The Saul/Paul Controversy, Part 6
Friends, in this episode of the Saul/Paul Controversy, Part 6, we will focus on several objections to Saul/Paul by his numerous critics. Was he a Jew or a Benjamite, as he himself reports? The following article is written by a member of the British Israel branch of Christian Identity. Those of British Israel have taught that the Jewish People are actually Israelites of the Tribe of Judah. We of American Israel teach that the Jews of Saul’s time were neither Shemites, Israelites nor Judahites but, in fact, they were Idumeans and Canaanites pretending to be Judahites. (This, of course, is still true today.) The Idumeans and Canaanites were always counted among Israel’s enemies, so they cannot be of our family. There is much confusion in the Bible because of this misidentification of the Jewish people and the Judahites. The simple, factual difference between these two groups is as follows: Judahites are, by definition, 100% Israelites of the Tribe of Judah, having both parents of Israelite stock. Jews are, and always have been, of mixed-race origin. Jews teach that only the mother is required to be Jewish for her children to be considered Jewish. This Jewish definition cannot be found in the Bible. It is a Pharisaic teaching. And it is also a fact, according to Josephus and the Bible itself (Matt. 23:35, John 8:44), that the Pharisees stem from the mixture of Idumeans and Judahites. On this basis they SAY they are Judah but are NOT. (Rev. 2:9 and 3:9.)
Many of those in British Israel do not make this very important distinction. Hence, the confusion caused by the word ‘Jew,’ as used to refer to these two very different ethnic groups, is perpetuated by the British Israel movement. Keeping this error in mind, this study by Brandon Hawkins is an excellent addition to our series on the Saul/Paul Controversy. My comments will be in brackets and in italics. -- Pastor Eli.
THE CASE OF SAUL OR PAUL
By BRANDON P. HAWKINS
First published in the United Kingdom by Britain’s Biblical Background
Republished by The Historic Research Group, New Zealand.
INTRODUCTION
There is today much controversy within the Israel-Identity movement concerning this man "Saul" or "Paul". Conflicting reports are coming to us from scholarly sources expounding both pro and anti points of view. - Were Paul's writings inspired or conspired? This is the point of study and only the acid test of Scripture will reveal the justice of God, for His words are perfect and do not contradict themselves. Do Paul's words, then, conflict with themselves or with writings of any others in the Bible, including those words spoken by our Master - Jesus, the Anointed (One)?
Before examining the evidence we must be impartial, gathering our conclusions from the inspired text of God - that is from the Hebrew and Greek texts in which God caused our Bible to be written, and not from man-made translations of these texts.
"THE CASE":
| INDEX OF INDICTMENTS | |
| SECTION ONE ............... | IS SAUL GUILTY OF MURDER? |
| SECTION TWO ............... | SAUL'S CONVERSION - IS THIS STORY TRUE OR FALSE?.. |
| SECTION THREE .......... | APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN SAUL'S CONVERSION STORY |
| SECTION FOUR.............. | NUMERICAL SIGNIFICANCE.. |
| SECTION FIVE ............... | IS PAUL THE TWELFTH APOSTLE? |
| SECTION SIX ................. | PAUL AND THE LAW. |
| SECTION SEVEN ........... | PAUL AND UNCLEAN MEATS. |
| SECTION EIGHT ........... | PAUL'S RACIAL BACKGROUND. |
| SECTION NINE .............. | PAUL AND IDOL SACRIFICES. |
| SECTION TEN ................ | PAUL'S COMMUNION CONTRADICTION. |
| SECTION ELEVEN ........ | IS PAUL A PHARISEE? |
| SECTION TWELVE ....... | PAUL AND DEAD BELIEVERS. |
| SECTION THIRTEEN .... | PAUL TO THE GENTILES. |
| SECTION FOURTEEN ... | PAUL THE UNIVERSALIST. |
____________________________________________________________
Section One: IS SAUL GUILTY OF MURDER?
PROSECUTION
In the Book entitled 'The Acts of the Apostles' as written by Luke, we see the event in story form in which an ardent Jew named Saul is apparently converted to become an Apostle of Jesus, the Messiah. Before this apparent conversion, Saul of Tarsus not only consented to the death of Stephen, a Disciple and a zealous Hellenist (i.e. Grecian Jew [sic, a Hellenist of Judahite stock -- Eli]), who was stoned to death, but Saul also went hunting out other followers of Jesus and had them bound for trial by the authorities.
Thus, because of Saul's consent, he is guilty of murder, and therefore...... in accord with Mosaic Law, should be put to death. The Lord would hardly select a murderer to be a chosen vessel.
DEFENCE
In defence of this man let us commence by looking at his background. Saul was born in Tarsus, the main city of Cilicia in Asia Minor. This city was noted for both literature and philosophy, which were regarded equal with that of Athens and Alexandria. His father, being a Pharisee, brought him up in the faith of Jewry. While being educated by Gamaliel, one of the foremost Rabbis, he gained knowledge in Syro-Chaldaic, (referred to as 'Hebrew' in the New Testament), although his natural tongue was Greek. This tuition required him to reside in Jerusalem which added to his already eager high regard for Judaism and led him to follow his Elders zealously while still a young man, and to side with them against Christianity.
Saul had much to be proud of in the eyes of society, especially with his impeccable genealogy as a Benjamite. [This is a main point of contention by Paul’s critics, who cite his origin in Tarsus as belying his claim of being a Benjamite. But there is no contradiction here, because the Tribes of Israel were scattered throughout Asia Minor and Europe in these times. I have not seen any credible evidence to contradict Paul’s statement. -- Eli] He was zealous for his temple and wanted to administer justice according to God's Law, which plainly states in Leviticus 24:14-16 that blasphemy against God was punishable by stoning the offender to death. The same death penalty was also mandatory for the leader or prophet that undertook to turn people away from following the Lord God (Deuteronomy 13:5). Hence even in the 'Law of God', Stephen would have been guilty IF, and only IF, Jesus were not the Son of God. This was the only Mosaic Law, which the Pharisees could use to persecute the out-called (Greek-'ekklesia'), but by using it, the Pharisees were plainly denying acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, and at the same time His power of redemption. They were also proving their hypocrisy by not heeding the abundant signs and prophecies stated throughout the Scriptures, which they professed to know intimately. Any one of those signs if studied without prejudice would have proved His authenticity. Let us not forget though that those other Apostles had not only met the Messiah personally, but had also received the benefit of His tuition concerning the Divine Plan. If one were to accuse Saul of following his tutors like a sheep without questioning their judgement, then one would have a strong case. But how many of us, under those same circumstances and in that same environment - considering Saul's age - would stop to question such authority? I wonder?
DID SAUL CONSENT TO STEPHEN'S DEATH?
The Greek word here used for 'consent' is 'suneudukeo' which literally means 'to think well with'. Other renderings of this word are translated as 'content', 'please' and 'allow' - thus all are showing an agreeable state of mind. NO VERBAL CONSENT was given by Saul. If this had been meant, then the Greek wording used would have been 'ek sumphonou' meaning literally 'with a voice' (i.e. by verbal consent) I Corinthians 7:5.
I am fully aware that the A.V. reads in Acts 26:10 (Paul speaking) ...
".. and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death gave my voice against them." The Greek word here for 'voice' is 'psephos' meaning 'a smooth stone' or 'pebble'. These pebbles were used for voting. A white pebble showed one's approval, and a black pebble showed one's condemnation. This means that it was a non-vocal act to illustrate the individual's view. The Revised Version renders its translation 'vote' instead of 'voice' in this passage. With only silent agreement supporting Stephen's martyrdom, given in this manner, how could anyone accuse Saul of being the actual murderer? Knowing especially that Saul was not a member of the Sanhedrin, it follows that his vote would NOT carry much weight anyway in the final verdict.
Were the suggestion for the reinstatement of the death penalty to be proposed today, I am sure that we would all be in an 'agreeable state of mind' regarding its enactment in our judicial system. But if a case should arise, where fresh evidence comes to light after the execution of a supposed murderer - proving his innocence - are the jury then to be labelled 'murderers' themselves because they agreed with the sentence of the judicial system, or made such a decision on the evidence presented at the time? We would have to call the case 'unfortunate' to say the least, and try to ensure that such an incident did not recur. However, no individual could be charged with murder, nor could such an accusation be made against anyone who bound a suspected criminal for trial in our courts. Under these conditions, the Law of God would not classify Saul as a murderer. This means that a charge of Murder against Saul can not stand.
Now the 'accused' is not entirely without blame, as Paul himself testifies in many passages. He also says of himself, "For I am the least of the apostles and am not fit to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the out-called of God." (I Corinthians 15:9.) His regret is visible also in the changing of his Hebrew name - from 'Saul' meaning 'an asked one', to 'Paul' meaning 'a little one' - once again a permanent acknowledgement of his now humble disposition.
As for Saul's eligibility for appointment as an Apostle, our Lord Jesus will accept all those [of the descendants of the two Houses of Israel and Judah to whom the Covenants pertain. – Eli] who truly repent, or more correctly, 'change their mind' (Greek - 'metanoeo'). The only 'unforgiveable' sin, in fact, is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" which is not the crime in question here. No, Saul was eligible, and his pre-conversion reputation made him a fine example to express the all-redeeming power that Jesus had now gained for His brethren.
Section Two: SAUL'S CONVERSION
(IS THIS STORY TRUE OR FALSE?)
PROSECUTION
A leading witness for the Prosecution states that Paul says, "Prove all things". He then quotes our Lord acknowledging the validity of witnesses (John 8:3-11), and asks for Paul's witnesses to this event whilst on the road to Damascus. Secondly, he suggests that Luke wrote The Acts by second-hand reports and was not an eye-witness. And thirdly, Paul repeats this story twice with differing accounts, thus showing conflict within his own reports.
