In defence
of the Pauline Gospel and the Apostle Paul
What a precious treasure we have in our salvation,
in Yahshua, and in the Bible. (I use the
name Yahshua instead of Jesus, and Yahweh or Elohim instead of God throughout
to forestall any objections to the use of the anglicised names.) Sadly, though, there are those who are out to
steal all three treasures from us. I know of several brethren who have
renounced Yahshua as their Saviour. They failed to guard their treasure and
their hearts. Those treasures were stolen from them. The theft occurred slowly
over time and it all began with doubting the Apostle Paul.
The Ebionite teaching that the Apostle Paul is a
false apostle is being revived. If it hasn't touched you yet, it will. This
study is a refutation of the most common accusations and arguments used to
support their claims. Hopefully, this refutation will prepare you to discern
the truth of the matter.
Thirteenth Apostle?
The argument is raised that by being the thirteenth
Apostle, he must be a false Apostle, because Revelation 21:14 only speaks of
the twelve. My contention is that Paul WAS the twelfth Apostle! Let’s have a
look at scripture:
The end of the Gospel of Luke mentions they
(followers of Christ) stayed at the temple. Thus the view is that they didn't
simply lock themselves away in the upper room in prayerful meditation, but were
already quite vocal in their praise.
"Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great
joy. And they stayed continually at
the temple, praising God." (Luke
24:52,53)
But rather than obey the Lord and wait for the Holy
Spirit as the Lord commanded in Acts 1:4, Peter (typical of his impulsive
nature) refused to wait and felt it necessary to make a significant (and in
fact inappropriate) institutional decision prior to receiving the Holy Spirit.
That decision involved the replacement of Judas as the 12th apostle. Before he
even received the Spirit he wanted to deal with a leadership issue. One is
reminded of their same concerns during Jesus' ministry. Even after the Last Supper
in Luke 22:24 they obsessed over which of them was the greatest and one wonders
if their anticipation of the kingdom wasn't heavily motivated by their desire
to be in recognized positions of authority. For Jesus had told them, "At
the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you
who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes
of Israel."Mt 19:28
If I were present I may have asked Peter the
following:
1. Yes
Judas will be replaced, but why do you think it's necessary RIGHT NOW? Can't
the Lord choose the timing, just as the Lord choses the timing concerning the
coming of the kingdom and not us?
2. Why
not wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit before making such a decision?
3. In fact
why not let the Holy Spirit make the decision rather than ourselves choosing
the candidates?
For each
apostle was not chosen by mutual consent, but by the Lord himself.
And after
the Lord Himself fulfilled the scripture personally choosing Paul as the 12th
apostle, as he writes in many places of his experience in being chosen in Acts
9 saying, "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" I
would ask Peter "what's up with that?"
So if there are only 12 recognized apostles in the
coming kingdom as Jesus spoke of the 12 thrones in Matt 19:28 and of the names
of the 12 apostles on the walls of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21:14 then who
would be the 12th name? Would it be Matthias or Paul?
I would say that they were presumptuous in their
choosing of the Twelfth Apostle. They gave God only two choices, either Joseph
or Matthias. But God chose the Apostle Paul instead! It is not that their
choosing by lot was un-Biblical. For that was a method commonly used in the Old
Testament. But rather it was the idea that they chose the candidates. However,
after they received the Spirit we find that the Holy Spirit speaks explicitly,
such as in Acts 13:2 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the
Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to
which I have called them."
The Apostles should have learned by now that God
does things his own way. But the history of Institutional Christianity has
often been filled with the assumption that God only does things in accordance
with institutional leaders. Such people should be careful not to be too
presumptuous, as many in the history of Christianity have been.
The foundation of the belief that Paul is a false
Apostle lies in the inability to harmonize Paul with the rest of the Bible.
Rather than waiting on Yahweh to provide understanding concerning Paul's
writings, the anti-Paulists prefer to simply dismiss his writings as those of a
false teacher. Peter warned us that
this would happen. (By the way, this also refutes the arguments put forward
that the twelve did not accept Paul or his teachings and were in fact opposed
to him)
2 Peter 3:15,16 reads, "And account that the longsuffering of our
Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the
wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be
understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also
the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Conveniently, however, anti-Paulists would say that
the second epistle of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter and therefore
should not be part of our current New Testament canon. This reveals the extent
that they will go. They would discard the entire epistle in order to get rid of
two verses in support of Paul. The fact is that no one knows for sure that Peter
did not write this second epistle. At this point in time it is simply a theory.
Have a look at the following link to read a defence of Peter as the writer of
this epistle: http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm
Historical Arguments
Anti-Paulists have no choice but to discard
"The Acts of the Apostles" as well because it, too, contains pro-Paul
statements. Luke, for example, calls Paul an "apostle" twice in one
chapter (Acts 14:4, 14). The anti-Paulist says of those two verses;
"By this time in the record, Luke would have
been very familiar with Paul calling himself an apostle and was no doubt in
agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is
evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was
his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on
record as recognizing his apostleship!"
