1. The Central Text: 1 Corinthians 1:18–25
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing; but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. […] Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called […] Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
This statement contains the fundamental axis of Pauline theology:
- The cross = “the power and wisdom of God.”
- Rational and religious reactions (Jews and Greeks) are invalid.
- Only the “called” can see in the cross the hidden truth.
This is not merely a theological comment—it is an ideological definition:
- Whoever accepts the cross is “chosen” and sees the truth.
- Whoever rejects it is “stumbling” or “foolish.”
Through this formula, Paul blocks any historical, moral, or prophetic evaluation of the event. Instead of the cross being judged as the world’s wrong response, it becomes the pinnacle of divine revelation.
2. Everything Is Reduced to the Cross
“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”
(1 Corinthians 2:2)
This declaration is significant. Instead of preaching:
- the teachings of Jesus (the Sermon on the Mount),
- His miracles and healings,
- the resurrection as victory over evil,
Paul chooses to preach only the cross.
Not out of loyalty to the event, but because only there does he find the paradox necessary to build a philosophical–religious system.
3. The Cross Becomes the Axis of an Eternal Plan
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world […] In Him we have redemption through His blood…”
(Ephesians 1:4–7)
“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood…”
(Romans 3:25)
Paul claims that:
- God planned the cross “before the foundation of the world.”
- The bloody death of the Anointed One was “ordained” by God.
This completely contradicts the prophetic model and the teaching of Jesus, who warns the world about the evil it will commit:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets…” (Matthew 23:37)
Jesus never says that God “planned” for Him to be killed.
On the contrary, He condemns the people who planned His killing.
4. Labeling Those Who Do Not Accept the Cross
Paul does not argue rationally; instead, he classifies opposition as spiritual inferiority:
- Jews are “stumbling” at the cross because they expected signs (i.e., fulfilled prophecies).
- Greeks consider it “foolishness” because they judge rationally.
Instead of responding to these positions, Paul invalidates them:
“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise…”
(1 Corinthians 1:27)
This is a typical philosophical strategy:
- You do not answer the question; you redefine the questioner as “blind,” “foolish,” or “hardened.”
Exactly as noted above: Paul does not want dialogue—he wants adherence.
5. The Cross as Absolute Center: Everything Becomes an Instrument of Crucifixion
Galatians 3:13:
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’”
Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 and applies it to the Anointed One.
He transforms the cross into a ritual substitution in which the Anointed One becomes a curse to “redeem” others.
But this is an artificial theological construction:
- The Law spoke about cursed criminals, not about the Anointed of the Lord.
- The crucifixion of the Anointed One is not a legal ritual but a moral rejection.
By using this technique, Paul overlays the historical crime with a theological layer and transforms it into a divine act.
6. The Gospel Scene That Supplied the Missing Evidence
Paul’s theology of curse contained a decisive weakness: he possessed no declaration from Jesus confirming that the Father had cursed or abandoned Him. The historical event showed betrayal by Judas, abandonment by the disciples, rejection by religious authority, condemnation by Pilate, and execution by Roman power. Every visible element belonged to human action. Nothing spoken by Jesus transformed that human crime into divine punishment.
Luke preserves the original final declaration: “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Jesus dies addressing God as Father and entrusting His life to Him. These are not the words of someone who believes that God has withdrawn from Him. They express confidence, communion, and conscious surrender.
Matthew and Mark originally ended the scene with the same declaration and contained no “Eli/Eloi” episode. Their present forms preserve the evidence of later alteration. Mark retains the final loud cry but gives it no words, revealing that the authentic declaration was removed while its narrative frame remained. Matthew says that Jesus cried out “again,” exposing the duplication created when “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” and the accompanying Elijah misunderstanding were inserted before the original final declaration was suppressed.
John independently confirms the character of the original ending. Jesus remains lucid, speaks to His mother and the beloved disciple, acknowledges His thirst, receives the sour wine, declares “It is finished,” and gives up His spirit. Luke preserves the final words of trust; John preserves the clarity and composure of the moment. The sour wine belongs to this older event and was appropriated into the fabricated Elijah scene.
The interpolation supplied the Gospel evidence that Paul’s theology had lacked. Paul declared that Christ became “a curse for us”; the edited passion narrative then made Jesus appear to confirm that curse by declaring Himself abandoned by God. Human abandonment was transferred into the relationship between the Father and the Melek. The victim was made to testify that the suffering imposed by His killers had become a divine rupture.
The canonical contradiction could then be preserved as theological depth. Luke presents trust, the altered Matthew and Mark present abandonment, and John presents lucidity and completion. Philosophy calls the contradiction a paradox or mystery and gives interpreters the authority to explain how Jesus could trust the Father while simultaneously being forsaken by Him. Once the editorial layer is removed, the contradiction disappears. Human beings abandoned Jesus; the Father did not.
7. Conclusion: Paul Turned the Cross into an Axiom of “Truth” Through Paradox
Through all these texts, Paul:
- Reinterpreted the rejection of the Anointed One as “God’s purpose.”
- Eliminated all rational or prophetic analysis.
- Built a system of “faith in the absurd,” in which only those who accept without understanding are considered “chosen.”
This is exactly the essence of a philosophical–ideological theology, not a prophetic revelation.
It follows the model of late Greek philosophy, where:
“Truth is not what it appears to be, but the opposite of what is evident.”
The Philosophical Technique of Paradox
After centering his entire theology on the cross, the apostle Paul develops a system that appears coherent but is deeply contradictory, using a technique well-known from late Greek philosophy: the construction of deliberate paradoxes. In this system, truth is not what is evident, but precisely what appears absurd. Thus the cross—something that to any witness of the event was shameful, criminal, and proof of rejection—becomes “the wisdom of God.”
1. The Strategy of Inversion: Truth Through the Opposite of What Is Evident
Paul repeatedly claims that what appears to be foolishness is actually wisdom:
“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.”
(1 Corinthians 1:27)
“God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”
(1 Corinthians 1:27)
This formulation is structurally identical to the dialectical technique in philosophy, especially in the Stoic tradition and later taken up by Neoplatonism and Hegel: what seems weak or absurd is, in reality, superior.
It is a reversal of values, an annulment of evident logic in favor of a “deeper truth” that cannot be verified—only accepted.
Paul does not demonstrate this claim; he imposes it as an axiom.
Whoever accepts it is “chosen”; whoever does not remains “stumbling” or “foolish.”
2. The Result: A Religious Axiom Impossible to Challenge
Paul constructed a closed system in which:
- Evil becomes “good” (the cross is wisdom),
- The refusal to accept the paradox is a sign of spiritual weakness,
- Criticism receives no response but is nullified through labeling,
- Prophetic logic is replaced with a sacred, philosophical framework inaccessible to the “natural” mind.
This is the technique of an ideological system: it encloses the mind in a circle, offers an apparently “profound” axiom (in reality contradictory), and eliminates any objection from the outset.