DEFENCE
The first point stating the necessity for witnesses is invalid. The quote from Deuteronomy 19:15"...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" is only of concern when a legal matter requires witnesses to enforce the death penalty of the Law, which our Lord endorses in the passage quoted by the 'Prosecution' (above) i.e. John 8:3-11. The passage concerns the stoning of the woman caught in the act of adultery. However, Saul did have witnesses at the time of this event - but more about that later. Divine revelations are often given without witnesses - such as in the case of Moses and the burning bush; and even in the giving of the Divine Law to Moses, certainly no witnesses were present besides God and Moses. As for the second suggestion that Luke wrote The Acts using 'second- hand' reports, this is not entirely true. Luke accompanied Paul on some journeys and would have gathered eye-witness reports of other events. Luke was the first historian of the 'early Christian' movement and a historian cannot be in every place and at every occasion about which he writes. Luke collected information from reliable sources in cases when he was not personally present, but he was often in the company of Paul on his travels. Acts 16:10 is such an example where the change from the third person 'they' in verse 8 becomes the first person 'we' in verse 10. This indicates that Luke had joined Paul here, which happens in other passages as well. Does this mean then that Luke's account of The Acts cannot be trusted? Not at all. Moses was not an eye-witness to Genesis, but he wrote it; must we also doubt his account?
If we suppose that this report of The Acts cannot be taken as truth, then what of the rest of Luke's writings including his Gospel? Let us assume for a moment that this report was false, it would not only reflect on the character of Luke, but also of Ananias whom Jesus sent in order that Paul should receive his sight back. Not to mention Peter, who vouches for the authenticity of Paul's conversion in II Peter 3:14-16. Here are three unimpeachable witnesses. If one is a liar, then they all must be collaborators to support that lie within the Scriptures - God's Own Book.
The third point concerns Paul's differing accounts of the same event. As we are trying to assess the stability of Paul's character, then it should be noted that NOT ONE of these accounts was written by Paul, himself. In fact, all three accounts of this story are given by Luke in The Acts. Once again, do we conclude that Luke's testimony is here also in conspiracy with Paul ... in God's written word?
Each account (Acts 9:3 & following, 22:6 & following, 26:13 & following) throws more light on the event than the previous one, but none conflict except for an apparent contradiction, which arises not from any fault on Paul's part, but from the inability of our translators to translate the text correctly as will be shown in Section Three.
Remember, God is PERFECT. And The Bible is His word - from Genesis to Revelation (as written in the original Hebrew and Greek texts). This is His testimony of guidance for the belief and instruction of His people. How could any of His witnesses be unreliable? Whether the chosen writers were eye-witnesses to the events recorded by them or not, the inspiration of the Spirit would ensure that the accounts rendered were PERFECT and acceptable in His sight as Luke himself states categorically in Luke 1:3, which reads from the Greek text ... "...having been acquainted from above in all things exactly..." Providing that the translation into English faithfully reads what God caused to be written in the original languages, then all that Luke wrote must be classed along with the rest of Scripture.
Section Three: APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN SAUL'S CONVERSION STORY
PROSECUTION
We are told in Acts 9:7 that the men journeying with Paul, at the time of the event stood speechless, hearing the voice yet beholding no one. Yet in Acts 22:9 we read Paul saying ... "And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me."
DEFENCE
It is true that in most Bibles, there appears to be a contradiction between what Paul said in Acts 9:7 and what he said in Acts 22:9. But first, let us remember who it was who wrote the Book of Acts and if Luke did not notice any contradiction between these verses, then it is quite possible that there is NO contradiction, whatever, in the Greek text which the author wrote down, and that, once again, the fault lies with the way in which it has been translated into English.
First let us look at this verb 'to hear' and then notice the way in which it is used throughout the New Testament. The Lexicons tell us that it is used in 3 distinct ways
1. to hear
2. to hear with understanding, or to understand by hearing
3. to hear and obey or to hear (which includes hearing and understanding) and obey.
And the lexicons also list several passages of Scripture, which illustrate the use of this verb in these differing shades of meaning even though the English translation may not reveal the true meaning accurately.
Such an example is John 8:43 in the A.V., where Jesus said to the Pharisees ...
"Why do ye not 'understand' (get to know) My speech (teaching)? Because ye cannot hear My word."
Now it is obvious that if Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees then -
a) they were not deaf, and
b) they must have been able to hear Him.
But it is equally obvious that since they could hear Jesus, then what Jesus was saying was that the reason they did not 'get to know' His teaching was because they could not comprehend or understand what He taught. Therefore the verb 'to hear' in the second sentence of verse 43 would have made better sense if it had been translated as in (2) above, 'cannot understand'.
If this alternative meaning of the verb 'to hear' is applied to Acts 9:7 and 22:9, it will be found that the apparent 'contradiction' disappears. It will be noted from Acts 26:14 that "the voice" spoke to Paul in Hebrew, and those who were with Paul may not have been familiar with this tongue since the local languages were Aramaic and Greek at that time.
Then in Acts 22:9 we are told that the men with Paul did NOT (Greek - emphatic NOT) 'hear' the voice, but in Acts 9:7 we are told that they DID 'hear' the voice. Thus it should be obvious that –like the Pharisees of John 8:43 - they 'heard' the voice but did NOT understand what was said.
Acts 22:9 would have made better sense in English had it been given its second meaning (2) of 'to understand' instead of 'to hear'. This verse should have been translated as follows:
"Now the (ones) who were with me indeed saw the light but did not understand the voice of the One speaking to me".
It should be noted very carefully that the ability to understand what is heard can be distinctly implied, or as firmly negated, in Greek, simply by changing the Greek form in which the word 'voice' is written, and/or the syntax of the sentence. Furthermore, this ability to 'understand' can be negated or cancelled without in any degree cancelling the hearing of the 'voice' or the sound that is heard. It is the failure of almost all of the translators of our Bibles to note the different forms of the word 'voice' in Acts 9:7 and 22:9, and the syntax of the sentences. This has led to failure to translate the verb correctly, bringing about what appears to be a contradiction in English, but which is not the case on the parts of either Paul who spoke the words, nor Luke who recorded them. Both men knew their Greek grammar better then the translators of our popular Bibles.
In Acts 9:7 the form of the word 'voice' definitely negates any ability to understand what the voice said (as is also the case in John 5:25 where all the dead will likewise fail to understand what the voice will say except "the ones hearing -AND understanding"). Therefore verse 7 should have been translated from the Greek text ...
"The men who were travelling with him stood speechless (with fright), hearing indeed the voice but neither understanding (it) nor seeing anyone (speaking)".
In Acts 22:7 the form of the word 'voice' would appear to negate the understanding by Paul. But this is not so here, because the context records a conversation ensuing. It is apparent in this case that the form of the 'voice' is governed by a preposition which, in Greek idiom, need not be spoken or written. Paul "heard (from) a voice saying... ". This idiom occurs in many other passages - for example John 9:31, "God does not hear (from) sinners".
In Acts 22:9 the form of the word 'voice' most definitely implies both hearing and understanding, but only one of these faculties is negated by the Greek emphatic 'NOT'. Now the men with Paul were not deaf, so obviously they heard the voice, which undoubtedly was both thunderous and terrifying enough to render them speechless. Therefore it could only be their understanding of what the voice said was negated, because nothing could have prevented them from hearing the voice itself. This agrees PERFECTLY with Acts 9:7.
Rev. W. K. Lowther-Clarke notes in his 'Concise Bible Commentary'
"That Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin may be taken for granted. He was a leader among the Greek speaking Jews [sic, Judeans, not Jews. The Jews are the followers of the scribes and Pharisees. They were the very Edomites and Canaanites who could not "hear" the word of Yahshua. The Jews are not our people and none of the Apostles ever tried to convert a Jew. Neither did Yahshua ever try to convert a Jew. That’s why He spoke in parables when they were around, so that they should NOT be converted. (Matt. 13:10-15.) But some Judahites were followers of the scribes and Pharisees, not understanding the world of difference there is between Pharisaism and the Law of Moses. No Judahite should EVER be referred to as a "Jew," for the Jews are a different ethnicity entirely. – Eli] at Jerusalem who accepted Pharisaism in its strict form."
In view of this and the foregoing, the most likely explanation for the lack of understanding by those accompanying Paul would be because of a lingual ability that did not extend to the 'Hebrew' that our Lord spoke to Paul. There is NO contradiction here whatsoever, and the eminent scholars W. E. Vine and Cremer both attest this view on grammatical grounds.
Section Four: NUMERICAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROSECUTION
The "numerics" are very telling in our case against Paul. If one would care to count the Books of the Bible, including Paul's Epistles, we have a total of 66 Books. This number indicates extreme evil, however if we take out Paul's 13 Epistles the 53 Books remaining are much more acceptable. Please note - Paul has 13 Epistles, the number of "rebellion".
DEFENCE
Once again the Prosecution have not done their homework before making such a bland statement. We do have 66 Books in our Bible but perhaps not in God's Bible. Here is a note from F.W. Grant's 'Numeric Bible' ...
"The Bible as a whole has 63 Books, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles being really only one each: our present division of them having been adopted from the Septuagint" (a translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into the Greek.) "And (this number) 63 equals 7 x 3 x 3. Here we have, then, the symbol of perfection, and that of Divine manifestation intensified, -'God glorified in His perfectly accomplished work'. It is, as God's testimony to man, divided into two parts, perfectly distinct - the Old Testament and the New. (Testament and Covenant are the same word in the original).
Part I: In the Old Testament we have the Creator-God, Sovereign and Almighty, and here, 36 Books (3 x l2) exhibit Him in Holy and manifest government.
Part II: In the New Testament, we have God speaking in the Son, also Son of Man, the Saviour; and its 27 Books (3 x 3 x 3) show us how He has graciously manifested Himself..."
E. W. Bullinger D.D. has a different view as is noted in his book entitled 'Number in Scripture'. On page 25 he says...
"In the Hebrew MSS. Ezra and Nehemiah are always reckoned as one Book, with the one name, Ezra. Each of the double Books is reckoned as one Book (e.g. I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles), and all the Minor Prophets are also reckoned as one Book. This makes 24 Books in all. This is 8 x 3 both factors stamping the number with the seal of Divine perfection."
Dr. Bullinger says of the New Testament ...
"The New Testament contains 27 separate Books (3 x 3 x 3). Of these 27 books, 21 (3 x 7) are Epistles."
However, Ivan Panin in his article 'The Books of the Bible' puts forward perhaps the most convincing argument, even though it differs from both the other scholars.