Luke is also the only one in the Bible who goes on
record to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost
(Feast of Weeks). Should we doubt that account because only Luke records it? Of
course not.
According to Yahshua's words to Ananias, Paul was
specifically chosen by Yahshua to bear his name before the Gentiles, kings, and
the children of Israel (Acts 9:15). In other words, he was sent by Yahshua
which is what the word "apostle" means. We see Paul's actual
separation as a sent one (apostle) in Acts 13:1-4 where the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets and
teachers in the Antioch congregation.
"Now there were in the assembly that was at Antioch certain
prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and
Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the
tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Master, and fasted, the Holy
Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they
sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto
Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus."
It was actually the Holy Spirit that separated
Barnabas and Paul for the work. Was the Holy Spirit incorrect in doing that?
Anti-Paulists will attempt to discredit Luke and
Paul by showing how the three accounts of Paul's conversion differ from one
another. Acts 9:7 says the
men traveling with Paul "heard a voice". Acts 22:9 says of those same men, "they heard not the
voice of him that spoke to me".
I offer three possible reasons for this difference;
1) One voice spoke to Paul while a different voice
spoke to the rest saying something like, "Fear not"
2) They heard the same voice, but could not hear
the actual words that were spoken
3) They heard all the words, but did not
understand. The Greek word for "hear" can have the meaning of
"understand" as in Jn. 8:43,47. The NIV uses the word "understand" in Acts 22:9, basing it upon the Greek text which reads
differently.
9:7 - akouontes men tes phones
22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos
moi
Here are the notes from Dr. James R. White (a Greek
scholar) in his book entitled, "Scripture Alone", pg.160:
"First, in 9:7 akouo, the verb that means
"to hear," is a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural
aorist verb.
Second, in 9:7 phone, a "sound" or
"voice," is a singular genetive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular
accusative noun.
Third, in 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it
follows its object. Fourth, in 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is
modified by "of the one speaking to me."
Finally, in 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in
Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew or Aramaic . . ."
The context of Acts 22:9 suggests that the reason the men did not hear the
voice is because the voice was speaking to Paul in Hebrew, which they did not
understand. Remember, Paul said they did not hear the voice and then says, "of the
one speaking to me."
That either Paul or Luke was lying is not a valid
choice.
Acts 29:9-18 is the
third conversion account wherein Paul goes into greater detail as to what
Yahshua said to him. These differences in Paul's conversion account lead
anti-Paulists to doubt his apostleship.
I don't know about you, but when I give my
testimony to people, it never comes out the same. I share more info with
certain people than with others based on who I'm talking to and how much time I
have to give my testimony. To accuse Paul of lying to King Agrippa when giving
his testimony for the third time is outrageous to say the least.
Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying in Acts 23:6. It reads as
follows:
"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the
other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am
called in question."
They contend that he was not called in question
over the resurrection, but simply lied in order to save himself. Let's look
back and see what the original cause was. In Acts 21:28, Paul was falsely accused of bringing Greeks into the temple. I say
"falsely" because his accusers only "supposed" that Paul
brought Trophimus into the temple (Acts 21:29).
As Paul was being led away, he asked to speak to
the people. He then began to recount his conversion in which he told them the
resurrected Saviour spoke to him. This speech took place in Jerusalem where
everyone was well aware of the events that took place in putting Yahshua to
death. By saying Yahshua spoke to him after his death, Paul was confirming his resurrection,
through which all believers have hope in a future resurrection. Is that
not what Paul said in Acts 23:6: "of the hope and resurrection
of the dead I am called in question"?
Eventually, the mob cried out, "Away with
such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should
live" (Acts 22:22).
Paul is then taken before the Sanhedrin where he
makes an honest mistake in rebuking the high priest out of ignorance of his
identity (Acts 23:2-5). Anti-Paulists
accuse Paul of lying here as well. They say he had to know it was the high
priest because he knew he was his judge and he knew the difference between the
Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul, however, had been absent from Jerusalem for
quite a while, during which a change in the high priest may have been made.
High priests at that time were set up at the whim of the Roman government for
political reasons. Additionally, any number of other circumstances may have led
to Paul's ignorance in this matter.
What saddens me is that the anti-Paulists do not
give Paul the benefit of the doubt in anything. They are so quick to condemn
Paul in every little point they can dig up.
Paul's ensuing comments in verse 6 were perfectly
true, for that is the real reason why any believer is persecuted. That is why
they falsely accused Stephen in Acts 6:11-12 as well as
Paul in Acts 21:28.
