people:

The modern doctrine of eternal hell owes more to later church tradition than to Isaiah, Jesus, or the Hebrew Bible.

Isaiah spoke about corpses.

Jesus quoted Isaiah.

Gehenna referred to Jerusalem’s judgment.

And AD70 became the horrifying historical reality behind those warnings.

The “hell” of Jesus was not a cosmic torture chamber after death.

It was the destruction of a covenant world.

See less

Romans 5:13 Completely Destroys the “Everyone Was Under Mosaic Law Since Adam” Argument — And Somehow People Still Miss It by Simon Yap

 

One of the funniest modern theological mistakes is when people read the word “law” in the Bible and immediately imagine a giant invisible legal system floating over every human being since Adam.

That is not how covenants worked in the ancient world.

The Bible itself describes multiple covenants, each with different people, signs, obligations, and purposes. Yet modern readers flatten all of them into one giant universal system and then act as if Adam, Abel, Cain, Egyptians, Chinese dynasties, Vikings, and modern Malaysians were all secretly standing at Mount Sinai together waiting for Moses.

It is historically absurd.

The Bible itself distinguishes covenants repeatedly.

The Adamic arrangement in Genesis is not the Mosaic covenant.

Adam was never told:

* keep Sabbath regulations,

* observe Passover,

* avoid pork,

* pay temple tithes,

* follow Levitical purity laws,

* report to Aaronic priests,

* observe Jubilee,

* or offer sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple.

Why?

Because those things did not exist yet.

The covenant with Noah was different again. Its sign was the rainbow.

The covenant with Abraham introduced circumcision.

The covenant with Moses introduced Torah and Sinai obligations.

The covenant with David focused on kingship.

The prophetic “new covenant” in Jeremiah addressed Israel and Judah specifically.

The Bible itself separates these covenant systems. Modern readers merge them together because they do not understand covenant theology or ancient legal structures.

Now here is the important distinction:

Knowing something is wrong is NOT the same thing as being under codified covenant law.

A child can know hitting someone is wrong without being under the Penal Code of Malaysia.

A man stranded on an island may know theft is immoral without being subject to the Companies Act.

This is basic legal reasoning.

Yet somehow when people approach the Bible, logic disappears.

They say:

“Cain knew murder was wrong, therefore Cain was under the Mosaic Law.”

That argument is completely irrational.

Why?

Because moral awareness and enacted covenant legislation are not the same thing.

Malaysia had customs and moral expectations long before Parliament enacted modern statutes.

Likewise ancient tribes had social ethics long before Sinai.

Human beings understanding basic social morality does not mean the Mosaic covenant already existed universally from Adam onward.

The Torah was an enacted covenant system given at a specific historical moment to a specific covenant people.

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy constantly repeat this.

Deuteronomy 5 explicitly says:

“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us.”

That alone destroys the idea that Adam and humanity universally stood under Sinai.

Psalm 147 says:

“He has declared his statutes unto Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation.”

Not any nation.

Israel.

The covenant at Sinai was national, legal, and historical.

It was not some cosmic floating legal code binding Australian aborigines, Mayan civilizations, Japanese samurai, and African tribes before they had ever heard of Moses.

This is where modern Christians accidentally turn Torah into something bizarre and ahistorical.

They imagine Sinai operating like some eternal metaphysical constitution hovering invisibly over all humanity since Eden.

But biblical covenants function more like enacted legal jurisdictions.

And this is where the Parliament analogy becomes useful.

Before Parliament enacts a law, people may already know certain actions are harmful or immoral.

But once legislation is enacted, an entirely different category appears:

legal covenant accountability.

That is exactly what happened at Sinai.

Israel became covenantally accountable under Torah.

That included:

* ceremonial obligations,

* civil obligations,

* priestly obligations,

* sacrificial obligations,

* purity obligations,

* and covenant penalties.

You were not merely “immoral” if you violated Torah.

You became a covenant breaker.

That is why prophets accuse Israel of breaking covenant.

Nobody accuses Babylon of failing to keep Passover.

Nobody condemns Egyptians for not observing the Feast of Booths.

Nobody judges Assyria for eating shellfish.

Why?

Because they were not under Sinai jurisdiction.

This distinction is exactly what Paul discusses in Romans and Galatians.

Paul repeatedly distinguishes:

* those under the Law,

* and those apart from the Law.

Romans 2 says Gentiles “have not the law.”

That statement becomes meaningless if everyone already possessed Torah from Adam onward.

Paul’s entire argument depends on covenant distinction.

Many also miss another major point in Romans:

The “Gentiles” Paul discusses are often connected to the scattered northern kingdom of Israel — Ephraim — who had been divorced, scattered among the nations, and prophetically called “not my people” before later restoration.

Paul constantly quotes Hosea regarding this restoration language.

Hosea 1:9 says:

“Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people.”

Then Hosea 1:10 says:

“In the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

Paul directly applies this in Romans 9:24–26.

This matters because many of the sins listed in Romans 1 are specifically the same covenant violations historically associated with the northern kingdom of Israel.

Romans 1:21–32 includes:

* idolatry — Romans 1:21–23

* image worship — Romans 1:23

* sexual immorality — Romans 1:24

* exchanging truth for lies — Romans 1:25

* worshipping creation — Romans 1:25

* homosexual acts — Romans 1:26–27

* covenant corruption and social violence — Romans 1:28–31

These are not random accusations.

The northern kingdom committed these exact sins repeatedly.

Relevant passages include:

* 1 Kings 12:28–30 — golden calves of Jeroboam

* 2 Kings 17:7–18 — Israel’s idolatry and covenant rebellion

* Hosea 4:12–14 — harlotry and sexual corruption

* Hosea 8:4–6 — idols from their silver and gold

* Amos 2:6–8 — sexual immorality and oppression

* Amos 5:26 — idol worship

* Ezekiel 23 — graphic prophetic imagery of Israel’s whoredoms among the nations

Paul’s audience would have recognized these covenant themes immediately.

Even when Gentiles demonstrate conscience, Paul does not say they possess Sinai covenant membership.

He says they show “the work of the law” written on their hearts.

Conscience is universal.

Torah was covenantal.

That is the distinction people keep missing.

And then Paul says something even more devastating to the “everyone was under Mosaic Law since Adam” crowd in Romans 5:13:

“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.”

Notice how embarrassingly clear that is.

Paul explicitly says:

* sin existed before the Law,

* and the Law was “given” at a point in history.

If the Mosaic Law had already existed universally since Adam, Paul’s statement becomes nonsense.

Yet people still quote Cain, point at morality, and confidently announce:

“See? Torah already existed!”

At that point they are not arguing with critics anymore.

They are arguing with Paul himself while apparently failing basic reading comprehension.

Paul literally distinguishes between:

1. the existence of sin,

2. and the later giving of covenant law.

That is the entire point.

Sin can exist before codified covenant legislation exists.

Which is exactly what any functioning legal system already understands.

Modern readers confuse morality with covenant legislation.

But in ancient Jewish understanding, “the Law” meant Torah covenant identity tied to Israel.

To be “under the Law” did not merely mean:

“you know murder is bad.”

It meant:

you stood legally and covenantally under Sinai’s enacted jurisdiction.

That is why equating Adam with Israel under Torah is as ridiculous as claiming ancient tribal villagers in prehistoric Borneo were secretly under the Malaysian Companies Act before Parliament even existed.

The covenant did not yet exist.

And the Bible itself says so repeatedly