"Now the first fact in Bible numerics to be noticed here is that the number of Books in the Bible is 66, or 6 ELEVENS (Feature 1); of these the anonymous Books are 22 in number, or 2 ELEVENS; and the non-anonymous Books are 44 in number, or 4 ELEVENS (Feature 2). And of these 44 non-anonymous Books 22, or 2 ELEVENS, belong to writers of more than one Book (Feature3). The Books without Epistles are 33 in number, or 3 ELEVENS; the Epistles and Epistolary Books are also 33 (Feature 4). That is to say - the whole number of Bible Books being a MULTIPLE OF ELEVEN, it is divided between Books naming their authors and Books not naming them, between Books belonging to only one author and Books belonging to more than one, between Books with letters and Books without by - ELEVENS."
Should lvan Panin be correct in his conclusions, then the Prosecution would also be correct in claiming the present 66 Books of the Bible to be confirmed. If, in their view, this nUmber of Books is intolerable, then why should Paul's contribution be penalised alone? After all, whatever calculation differences divide these scholars, the disagreements lie only in the Books of the Old Testament.
In fact all three agree on the conclusion of 27 Books in the New Testament, and more important still, the necessity for the Epistle to the Hebrews to have also been written by Paul. This would make Paul responsible for 14 Epistles - a fact not credited to him by the Prosecution. Paul's 14 (7 x 2) Epistles are vouched for by lvan Panin using numerical proofs in his article "The Books of the Bible" section 12 & 13. Panin also gives further convincing evidence in his 'Numeric New Testament', (see 'Notes' section).
Dr. Bullinger states in his 'Number in Scripture' book, under the title 'Evidence as to Authorship'
"This (numeric) law, affecting the occurrence of important words, may be used in evidence as to authorship. For example, if we take certain words in Paul's Epistles alone, we do not find the law operating unless we include the Epistle to the Hebrews. If we add the occurrences in Hebrews to those in the other Pauline Epistles, the harmony is at once restored."
Dr. Bullinger then continues to give over 3 pages of the 'numerics' of words that do not harmonise unless the Hebrews Epistle is attributed to Paul. He also states in his 'Companion Bible', concerning 'Hebrews' "The arguments in favour of the Pauline authorship are much more weighty than those in favour of all other candidates put together".
'Dake's Annotated Bible' makes several observations supporting Paul's authorship. Here are just a few ...
"The thoughts and reasonings are Paul's. Any difference in style is due to his writing to Jews [sic, Judeans of Judahite heritage – Eli] as a Jew [sic, Judean of Judah – Eli] and not to gentile churches as in other Epistles (but as one who studied at the feet of Gamaliel). Furthermore, the translation of the Book (from Syro-Chaldaic 'Hebrew' as Paul wrote it) into the Greek was carried out by Luke which may account for some change in style. The Book of 'Hebrews' is ascribed to Paul by over 100 ancient writers in both Greek and Latin, from 70 to 730 A.D. Paul was the only New Testament writer who wrote from prison and expected release-Hebrews 13:19, 23 with Philemon 1:7-8, 13, 26, 2:23, 24. No other writer of Epistles mentions Timothy. Paul refers to him 20 times and calls him 'brother' - II Corinthians 1:1, Colossians 1: 1, I Thessalonians 3:2 and Hebrews 13:23."
The oldest papyri manuscript ever found was discovered in 1931. It is known as the 'Chester Beatty Papyri' and regards Paul as being the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. However the most conclusive evidence comes directly from Scripture itself, where Peter declares the proof that 'Paul wrote Hebrews'. He makes this statement in II Peter 3:15
"... even as our beloved Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you ".
But who is the 'you' to whom Peter is referring? Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision, therefore his Epistles are all addressed to Jews [sic, Judahites – Eli], dispersed in neighbouring lands. [The Jewish people have no connection whatsoever to the Dispersed House of Israel. Their own literature says that those "Jews" disappeared, never to be found again!! But these are, in fact, the so-called "Gentiles." -- Eli] So in Peter's Epistle to the circumcised, he says that Paul, (the Apostle to the uncircumcised) has written to the circumcised! As Paul says in I Corinthians 9:20 ...
"To the Jews [Judahites] I became as a Jew [Judahite] in order to win Jews [Judahites]..."
The only Epistle, which Paul could have written to include the Jews [Judahites], was 'Hebrews'. No other could be considered. [British Israel confusion on this point is here plainly manifest. Since Paul is a self-proclaimed Benjamite, that makes him officially a member of the House of Judah, thus a Judahite by nationality. This Epistle was written to the Hebrews of Spain. Those Hebrews WERE NOT PART OF THE DISPERSION OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL IN 745 BC. The Hebrews of Spain were part of a MUCH EARLIER MIGRATION from the Egyptian captivity, around 1500 BC. This migration occurred BEFORE THE EXODUS and it included a large contingent of the Tribe of Gad. Hence, these people, who had brought their traditions directly from Egypt, RETAINED THE RITE OF CIRCUMCISION, as did the House of Judah in Palestine. – Eli]
Section Five: IS PAUL THE TWELFTH APOSTLE?
PROSECUTION
In Acts, from verse 15, there is a clear account of Peter organising the election of Matthias from the brethren, to be the Apostle to replace Judas lscariot. This was decided firstly by giving prayer and then by a drawing of lots. Therefore the twelve Apostles were thus established. If Paul then became an Apostle, it would make the total number of Apostles 13. Not only is this an undesirable number for God's administration, but it is quite out of step with Revelation, and Matthew 19:28 which states that twelve Apostles only are seated in judgement over the twelve tribes of Israel.
DEFENCE
The Prosecution is quite correct as regards the election of Matthias, but at no time does Paul claim to be one of the Twelve. He claims to be an apostle to the out-called ones, the Saints of Israel. It appears from John 15:27 and Acts 1:21, 22 that to have been a witness to Jesus' life throughout His ministry, even to His resurrection, was vital. Paul witnessed neither. But that is not all. There are other main points to be found - for example Acts 1:26 states that the drawing of lots favoured Matthias ...
" ... and he was reckoned along with the eleven Apostles. "
The following verse states that ALL the Apostles were sitting together in a house, and there they were ALL filled with Holy Spirit. This account is Scriptural and proves Matthias to have been Divinely accepted. Another proof is in Acts 6, where in verse 2 we read that the 'twelve' summoned the body of disciples, and verse 6 clarifies these twelve as being the Apostles. The twelve Apostles here are choosing Stephen for a mission. It was only after Stephen's death that Paul was even converted –once again, proof that Matthias was the twelfth Apostle who replaced Judas. But was Paul also an Apostle?
This is the question that the Prosecution has failed to look at closely enough. Neither Barnabas nor Paul were of the Twelve, however they entered Iconium together in Acts 14:1 and verse 4 states that the multitude of the city were divided between the Jews [here the word is correctly used because the Jews (followers and kinsmen of the Pharisees) were always the antagonists of Yahshua and His followers. – Eli] and the Apostles. A more direct reference can be found in Acts 14:14. It reads ...
"Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their clothes". Romans 16:7 extends the title to 'Andronicus' and 'Junias'. In II Corinthians 8:23 (R.V. margin) the Greek text speaks of two unnamed brethren that are called 'Apostles' (representatives) of the churches or gatherings (Greek. 'ekklesias'). In Philippians 2:25 (R.V. margin) and the Greek text, Epaphrodites is referred to as "your apostle" (your representative). It is used in I Thessalonians 2:6 of Paul, Silas and Timothy, to define their relationship as 'Apostles of an Anointed (One)'.
The word is also used of the Lord Jesus Himself to describe His relation to God - Hebrews 3:1, (see John 17:3), because 'apostle' means 'one sent as a representative' of whoever appoints him. A 'disciple', on the other hand, is a 'follower'. There are even 'false apostles' referred to in II Corinthians 11:13.
By these examples it is quite plain that there are many more apostles than just the original Twelve, the latter of whom will sit in judgement over the twelve tribes of Israel. Please note that it is not only the Pauline Epistles that give reference of apostleship to others who are not of the Twelve. We agree that Paul would make the 13th Apostle, but Jesus appointed him to be His representative to the out-called ones of Israel, those dispersed stragglers, living among the heathen, and like them, without God's Law and not even circumcised. These dispersed Israelites were considered to be so unclean that official Israel would not converse with them. The Samaritan woman claimed this in John 4 and likewise Peter also, on meeting Cornelius after Jesus' death, when he learnt that these 'low' Israelites became acceptable. [Again, this was not true of the Hebrews of Spain, who still practiced circumcision. The debate between Paul and Peter over the "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" is the debate over whether to admit the Dispersed into the New Covenant. Paul argues, very simply, that it is illogical to exclude the Dispersed House of Israel merely because they failed to observe the rite of circumcision, since Yahshua had come to abolish the "oblations" (Dan. 9:27) of the Old Covenant, that is the priestly rituals of blood sacrifice. Peter, in effect, was being more Pharisaic than Paul!!!! – Eli.]
As Paul himself says in I Corinthians 15:9 ...
"For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not fit to be called an apostle because I persecuted the out-called of God". That is why Jesus told the Twelve not to go into the way of the (heathen) nations, or the cities of Samaria (Matthew 10:5), but only to those lost sheep of the Nation of Israel. [Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! He has got this absolutely right!! – Eli]
Although Paul did not qualify for commission as one of the Twelve because he had not witnessed Jesus' earthly ministry, (as stated by Peter), he was selected by the risen Lord Jesus Himself. Paul's commission was to carry the Good News of reconciliation to the dispersed brethren in the Roman Empire - the scattered peoples of Israel. Those 'unclean', cast-off Israelites, "barbarians and Greeks" who could now receive a "placing of sons" (i.e. A.V. 'adoption') through Jesus, to become 'heirs' to the Promises of their Fathers. Jesus could not have done this Himself in His earthly ministry, because until Official Israel had rejected Him, it could not be offered; and that rejection could only be completed after His own death on the stake. [Note, ladies and gentlemen, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH NON-ISRAELITES OR NON-JUDAHITES! There can be NO universalistic interpretation of these Scriptures. Yahshua said Himself "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel." He did NOT SAY "I AM SENT TO THE WORLD." – Eli.]
Section Six: PAUL AND THE LAW
PROSECUTION
There are many passages in Paul's teaching that claim that the law of God is no longer to be considered. For instance, Romans 6:14 states ... "For ye are not under the Law but under grace..." and Galatians 5:18 ... "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law..." Romans 10:4 ... "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth".