The Sanhedrin were well aware of that because they
were guilty of such persecution for that very reason.
Acts 22:4-5
read as follows:
"And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering
into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness,
and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the
brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto
Jerusalem, for to be punished."
Paul was commissioned by the high priest and the
council of elders to imprison as many of Yahshua's followers as he could find.
See also Acts 9:1-2.
Anti-Paulists continue their attack on Paul by
showing how he fulfils Mt.10:16-18. It reads,
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye
therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they
will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their
synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for
a testimony against them and the Gentiles."
The accounts of Saul's persecution of believers
seem to fulfil those verses, but I would contend that it would perfectly fit a
prophecy fulfilled in the bringing of Paul himself before the council! Also, does
Paul's actions prior to his conversion really matter? What about the prediction
Yahshua made in Mt.26:34?
"Yahshua said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night,
before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
Should we also consider Peter a false apostle based
on his actions prior to conversion? What about each of us? Were we not forgiven
of much at our conversion? So, too, should Saul of Tarsus be forgiven.
Paul is also accused of lying to the Galatians. To
understand this false accusation, we need to first read Acts 15:19-29;
"Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among
the Gentiles turn to [Elohim]; but that we write unto them, that they abstain
from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled,
and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that
preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. Then it seemed good to
the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of
their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas
called Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by
them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the
Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard
that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your
souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to
one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas
and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Master Yahshua
Messiah."
Note here that James calls Paul and Barnabas
"beloved". Do the anti-Paulists seek to throw James out of the NT
canon as well?
"We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall
tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy
Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves,
it shall be well with you. Fare you well."
Here is what the anti-Paulists then say;
"There are actually several things going on
here but first I want to focus on the instructions of the council. They
instruct Paul to write to the churches that they avoid eating meat sacrificed
to idols and from meat with blood, and from fornication (or idolatry). This is
very clear. So what did Paul write to the churches about his instructions from
Jerusalem?"
7.But contrariwise, when they saw that the
gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the
circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to
the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles:) 9.And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the
right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto
the circumcision. 10.Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same
which I also was forward to do.
"WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to
being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they
accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was
remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the
council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council
told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and
from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here? Again, we will note
that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem but he
actually taught the OPPOSITE to the churches (that is that it is ok to eat meat
sacrificed to idols)."
There are actually several accusations here. I'll
address the last one first. They said, " Again, we will note that Paul not
only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem . . ." Is that true?
One need only continue reading Acts 15:30-31;
"So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and
having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when
they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation."
"And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered
them the decrees to keep which had been ordained of the apostles and elders
that were at Jerusalem. So the assemblies were strengthened in the faith, and
increased in number daily."
So was Paul actually lying? No. It's the
anti-Paulist's who have grossly erred in assuming and falsely accusing Paul.
The other false accusation of Paul lying concerns
the reference to Gal.2:7-10. Paul said,
"
They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to
do" (vs.10). The anti-Paulist responds with,
"WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to
being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they
accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was
remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the
council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council
told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and
from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here?"
The answer to the last question is no, he did not
lie. Paul was writing a letter to the Galatian assembly. The council never said
their decrees were for all Gentile congregations, but only for the Gentiles in
Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Paul had no reason to give those decrees to the
Galatians because the council never told him to. I mention more about this
later.
Anti-Paulists also use Gal.2:6 to show Paul's supposed lack of respect of the
other twelve apostles and how they have no authority over Paul. Gal.2:6 reads thusly:
"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it
maketh no matter to me: [Elohim] accepteth no man's person:) for they who
seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:"
One anti-Paulist then says,
"Here Paul goes full board in his lack of
respect for the twelve. Paul says of the twelve that they seem to be important
but that it makes no difference to me. In other words the twelve apostles
aren't important to Paul despite their apparent positions of authority. He then
brags again that they ADDED NOTHING to his message. Paul wants to really drive
the point home that the apostles mean little to him and wants his audience to
know that he does not take direction from them nor has he been taught anything
by them."
These remarks are based on divorcing verse 6 from
the context which includes verses 3-5.
"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled
to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they
might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for
an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
Paul was not attacking the other twelve apostles.
He was referring to false brethren that snuck in to teach their doctrine of
salvation by works.
To further compound their error, the anti-Paulists
fail to cross reference properly. They say,
"There is one other point often overlooked in
the decision of the Jerusalem council and that is that the apostles apparently
didn't have full trust in Paul and thought it necessary to send someone along
with him as a witness to what he was teaching. In the letter which the council
drafts they say:
24 "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25.It
seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto
you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26.Men that have hazarded their lives
for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27.We have sent therefore Judas and
Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.”