How these passages contradict our Lord's words when He said in Matthew 5:17-19 ...
"Think not that 1 am come to destroy the Law or the prophets,. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven"
Surely Paul's bold condemnation of the Law is completely contradictory to these words of Jesus our Lord?
DEFENCE
Again the Prosecution have not done their homework sufficiently, for they fail to state which Law they mean. Or perhaps they are blind to the fact that there are two principle Laws laid down in the Bible. [This is especially true of the Universalists with whom this interpretation originated!!! -- Eli]
1. The Laws of the Nation or Kingdom, which concern our mortal life on this earth - the Book of Deuteronomy contains these in full.
2. The Law of the Temple, which was added to redeem the transgressor of the Kingdom Law from eternal death - this Law appears in full in the Book of Leviticus, and it was administered by the Aaronic Priesthood. Both this Law and the Priesthood came to an end with the death of the Messiah, and were of no further effect.
These two classes of Law, with their respective statutes, were well known to the people of Paul's day. It was also recognised that the Law of Worship (Leviticus) was added for spiritual cleanliness, in order to save the transgressor of God's commands from spiritual death, Galatians 3:19. It was Paul's difficult task to teach these fickle, argumentative Israelites - who were not all heathens- that the Law of Worship had ceased to have any effect after the death of Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb.
Paul was not talking about the Kingdom Law at all!
In Genesis 26:5, Jehovah said ..."Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My Commandments, My statutes and My Laws". These Laws were finally written down in full in the Book of Deuteronomy. Hence Abraham received blessing because he obeyed them. Moses obeyed them, and likewise the prophets, but Israel did not obey them. Consequently, Israel lost her land and entitlement to be called by the name of 'Israel'. It is obvious, therefore, that if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and Israel had to obey the Kingdom Law till the coming of Jesus, and if we are going to have to obey them in the coming Kingdom Age under our Lord, then Scripture and logic tell us that, while the Kingdom exists on earth, THE KINGDOM LAW STANDS! This is the Law that Jesus endorsed by His remarks concerning the carrying out of the least of these commandments, and then stating that a person's position in the Kingdom of the Heavens will be determined by his or her attitude to that Law, while living on the earth.
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things (ie, necessities of LIFE) shall be added to you."
That is the blessing offered for obedience to that Kingdom Law, which is why Israel today is suffering more and more as we strip away piece by piece the discipline of our law, founded upon the Law of God. The Kingdom Law was known to the Greek-speaking Israelites as 'Deutero Nomium', 'the Second Law'- because Leviticus was the more important Law, being the Law of Worship. It took precedence because it offered a spiritual reconciliation to God for breaking the Laws of the Kingdom, hence saving the transgressor from eternal death.
The Kingdom Law, on the other hand, offers physical LIFE or DEATH ON THE EARTH.
Deuteronomy 5:33 -
..that ye may live and that it may be well with thee..."
Deuteronomy 8:1 -
"..that ye may live and multiply..."
Deuteronomy 16:20 -
"...that thou mayest live and inherit..."
But Leviticus 18:5 states ...
"Ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgements (ie. rules and regulations) which, if a man do, he shall live in them. I am Jehovah. "
Notice the difference carefully. Deuteronomy refers to living, multiplying, inheriting, etc. IN THE LAND, which ye shall possess because we do not live and multiply and inherit in Heaven. But in the Leviticus quotation, the words "he will live in them (or 'by' them)", means "he will live by (means of) them", i.e. live again in the resurrection as a result of obeying them. The Chaldee paraphrases it..."shall live by them to life eternal".
The Amplified and some other Bibles have marginal references to Leviticus 18:5, against Romans 10:4-5, Galatians 3:12, and Luke 10:25-28. Both of the Pauline references speak of the Law, and state that there is no need for its further application - and rightly so. Paul is only referring to the Law of Worship, as is noted in the marginal references. This is the Law with its sacrifices which Jesus came to fulfil - which is why John calls Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb, and Daniel prophesies that the Messiah will complete the sacrifices, and that all offerings will cease (Daniel 9:27), being ceremonies of sanctification for the spirit.
So now our atonement from sin comes by belief in Jesus' sacrifice upon the stake. In fact, it is the only means by which we can regain our eternal life. Therefore Paul is not guilty of refuting the Kingdom Law in any way, although he does denigrate man's law on some occasions.
Section Seven: PAUL AND UNCLEAN MEATS
PROSECUTION
If what the Defence say is correct concerning the two separate Laws, then Paul denies the food Laws which is one of the Laws of the Kingdom found in Deuteronomy 14, from verse 3, by proclaiming in Romans 14:14 ...
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean".
DEFENCE
Before we jump to conclusions on this one I would like to point out that this same food Law is also given in Leviticus 11 from verse 1, but in a more extensive form. This was both a Law of Spiritual cleanliness and sanctification (Leviticus 11:44) and a Kingdom Law as a Commandment (Deuteronomy 15:4 & 5) for our physical life, material blessing, and well-being, etc. However, this has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about. The Prosecution here have taken a text out of context, to make a pretext. "Romans" is a letter written by Paul to the saints at Rome for the sole purpose of instructing them (and us) in the basics of what God's Book is all about.
In chapter 14, Paul is trying to sort out a minor difference, which is causing trouble between some sections of this particular group. This disagreement is defined quite clearly in verse 2, and it is still with us today. One faction believes that it can eat meat, and the other group are all vegetarians. The meat-eaters, no doubt, quote the Law as their authority for eating meat, while the other group quote that same law and point out that it is not a commandment to eat meat but simply a list of certain meats, which we may eat if we are foolish enough to do so (Deuteronomy 14:4). And so the dispute continues.
Paul rebukes both sides for their senseless bickering, and urges them to use their heads instead of their emotions and personal inhibitions. Then he states in verse 14 that he (has examined what they are arguing about and) is satisfied that none of the things to which they refer are 'unclean' of themselves, but only so in the mind of the person concerned.
The Greek word for 'unclean' is 'akathartos', but that is NOT the word used in this context. The Greek word translated here as 'unclean' is 'koinos' which means 'common'. So, as Paul says, they were not squabbling about "unclean food" but about clean meats, which, in the minds of some over-scrupulous members, had become 'common' - possibly because of being handled by too many people in the killing, selling, cooking and serving process, and in this way had become 'defiled' to their mind. Thus Paul had satisfied himself that the quality of 'uncleanness' was NOT an actual property of the thing itself, but only a subjective quality in the mind of the person regarding it as 'unclean'. Nevertheless Paul does not dismiss the matter as being childish. He goes on to point out that this subjective quality is quite real to the individual concerned, and other Christians should remember that fact and not cause another to stumble by doing things in front of others who have not got the same understanding of Scripture, as themselves.
Paul says that when one man sees another do something which his own conscience condemns, it causes him pain. But when he is led on to do himself what his own conscience condemns, then he destroys himself morally - for it is fatal to have principles and then disregard them. So, in verse 17, Paul says that you must have some forethought about what you eat and also drink in front of others. For example some people regard it as almost immoral for anyone to drink alcoholic beverages in a public place, lest another Christian - who has not the same will-power, may do the same and so be led on to self-destruction by becoming an incurable alcoholic. There is nothing in this entire chapter which refers to the unclean foods in the food Laws. And to accuse Paul of repudiating the food Laws simply reveals failure on the part of the Prosecution to research the Scriptures sufficiently. The most likely text that prompted Paul in his advice to the squabblers, was Mark 7 which gives the fullest rendition of our Lord Jesus' views on the defilement (or pollution) of food through handling with unwashed hands.
Section Eight: PAUL'S RACIAL BACKGROUND
PROSECUTION
We claim that Paul was an Idumean (Acts 13:1). We also assert that in Paul's Epistle to Titus, he denies the need to look at one's genealogy. This is so that people will not discover Paul's Idumean ancestry. The denial of looking to genealogy is also a contradiction to Isaiah's call to Israel in Chapter 51:1 ...
"Hearken to me ye that follow righteousness, ye that seek the Lord, look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged - Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you; for I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him."
Paul claims to be a Benjamite and projects himself as such. Jesus says in Matthew 24:4 ...
"Take heed that no man deceive you".
We claim that this man is Paul, deceiving the disciples of Christ through glorifying himself falsely for egotistical reasons, or for other gain. In Matthew 7:15 there is a further warning against Paul ...
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." The image that Paul puts forward of being a Benjamite fits this description only too clearly, for one of the symbols of the Tribe of Benjamin is a ravening wolf!
DEFENCE
These 'claims' by critics of St. Paul just collapse because they are too weak to stand up even to elementary examination. Acts 13:1 states that Manaen was a foster brother (or court member) of Herod, and that is the only reason Herod's name is mentioned. The Prosecution's claim therefore is totally unfounded. Manaen is the one connected with Herod -NOT Saul. And the following verse states that the Holy Spirit called for Barnabas and Saul to be separated for the Lord's work, so is the Holy Spirit Himself mistaken?
The quote in Romans 16:11"Salute Herodion my Kinsman", may be just as readily translated "Salute Herodion my countryman". There is nothing in Scripture which states that Herodion was an Idumean. That is an unsupported assumption by the Prosecution. In any case, an Idumean is an Edomite, and Deuteronomy 23:7 states that an Edomite is our brother and therefore a 'kinsman'. [Mr. Hawkins does not realize that Deut. 23:7 is a terrible mistranslation. The correct translation is "Thou shalt not abhor a Syrian." I will append the evidence for this at the end of this article. – Eli.] But there is nothing to indicate that Paul was using the term 'kinsman' in any other sense than that of tribal or family relationship as he does for Andronicus and Junias in verse 7, and Rufus in verse 13. This entire list of names seems to be one of close relatives - hence Benjamites like himself. Herodion is a Greek masculine proper noun, and not a racial term, nor even a term showing support for Herod, which, in Greek, is an entirely different word altogether.
The reference in Titus 3:9 and 1 Timothy 1:4 in which Paul denies the need to search out one's own genealogy, does not conflict with Isaiah's call to Israel. Herod the Tetrarch had ordered the burning of those genealogical records of Israel which were kept in the archives of the Temple, to protect his own rulership. He himself was an Idumean, and therefore he feared any investigation into ancestral records. At that time, of course, the Pharisees were frantically trying to retrace their genealogies in order that they could continue to boast about their ancestry. Paul was also well aware of the class distinction, which would arise when the "heathenised" Israelites, having lost all their records in the captivity, would be joined to the Assembly.
Paul is simply saying that this endless labouring over trying to reconstruct authentic records could be put to better use by labouring in God's stewardship in faith. Isaiah's call for Israel to look to Abraham and Sarah as their father and mother does not mean to compile records of pedigree. It was because of Abraham's faith that we received 'the promises of the fathers'. All Abraham's contemporary Hebrews could have claimed equal entitlement to favour from God if pedigree alone were the criterion.
The Hebrew text means - Pay attention to Abraham and Sarah, or show regard to, or consider. Would we interpret this as a command by God to record pedigree? We, who believe in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic identity as being that of Israel, pay attention to our forefather Abraham as the father of our people. But do we pester Somerset House for confirmation via ancestry? NO, we believe it through believing Moses and the Prophets as Jesus commanded us, for without that belief we cannot believe Jesus either. It was because of Abraham's total obedience and unique faith in God, that God called Abraham..."alone and blessed him and increased him".
There is no evidence for the Prosecution's next claim -
"Take heed that no man deceive you."
This could apply to men in general. But even if it were specific, it would be grossly biased to assume that Paul is the sole target for accusation without further proof. Luke's account of Acts shows Paul befriending and being accepted by the other Apostles, without question. So if Paul was the victim of this quote, then that Spirit which the Apostles received at Pentecost, did nothing to influence these Spiritually-guided men - all of whom were persuaded of Paul's worth, as were Luke, James and Peter.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
The suggestion that the 'ravening wolves' refers here to the symbol of the Tribe of Benjamin, is ridiculous. If Paul were the target, then our Lord would have chosen His words more carefully. Supposing that Paul was actually an Idumean, and also a false prophet, then our Lord would hardly have stated ... 'but inwardly they are Benjamites',- 'outwardly' perhaps. This observation alone is sufficient to refute such a theory. A false prophet is one who makes prophecies, which do not come to pass, but Paul's prophecies did eventuate - as in Acts 23:3 where he told the High Priest Ananias that 'God would smite him'. This came to pass in A.D. 66 when Ananias was assassinated by a rebel group. Therefore Paul was a genuine Prophet, NOT a false one.
Paul was a pure-blooded Benjamite and this Tribe were often recognised as being the light bearing Tribe. This surely makes Benjamin a fit Tribe from which to be selected for Paul's mission.
Section Nine: PAUL AND IDOL SACRIFICES
PROSECUTION
We accuse Paul of contradicting our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, when he asserts that food sacrifices to idols may be eaten (I Corinthians 8:1-13, and I Corinthians 10: 23-28). Our Lord says in Revelation 2:14, addressing the church of Pergamos:
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to EAT THINGS SACRIFICED UNTO IDOLS, and to commit fornication".
DEFENCE
Once again the Prosecution have failed to do their research faithfully. Paul never at anytime refutes the Law or Jesus, as witnessed by his confession of his own beliefs after conversion as stated in Acts 24:14.. I Corinthians 10:23-28 is but the second part of Paul's attack against all things associated with idolatry. This part really begins at verse 14, and follows on from I Corinthians 8:13. The crux of Paul's attack is given in I Corinthians 8:4, which states:
"We know that there is no idol in the 'world' and that there is no God except one".
Therefore Paul's argument is that - provided the meat is clean - then an idol has no power to affect the cleanliness of the meat one way or the other. But, Paul says, every Christian has not got the same knowledge and strength of will, so we must always consider the weaker vessel. Here Paul writes to the Corinthians on the matter of conscience, on much the same lines as in his letter to the Romans (as set out previously) in Romans 14.
In I Corinthians 10:14, Paul resumes the theme he was discussing at I Corinthians 8:13, and he now warns all his listeners to flee from anything to do with sacrificial feasts to idols. Then in verses 16, 17 & 18 he shows how an Israelite, by partaking of the Communion Cup and the Bread, was a partaker of the same sacrifice that Jesus made and therefore partakers in common with the worship of God as represented by the Altar. Similarly, by partaking of libations to idols and of food offered to idols at temple feasts, they were also partaking of the worship, which those idols represented.
Verse 19 - Paul says that such participation in no way made the idol real in any sense. But, verse 20 - the things sacrificed were sacrificed to evil spirits and not to God. Therefore, if they partook of meats or wine offered on an altar at one of the feasts to evil spirits, they became sharers of that worship of evil spirits in the same way that partaking of the Communion Bread and Wine made them sharers of the Worship of God and they could NOT partake in both!
Finally, in verse 25, we come again to the crux of the matter stated in chapter 8:4 ...
"Whatever is sold in the shambles".
This refers to the Jewish [Judean] market where unclean meat could not be sold, let alone brought in. But clean meat, which had been offered as sacrifices to idols, was often sold afterwards in the market place. Thus what Paul says here is that once it has been brought to the market place it is simply clean meat and its previous use is of no consequence. One would buy it as meat, not as part of a sacrifice. This, one could eat without any qualms of conscience. [Also, how would one know if a piece of meat had some incantation pronounced over it before it was brought to market? Does a phony incantation make the meat unclean? Is "kosher" meat any cleaner because a rabbi says so? – Eli]
But Paul also says:
'Ask no questions as to its origin lest some weaker Christian overhears that it was sacrificial meat and sees you eat it, and then because he knows you are a pillar of the 'church', buys and eats it himself against his own scruples and so destroys himself morally by disregarding his own principles.'
Paul goes on to illustrate this and says, verse 27, if a Christian is invited to a meal at an unbeliever's home, then again - provided the meat is clean - he need NOT inquire if it had been sacrificial meat. But if a weaker Christian is also present, and points out that it had been offered to idols, then DO NOT eat it, because of what your eating of it might do to his conscience - not your own conscience. Paul emphasises this in verses 29 and 30, where he states, in effect, that his own conscience will never deviate from what he knows to be true, no matter what another man's scruples may be. Nevertheless, he would, and did, refrain from indulging himself in any act of life such as eating or drinking which might cause a weaker Christian to stumble.
Thus far from contradicting Jesus in any way whatsoever, Paul upholds the Law at every turn, and in every respect, while at the same time giving practical explanations of how to deal with life's every-day problems without unnecessarily complicating it with things that do not matter.
In our Lord's statement in Revelation 2:14, His address is with reference to ...
... them that hold the doctrine of Balaam ... to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS AND TO COMMIT FORNICATION" (which of course means worship of those idols, thus committing a spiritual degradation).
The reference in Acts 15:29 instructing Christians thus ...
"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols" (from the A. V)
The word 'meats' is not in the Greek text, which would be more accurate if read ...
"..be (keeping yourselves) from having and holding to idol sacrifices" which Acts 15:20 calls the pollution of idols.
With this insight it is easy to see that Paul's justifying references for the edibility are only concerning that larger portion of meat, which was not burned on the altar to the idol in the ceremony - which view our Lord confirms in Revelation 2:14 by including the reference to an accompaniment of a committal of worship (fornication).
Section Ten: PAUL'S COMMUNION CONTRADICTION
PROSECUTION
Under the Law it was necessary that the Paschal Lamb should not only be free from blemish but also have no broken bone (see Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 and John 19:36). That is why the Roman soldiers were prevented from breaking our Lord's legs after His crucifixion on the stake.
Why then does Paul say in I Corinthians 11:24, concerning that tender moment when our Lord took bread at the Last Supper with His Apostles ...
"And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take eat, this is My body WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU: this do in remembrance of Me".
DEFENCE
Again it is the Prosecution that is at fault for making false accusations, for Paul did not write this in I Corinthians 11:24. All the most accurate Greek texts omit the point of grievance claimed here. Scholars and students have in recent years gained new evidence from ancient scrolls, which have since come to light. Most of the recent translations agree with the Revised Version text, which reads ...
"... and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My body which is for you: This do in remembrance of Me".
There is no mention of the body being broken in this account, which is confirmed as correct through numerics by both lvan Panin and F. W. Grant.
Section Eleven: IS PAUL A PHARISEE?
PROSECUTION
Our Lord's warning against the teaching of the Pharisees could not have been plainer when He stated in Luke 12:1 ...
"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees,"
Yet Paul, well after his supposed conversion to Christianity, boldly declares in Acts 23:6 ...
"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee... "
Please notice that Paul did not say I was a Pharisee, but I am (present tense) a Pharisee.
DEFENCE
The Prosecution quite rightly point out that the 'teaching' of the Pharisees was the dangerous 'leaven', but do they dare to condemn all those who were Pharisees - because both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also Pharisees and secret Disciples of Jesus? Furthermore, Acts 15:5 declares that there were already a number of Pharisees who were converted, but it does NOT say there that they WERE (past tense) Pharisees. In fact this verse implies that they were still recognisable members of the Sect of the Pharisees, as was Paul.
However, again the Prosecution employ that most reprehensible of all habits to support their case –that of taking a few words out of context, with neither any reference to the circumstances in which they were spoken, nor even quoting all that Paul said, nor why he said it.
As mentioned previously in Acts 23:3 Paul makes a prophecy which could only be made by a person guided by the Holy Spirit that 'God would smite the High Priest', which prophecy came true. At this point Paul was arraigned before the whole Temple Council comprising of both Pharisees and Sadducees who were about to join together in a vote to have Paul put to death. This they could do - under an agreement with Rome - if the 'crime' he committed merited death, in accordance with their religion, (which Paul himself had supported and used with Stephen's case). Perceiving that some of the councillors were Sadducees and some Pharisees, Paul then used the true belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection of the body - (a fact which, by the Resurrection of Jesus, had already brought about the conversion of many Israelite Pharisees) to cause an uproar amongst them, as the Sadducees deny the doctrine of the Resurrection. This tactic compelled the Roman Captain to intervene and rescue Paul for the sake of the Apostle's own safety. Paul's statement did not imply any rejection of his faith in Jesus. On the contrary, Paul said that he agreed with the Pharisees IN THEIR OWN BELIEF IN THE HOPE AND RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. In Acts 24:14 Paul confesses that his faith was that which they - the Pharisees and the Sadducees - call HERESY, believing all things written in the Law and the Prophets. This is precisely what Jesus calls on us to believe and obey today and it shows clearly that Paul no longer believed all that the Pharisees believed.
If the Prosecution make such an issue over Paul's tactical and timely statement in Acts 23:6, why do they not also loudly praise Paul for his outright confession of his faith as stated in Acts 24:14? Both verses are recorded by St. Luke and cannot be refuted without discrediting both the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of St. Luke.
Section Twelve: PAUL AND DEAD BELIEVERS
[Some of you may want to skip this section because it extremely difficult reading. – Eli]
PROSECUTION
Paul declares contradictory convictions on the important matter of the state of the believer at death. On the one hand he takes a stand in I Thessalonians 4:13-18 which completely differs from the line he takes in II Corinthians 5:8 & 9 and Philippians 1:21-24. As a result the churches teach two different doctrines regarding the state of the believer at death. One teaching is that he sleeps from the time of his death until the resurrection. The other teaching is that his soul and/or spirit go to be immediately with the Lord. Such confusion in Scripture could hardly be labelled as the work of an inspired Apostle.
DEFENCE
This whole matter of what happens to believers at death is a complete study in itself and would be the subject of an entire talk. For this reason we may only deal with ironing out the particular passages here put forward by the Prosecution. It is true that confusion has resulted from these New Testament passages but the real question once again is - where does the blame lie - with Paul or with our translators for interpreting Paul's words without thorough investigation?
Let us look first at II Corinthians 5:6-9 (from the Greek text) ...
"Being, then, courageous always, and aware that, in the body, being amongst the public, we are away from being a public coming from the Lord (for by faith are we walking, not by perception). Yet we are |encouraged, and are delighting rather to be away from the public out of the body, and to be amongst a public that is toward the Lord. Wherefore we are ambitious also, whether being amongst the public, or being away from the public, to be well pleasing to Him." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
Meaning, "..we are aware that whilst we are among the public in this body, we can not be the public with the new resurrected body that comes from the Lord (at His Coming, when we see Him, ie., perceive Him). Yet we are delighting..to be away from the public out of the body, (the interim state, of waiting spirits)..." meaning - we are delighting at the present to be within this body, amongst a public that is for the Lord, so we can continue to please Him: whether we are amongst His public in our new resurrected body, or away from it, here on earth, or vise versa. It can not refer to anything else, because Psalms makes it clear that nobody can praise God from the grave, without praise or enactments, it is impossible to be pleasing Him as an ongoing condition.
And now the other text, Philippians 1:20-26, which gives a similar picture (also from the Greek) ...
"..... in accord with my premonition and expectation, that in nothing shall I be put to shame, but with all boldness, as always, now also, the anointed One, shall be magnified amongst that body of mine, whether through life or through death to me. For, the anointed One, is He Who is to be living; and gain, he who is to be dying. Yet, if He 'Who is to be living, is in flesh, this is a fruit, for work, to me also. I, myself, shall be preferring something, that I am not making known (yet I am being pressed out of the two) having the yearning for the outcoming solution, and to be together with the anointed, for it, rather, is much better. Yet to the flesh, he who is to be staying because of you, is more necessary. And, having this confidence, I am aware that I shall be remaining, and shall be abiding with you all for your progress and joy of "the Faith", that in me, through my presence with you again, your glorying may be superabounding amongst the anointed of Jesus." (The fully translated literal New Covenant) [Well, THAT CLARIFIES EVERYTHING! (LOL) I think this is one for Moffat! – Eli]
Note: Paul is torn between praying for the resurrection to come quickly so that he can live a life with the Lord for ever, and praying to God to hold it back a while longer so that he will have more time in this life to explain the Scriptures to these people and so perhaps save a few more of them. The Prosecution accuse Paul of taking a contrary stand in I Thessalonians 4:13-18, which reads from the Greek ...
"Now we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who are reposing , lest you may sorrow according as the rest also, who have no expectation. For, if we are believing that Jesus died and rose, thus also, those who are put to repose, will God, through Jesus, lead up together with Him. For this we are saying to you in the word of what is sanctioned; that we , the living, who are surviving to the presence of the Lord, should by no means outstrip those who are put to repose, for the Lord Himself will be descending from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the Chief Messenger, and with the trumpet of Deity, and the dead among the anointed shall be rising first. Thereupon we, the living who are surviving, shall at the same time be snatched away together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And thus shall we always be together with the sanctioned. So that, console one another with these words." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
The Prosecution have obviously misinterpreted the point of this passage. If Paul were referring to Jesus bringing the spirits of the dead with Him to earth, then it would be impossible for the living to precede them to His presence. Therefore Paul would have no need to state the obvious so forcefully to dispel uncertainties. Verse 16 states that the dead must rise first and then the living. We are talking here of resurrected souls, which is identified with the blood, not spirits. The earth-name 'Jesus' portrays such, not 'CHRIST' - (Anointed One), which has reference to His Spiritual Priestly Role.
Thus the sequence of events is that those souls who sleep (in death) whose spirits have returned to God - Ecclesiastes 12:7 - (because it is from an incorruptible seed) God will raise up from death (as He did with Jesus) through Jesus at His Coming; and then the 'surviving living' will follow on. Note also, most carefully, that when Jesus died on the stake He commanded His Own Spirit back to God to await His Own Resurrection. Hence it went to be with the spirits of the dead in Israel. Also as I Corinthians 15:51 & 52 state, both the dead and the living saints (anointed people) in their correct order will be transformed instantly into an immortal, incorruptible state. This is the Divine Plan of inheritance for all those spirits of just men who died with the belief that God would be true to His word and resurrect them to an eternal life.
However, the student would benefit greatly by distinguishing the difference between 'soul' and 'spirit' as God does throughout the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, Paul does, in Hebrews 4:12 (and see also I Corinthians 2:14-16). This valuable distinction is completely overlooked by the Prosecution, as proved by their statement. So it is then that Paul has remained consistent in his doctrine, which throughout these passages does not conflict in any way with itself, nor with the rest of Scripture. [Friends, Mr. Hawkins has here confirmed one of the criticisms of the anti-Paulists, namely, that Paul is too difficult to read!! Did Paul really talk this way or is there some disconnect between the Greek and the English? -- Eli]
Section Thirteen: PAUL TO THE GENTILES
PROSECUTION
We find that throughout the Bible all the prophets and promises were of concern to Israel only. Even the Gospels (after an inspection of the few contradictory passages in the Greek) endorse this view. But Paul constantly preaches a universalism, which is totally unaligned with the rest of Scripture. His preaching is to the gentiles, who, he says, can receive all the promises of Abraham, even though they are not of Abraham's seed - which violates the words God used when He gave the unconditional promises that were only given to Abraham and his seed after him (or in their generations) for ever and promised by Jehovah Himself.
DEFENCE
Here again we are pleased at least on one point not to cross swords with the Prosecution. We agree that all the promises that the Lord made were with Abraham and his seed only. These promises may not be obtained by any other people than Israel - for whom, and to whom they were intended. [Thank you! Thank you!! – Eli.] The Greek word for 'seed' is 'sperma'. Only Abraham's offspring, literal descendants resulting from his sperm, are to receive the inheritance of the Fathers. A 'gentile' can not become an heir to these promises by adoption or grafting. This idea of a universal application for 'gentiles' to 'inherit the promises' is a theological myth, a man-made precept pushed upon us by the established catholic (universal) churches.
This 'gentile inclusion theory' is not supported by Scripture anywhere. Neither does Paul preach it anywhere in his epistles. It is the mistranslations in our Bibles that are at fault. For even though sincere men have compiled our translations, many passages are puzzling, stilted and even unfathomable - especially within the Pauline Epistles. This is because Paul was extremely educated as a lawyer - which our translators were not - and he used all the subtleties of the Greek grammar, which is often difficult to parallel in our English language.
Most of the confusion is primarily caused in Paul's Epistles by the mistranslation of two words ... 'gentiles' and 'Christ'. The latter word is dealt with in the next section, but the former word 'gentiles' is the Latin version of the Greek word 'ethnos', which simply means 'nations'. In some cases this does refer to heathen nations, but when used with the article it obviously points to the Nations of Israel who were at that time slowly moving through Europe to the Isles of the sea. Right from the very beginning of his work, Paul addresses himself directly and exclusively to Israel, and to nobody else. In Acts 13:26, Paul says ...
"Men, Brothers of the womb (i. e. Sarah's), Sons of the RACE of Abraham, and the ones among you (already) fearing God, unto US (i.e. the RACE of Abraham) the word of this salvation was sent forth."
Paul used the past tense and it refers to Matthew 10 where the Apostles were sent only to Israelites. Hence this is a further confirmation of Paul only speaking to Israelites. This address was made in the synagogue at Antioch and the term 'fearing God' is quoted from several passages of Scripture, which would be familiar to his audience. It refers to Israelites only for it was the special privilege of the saints (who are Israel only) to 'fear' God. The identity of 'the ones fearing God' is firmly established in verses 16 and 17, where Paul opens his address to "Men, Israelites and the ones fearing God", then in verse 17 he states ...
"The God of this People of Israel, chose the fathers of US."
Thus the 'Men', the 'Israelites' and the 'ones (already serving and fearing God)' are all included in the 'US'- the people of Israel whose fathers God chose. It does NOT refer to members of any other race but Israel. Paul then continues with a masterly thumb-nail summary of the history of this one People, in the next 9 verses, in order to identify precisely who he is talking about beyond any shadow of doubt. He then in verse 26 repeats his opening words and delivers his message to the end of verse 41. In verse 44 - a week later - Paul now addresses a vast multitude, but the Jews disputed so vehemently, that Paul then told them that by their own actions they had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life; so now we (i.e. Paul and Barnabas) are going to the Nations (of Israel).
Note: This is in strict accordance with the task for which Jesus selected Paul in Acts 9:15 -
"... as a chosen vessel to bear My Name before the Nations and Kings, both of the children of Israel."
Paul then quotes Isaiah 49:6 as his authority for turning to the Nations of Israel, saying ...
"For so the Lord commanded us (Israel, in Isaiah 49.6) saying, 'I will set thee (Jesus) for a light to illuminate (or reveal) the Nations, that thou (Jesus) mayest be My Saviour unto the end (singular) of the Earth.' "
This verse is quoted again by 'Simeon' in Luke 2:32, where he says of the baby Jesus in his arms, that He would be "a light bearer for revealing (the lost) Nations and Glory of THY PEOPLE ISRAEL."
Thus Acts 13:16 to 13:47 is exclusively for Israel only and verse 48 states that when (members) of the Nations (who obviously were not the disputing Jews in this vast crowd) heard Paul, they were glad and glorified the word of God ..."And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." And will the Prosecution please take very careful note, it was those who were already predestinated to eternal life (Israelites) who believed. They (Israel) were predestinated from the foundation of God's Order. They (Israel) were redeemed while still in unbelief, and it only required their voluntary acceptance and belief of God's word to complete that ordination to eternal life. The lost sheep of the Israel Nations, at that time were 'lo ammi' - 'not My People', cast off for disobedience. They had been captured by Assyria (and Babylon), but after release from that bondage, the great majority had not returned to the Israel lands. Paul announces here that all those Nations of Israel, sons of Abraham, who were dispersed even to the end (singular) of the Earth (Ultima-Thule, i.e. the Isles of the sea) could now receive the salvation predestined for them (in the promises to their fathers), as Luke here records. Not only did those ordained to eternal life believe Paul, but also that Jesus was the promised Messiah, Who would gather them - His brethren –through grace, back to their former position of Sons of the Father. These dispersed Israelites (the wild olive - i.e. "heathenised" Israel) could now be grafted into the official olive tree - i.e. official Israel - the 'olive tree' being the symbol of Israel only throughout Scripture. Only trees of a related species can be successfully grafted, hence the wild olives are still Israelites even though they are "heathenised".
All of Paul's Epistles show to whom he was writing. Here are a few such openings from each Epistle ... Romans: is addressed to "All God's beloved in Rome"(chapter 1:7) "who are called saints"- not called to be saints; the verb 'to be' is not in the Greek text. Only Israelites are called 'saints', meaning 'set apart, separated-to-God, or Holy People'. Chapter 15:4 states "For as many things (that) were written aforetime were written for our endurance and that through the comfort of the Scripture we might have hope" and only Israel received instruction aforetime through Scripture.
I Corinthians 10:1-2:
".. our fathers (were) all under the cloud, they were also all passed through the sea, and all (were) baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea... "
II Corinthians 6:17:
"Therefore, come out of their midst and be ye separate, says (our) Lord, and be not touching an unclean thing, and I shall take you and you will be for sons and daughters, says (the) Lord Almighty - therefore as we have these promises .. "
Only Israel had these promises.
Galatians 3:24:
"Wherefore the law has become our schoolmaster unto an Anointed (One), so that we may be justified by faith. "
The Law was only given to Israel, to be their schoolmaster.
Galatians 4:4:
"God sent forth His Son, having become out of a woman, having become under Law, so that He might redeem the (ones) under Law, in order that we might receive from (this) the placing of sons", (A.V. - adoption of sons).
Only Israel was given, and therefore was under, the Law.
Ephesians 1:1:
"..to the Holy Ones (or saints - i.e. Israel) the ones being in Ephesus .."
Ephesians 1:4-5:
"..(God) hath chosen us ... before the foundation of the Order (Greek 'kosmos') that we should be holy... Having predestined us unto a placing of sons through Jesus... "
"in Whom we also were chosen by inheritance being predestined, " (verse 11)
"you were sealed with that holy spirit of the promise, which is a token of our inheritance into redemption... " (verse 13) Redemption was only for a neigh of kin, family member.
Philippians 1:1:
"..to all the Holy Ones (or saints) ... the ones being in Philippi..."
In Philippians 1:12 Paul's address is proven to be to Israelites by his term 'adelphoi' - 'brethren,' meaning 'womb sharers', or 'brothers of the same womb' (Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon). This term Paul uses throughout all his Epistles.
Colossians 1:2:
"..to the Holy and faithful womb-brothers in Colossae..."
I Thessalonians 1:1&4:
"..to the out-called of Thessalonica.. " "Having known womb-brothers, the choosing of you, having been loved by God, that our good news (or Gospel) came not in word only unto you, but also in power and holy spirit..."
II Thessalonians 2:13:
"Womb-brothers having been loved by (the) Lord, because He chose you from (the) beginning unto salvation in sanctification of spirit to a belief in truth."
Hebrews 1:1:
"In many portions and in many ways, God in old (times) having spoken to the Fathers in the prophets, upon the last part of these days, He spake to us by a Son... "
It was the Israelites' forefathers who received instruction by the prophets.
The remaining Epistles - Philemon, Timothy I and II, and Titus - are all addressed to individuals and not to gatherings. [Mr. Hawkins, THIS SECTION IS EMINENTLY CLEAR. Thank you! – Eli]
Section Fourteen: PAUL THE UNIVERSALIST
PROSECUTION
Paul’s main thesis is that by an acceptance of Christ, any person of any race may receive the promises, because they become Abraham’s seed...
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise " (Gal 3:26-28).
And what of Gal 5:2-4,
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law, Christ has become of no profit unto you, whosoever are justified by the Law, you fall out of grace."
These passages speak for themselves and condemn Paul when compared with the rest of Scripture.
DEFENCE
If Paul said this, then by the evidence of the rest of Scripture, Paul should be lynched. [I know several people, stnading under an oak tree, who are holding the rope in their hands!!! – Eli] But surely true justice requires that a suspect be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. The evidence must be sought in the Greek text. For what conceivable reason would Paul offer universalism, thus opposing all the rest of Scripture? The answer hinges on one important word, and that is ‘Christ’.
This word is not a translation of the Greek text at all. The Greek word ‘christos’ is the victim of unmerciful theological murder. Our translators have taken this Greek word, lopped off the last letters ‘os’, ‘ou’, ‘o’ and transliterated it as ‘Christ’ into our English Bibles. To the English reader this word in itself has no meaning — so the reader, thinking it merely to be the ‘official’ title for Jesus, then tries to fit a meaning of Jesus into every text, with confusing results.
Firstly the Greek word ‘christos’ means ‘anointed’. It should be translated as such throughout the Bible. In some cases it does refer to Jesus, but in very many vital cases it does NOT.
Secondly as the meaning is ‘anointed’, then one is forced to agree that it is an adjective, not a noun.
Thirdly this word ‘christos’ is masculine.
So now, one may ask, what does all this mean? In the first instance, although ‘anointed’ is an adjective, it can be used as a noun (as in English), and anyone who speaks Greek would automatically recognise the noun to which ‘christos’ belonged, by the context, gender and case, whether written or otherwise. For instance, a sentence in English constructed in this way, could read ‘Today we saw many cars, and drove the red away.’ Nobody is going to argue that ‘red’ is the proper noun of the driven car, so why do our translators do this with the word ‘christos’? ‘Red’ is obviously the description of that particular car in which we drove away.
In the third instance, if ‘christos’ stands in place of a noun, then because it is masculine, the noun to which it refers must also be in the masculine gender, be it a man, Law, brother, righteousness or a people, etc.. The title ‘Jesus Christ’ should read ‘Jesus Anointed (One) or Jesus (the) Anointed’ — ‘Jesus’ being the Noun described. But ‘Christ Jesus’ (Greek ‘Christou Jesou’ ~ by the same token could equally read 1. (If ‘Jesus’ is in the dative case) ‘in an anointed Jesus’ (thus meaning the same as the title ‘Jesus Christ’), 2. (If ‘Jesus’ is in the genitive case) ‘in an anointed (something masculine) of (or, belonging to) Jesus.’
But this expression was invented by Paul and is only used by Paul throughout Scripture to assist him in his task to explain to the dispersed Israelites their new status brought about by their redemption through Jesus’ crucifixion. — They now belong to Jesus by right of His having paid the price for their redemption, whether they wanted it or not, whether converted or not, the deed was done for the whole Israel Nation. He tells them that they are now.......
"an anointed (people) of (or, belonging to) Jesus".
The appearance of this expression in any other Books or Epistles than those of Paul will be found to be false when examined against the most accurate Greek texts.
So let us see the effect of substituting this translation in the chosen passages presented by the Prosecution. Incidentally, this same method of translation may also be applied to all Pauline quotations that pose similar difficulties. However, please bear the following in mind whilst reading these translations — these Anointed People (of Israel) now belong to Jesus by the right of Redemption, and that it is the Law of worship that is being discussed.
In Galatians 3:23 where Paul is addressing the womb-brothers (3:1-5), "Now before the coming of "the Faith" we were garrisoned under law, being locked up together for "the Faith" about to be revealed. So that the Atonement Law has become our escort into the anointed, that we may be justified by faith. Now, at the coming of "the Faith", we are no longer under an escort, for you are all sons of Deity, through "the Faith" within the anointed of Jesus. For as many as are immersed into the anointed, slip themselves amongst the anointed, wherein is no Jew [sic, Judahite – Eli], yet nor Greek, wherein is no slave, yet nor freeman, wherein is no "male and female"(Gen.1:27; i.e.-natural man, see 1Cor.2:14 ), for you all are one people amongst the anointed, belonging to Jesus. Now if you belong to the anointed, consequently you are Holy Land tenants according to a promise that belongs to the Abraham seed." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
To suggest that if you ‘belong to Jesus’ you are a literal descendant (a seed) of Abraham — irrespective of your racial origin — is sheer biological nonsense. And Paul was far too skilled as a lawyer to put forward such a proposition. Does not Peter also testify...
"But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood~ a holy nation for God’s possession". (I Peter 2:9)
That race is Israel only. [The plain truth is so sweet to these ears!! – Eli]
The ‘male and female’ in the Greek text, is in the accusitive case, and neuter in gender, which is identical to the Septuagint text of Gen 1:27 where it states...
"And God made mankind according to the image of God He made it, male and female He made them".
This script was used by all Greek-speaking Bible readers, and therefore would be immediately related to this particular passage. So the descendants of this Gen 1 creation of Mankind are not within an Anointed People, or in the Kingdom. Only the Adamic strain, sons of Adam, through Abraham and the one seed from Isaac to Israel (referred to in Gal 3:16) which is anointed, will qualify as heirs to the promise, the evidence for this statement is supported throughout Scripture.
However, should there still be those among my readers doubting the use of ‘Christ’ as presented here, I would like them to consider some awkward texts that I believe prove this application of the word ‘Christ’ to a people, Rev 12:10 from the A.V. is a good example.
"Now is come the salvation and strength, and the Kingdom of our God and the power of His Christ (i.e. Anointed People) for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God"
Some ‘Christians’ would argue that this reference to ‘Christ’ does mean Jesus. But if one bears in mind that ‘salvation’ means ‘deliverance’, did Jesus only receive God’s strength and deliverance at that point in time which the first word ‘Now’ stipulates? This event is after Jesus had led His heavenly armies to war against those enemies of God opposing the saints, prophets and God-fearing ones. No, only the blind would be stubborn on this point especially after comparing this verse with Rev 11:15
"The Kingdom of the Order is become (the Kingdom) of our Lord (i.e. Jesus) and of His Anointed (People)."
One may ask then that even though this may be grammatically a possible rendering of the Greek word ‘Christos’, does Scripture give any plain references concerning an Anointed People to which these references could apply? Yes, the answer lies in Habakkuk 3:13
"Thou went forth for the salvation of Thy People for the salvation of Thine Anointed."
and again, look at Psalm 105:15
"Touch not Mine anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm"
Now let us move on to the following text, Gal 5:2-4 which, as the Prosecution claim, seems to state that those circumcised are fallen from the Grace of Christ. But the Prosectution fail to point to a subsequent verse which rejects their conclusions. Verse 6 reads....
"For in an Anointed (people) belonging to Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love."
The requirement for circumcision ceased with the Leviticus Law along with the Aaronic Priesthood that administered it. It is not in Deuteronomy. Bearing this in mind, what does Paul actually mean? Let us read from Gal 4:30 from the Greek....
"But what is the scripture saying? Cast out this maid and her son, for by no means shall the son of the maid be inheriting with the son of the free woman. Wherefore, brothers, we are not children of the maid, but of the free woman. For to freedom the anointed One frees us! Stand firm then, and be not again enthralled with the yoke of slavery. [Like universalism!!! – Eli] Lo! I , Paul, am saying to you that if you should be circumcising yourself as one anointed, it will benefit you nothing. Now I am attesting again to every man who is circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Mosaic Law. You were exempted from the anointed, you who are being justified in law, you fall out of the gratuity. For we, in spirit, are awaiting the expectation of a justification by faith. For in Jesus’ anointed, neither circumcision is availing anything, nor uncircumcision, but a faith, operating through love." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
[Friends, let me interject here, because I think I can hopefully offer some insight. What Paul is trying to say through these various translators is that We Israelites will never be justified by MERE ADHERENCE TO A SET OF RULES. The whole expectation of the New Covenant is that the Law is to be WRITTEN IN OUR HEARTS, as per Jer. 31: 31-37. In other words, the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood was an TEMPORARY remedy for us. It provided justice for wrongs committed against us and it provided a FORM OF MERCY through the PRIESTLY SACRIFICES; but we have to progress beyond this mentality, which is still bound up with "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Now, we are supposed to move forward to "Love thy brethren as thyself" by NEVER BREAKING THE LAW AGAIN IN OUR DEALINGS WITH OUR BRETHREN!!!! Hence, TRUE LOVE is OBEYING YAH’S COMMANDMENTS OUT OF MUTUAL LOVE AND RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER (THE BODY OF CHRIST). The only way this TRUE LOVE can be made manifest is by showing MERCY toward each other. The very same MERCY that we expect from Yahweh and from our accusers is what we must be prepared to give of ourselves, lest we be judged without MERCY. Now, read Matthew 25: 31-46 for confirmation of this. We must love our brethren as if they were Jesus Christ Himself!!! Rather than judge each other sternly -- as we stiff-necked Israelites are wont to do – we must apply the Golden Rule without exception to each other. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you did someone wrong, wouldn’t you want that person to be merciful toward you? So, you must strike this merciful pose yourself, otherwise we are back to the Old Covenant of "an eye for an eye." This is true love. "If you love me, OBEY MY COMMANDMENTS." The function of Faith in this MYSTERY is that we must BE AS TRUSTWORTHY OURSELVES AS YAHWEH AND YAHSHUA HAVE BEEN FOR US. Otherwise, there will be no Kingdom into which we can be admitted. In short, WE MUST BECOME THE LAW OR THE LAW WILL FOREVER RULE US. If we do not aspire to a higher level of being, which can admit of no egotistical belittling or worldly gamesmanship, we will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom. The Faith is not something OUTSIDE the Law; rather, by having Faith in each other as the children of Yahweh, we gain VICTORY OVER SIN AND DEATH by treating each other LAWFULLY and MERCIFULLY, just as Yahweh Elohim Himself has done to us individually and as a nation. THE REAL MEANING OF FAITH IS TRUST in HIM, HIS LAW AND HIS PROMISES MADE TO US IN THE COVENANTS. And the best way to engender this TRUST in others is to treat your ISRAELITE Brothers and Sisters with the same respect you would treat yourself and Jesus Christ Himself. Once this becomes habitual among a few of us, the rest of our people will catch on and join this body. Since we have never actually HAD SUCH FAITH, WE HAVE TO TRY IT SOMETIME. LOVE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE LAW. The Law was what created the Universe. Love is what allows us to appreciate our part in it. Love is able to overlook the warts in our personalities and IT sees the Divine Potential. "Be ye therefore PERFECT EVEN AS YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT."
As Malcolm Muggeridge put it so bluntly: "Christianity is a great idea, TOO BAD IT HASN’T BEEN TRIED YET!"
The test for us is this: Can you love your brother or sister in spite of the fact that he or she does not behave according to YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW? Can you put your ego aside and love that person anyway?—as the Father loves His Children? Obviously, that person cannot be willfully harming you, but we alienate our own brethren, WHO ARE DOING US NO HARM WHATSOEVER, by insisting that they must see things exactly "MY WAY or THEY ARE DOOMED." We judge each other MERCILESSLY OVER TRIVIALITIES THAT DO US NO HARM!! WE ARE STIFF-NECKED! I guarantee you that this attitude will keep many out of the Kingdom. We are told explicitly that, at the Judgment Day, we will be judged by our OWN STANDARDS, BY OUR OWN CAPACITY TO SHOW MERCY, BY OUR OWN ABILITY TO LOVE. "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" – Matt. 7:1-3. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD NOT REBUKE EACH OTHER WHEN SOMEONE IS DOING WRONG! Just drop the pretense of moral superiority! The Kingdom will be given to those who not only know the Law but are also able to demonstrate a capacity for Selfless Love. That is the difference between a Pharisee versus a Priest of the Order of Melchi-Zedek. – Eli]
[Sorry for that long interruption. You may continue, Brandon Hawkins:]
This whole passage revolves around the question of circumcision or baptism. Before the death of Jesus on the stake, every male child was circumcised on the 8th day — in accordance with Levitical Law — into the anointed (people) Israel. But after Jesus redeemed Israel, the Levitical Law came to an end. ACCEPTANCE into an anointed (people) now required baptism plus belief that Jesus is the Son of the Living God — that is Faith in Jesus.
If an Israelite did believe and was baptised, then it became possible — by God’s Grace — for God to accept the death of His Only-begotten Son Jesus as a sufficient sacrifice and justification not to impute sin to that believer. This is amnesty NOT forgiveness of sin. But this Grace of God only comes into force as a result of two things; the death of Jesus as the Redeemer, and the faith and baptism of the redeemed. Thus Paul was trying to convince these uncircumcised Israelites that they could not have it both ways. If they sought justification by circumcision, then they were not only committing themselves to doing the whole Law, but they were cutting themselves off from God’s Grace which was dependent solely on acceptance of an Anointed One (Jesus). And since entry into an anointed (people) now depended on baptism and belief in an Anointed (One), then they were also cutting themselves off from the anointed (people) whom Jesus, by His act of Redemption had now placed in a state of freedom from the Levitical Law — the yoke of bondage unto death.
Note: The Levitical Law was called the ‘Yoke of Bondage’ because it could not lift the sentence of death for breaking the Law. It could only suspend execution of that sentence until the coming of a ‘GoeI’(Redeemer), who was without sin, and who could, and would, lay down His life for Israel and so have that sentence of death executed on Himself, instead of on Israel.
Circumcision was instituted as a Covenant between God and Abraham’s seed until the End of the Age, or possibly Everlasting. Paul doesn’t dispute that nor repudiate it in anyway, but in Rom 4:11 & 12, Paul states that Abraham received this Covenant while he himself was still uncircumcised. He received it as ratifying the promise that he would be the father, not of all the ones circumcised, but the father of the ones believing — that is, all believing uncircumcised persons (as Abraham was himself at that moment) as well as all believing circumcised persons. Therefore, since faith or belief in Jesus was now a requirement for acceptance into Israel, and because belief does not depend on whether one is circumcised or not, then circumcision was no longer a re quirement for entry into Israel as it had been under the Levitical Law before the First Coming, or First Advent of Jesus to the Earth.
It should now be quite evident that none of the accusations made by the prosecution against Paul stand up to examination by the Greek text in which Paul wrote his Epistles. This examination again and again and again reveals that there are, indeed, grave errors and seeming contradictions but that the guilt for these errors lies with the translators and theologians, not with Paul.
Before the Defence closes its Case, a testimony by a leading witness should be heard by the Jury. We call upon Peter the Apostle, who wrote in his letter in II Peter 3:16-18
"as our beloved brother, Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, wherein are some (things) hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unsteadfast distort, as also the rest of the Scriptures to their own destruction. Ye, therefore beloved ones having this advanced knowledge, beware lest you (get) carried away with the wicked, and fall from your own steadfastness."
The author wishes to thank Mr. R K Phillips for various points as given in his tape, The Paul Controversy.
[As promised, here is the link to Clifton Emahiser's article proving that Deut. 23:7 is mistranslated: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/WTL%20PDFs/WTL042.pdf ]
Return to Top of Page | Return to Heresy Papers Index | Go To Home Page