The council's letter acknowledges that Paul has
received no instruction from them but has been preaching on his own. Remember,
Paul himself bragged about that. The council also acknowledges that what Paul
is teaching has been disturbing those who hear him."
The anti-Paulist then applies verse 24 to Paul? The
council would send Paul back to teach that they are warning against him?! In
reality, it is a reference to Acts 15:1, 2, 5, 6 which read as follows:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren,
and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be
saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas
had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul
and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the
apostles and elders about this question." . . . "But there rose up
certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was
needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And
the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. But there
rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is
needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. And
the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this
matter."
Verse 24 is referring to the legalistic Pharisees
which believed in justification by works, and were teaching the same. They were
of the "number" of Jews in Judea where the Apostles were from. They
went to Antioch to preach their false doctrine without the Apostles instruction
to do so. The council sent their "beloved" Barnabas and Paul to correct
the problem.
Anti-Paulists teach that all the believers in Asia
turned away from Paul and tried to kill him. They write;
"Now to the meat of the matter! First I will
prove from the accepted canon and from Paul's words himself that he was
rejected in all the churches of Asia."
8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of
three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of
God. 9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that
way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples,
disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. 10 And this continued by the
space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the
Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
Before, we saw that Paul reasoned with the Jews in
the synagogues but now we hear a little more of the story. Paul continued to
preach in Ephesus but he wasn't well received for long, for Luke records that
some there began to speak evil of the Way before the people and that they had
to withdraw from them. Putting aside the good and bad for a moment, the facts
are that Paul preached in Ephesus but eventually had to leave as they turned
against him."
Who turned against Paul in the above passage,
believers or hardened and disobedient, unbelieving Jews in the synagogue? Who
was Paul reasoning with and persuading about the Kingdom of Elohim? Believers
were already persuaded and embraced the Kingdom through Yahshua. It was the unbelieving Jews who needed
persuading and who turned against Paul.
The anti-Paulist continues;
8 For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which
came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength,
insomuch that we despaired even of life: 9 But we had the sentence of death in
ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the
dead: 10 Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we
trust that he will yet deliver us;
Paul admits that while in Asia that things got so
bad they had the sentence of death put on them. In other words, the believers
in Asia were going to kill Paul and his companions!"
In fact, these verses refer to the wrath of the
Ephesians after Paul said their goddess Diana was no mighty one at all. Let's
pick up the account in Acts 19:28-32.
“And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried
out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled
with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia,
Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre. And
when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him
not. And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him,
desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre. Some
therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and
the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.”
This mob wasn't thinking. They were wild with
resentment and wrath. If the town clerk hadn't calmed them down in verses
35-41, they may have rashly put Paul and his companions to death.
The thing that is so unbelievable to me is that the
anti-Paulists read 2 Cor.1:8-10 to mean "believers" wanted to kill Paul
and his companions. Would any believer go against our Saviour’s command to love
our enemies (Mt.5:44-48) by killing
them? Can you picture any believer in Acts killing anybody? Believers are sheep
to be slaughtered, not slaughterers of the sheep!
The anti-Paulist also appeals to 2 Tim.1:15. They say,
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away
from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
Now Paul tells us that ALL of those in Asia turned
away from him. Paul had to flee Ephesus for some reason and all the believers
in Asia wanted him killed."
We are not told why they turned from Paul. I
suspect it was a result of what took place at Ephesus. The weaker believers
feared for their lives and fled from Paul because he was the lightning rod of
that entire wrath. Does that sound familiar? Did not all of Messiah's disciples
turn from him out of fear for their lives? Does that make Yahshua a false
Messiah? Neither does it make Paul a false apostle.
The last attack on Paul from an historical
perspective that I will address comes from the anti-Paulist's pitiful
interpretation of Rev.2:1-3. It reads
as follows:
"To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus
write: These things saith he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, he
that walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and
thy toil and patience, and that thou can not bear evil men, and did try them
that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and did find them false; and
thou hast patience and did bear for my name's sake, and hast not grown weary.
"
The anti-Paulist then says;
Paul is the only one we know of in the accepted
canon that went to Asia and specifically preached in Ephesus. Paul writes to
the church in Ephesus saying that he is an apostle. . . This same body of
believers in Ephesus are now congratulated for testing someone who claimed to
be an apostles and were not. Could this be talking about Paul and Barnabas?
Were they tested for three months and ultimately rejected as false apostles and
ran out of town at threat of death? Did the church of Ephesus eventually
conclude that Paul was a liar and was NOT an apostle?
Did you absorb that? Did the Ephesians run Paul and
Barnabas out of town as false apostles? Let's read Acts 20:17-22.
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the
church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the
first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all
seasons, Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and
temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: And how I kept
back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught
you publicly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to
the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And
now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things
that shall befall me there:"
Paul is about to depart for Jerusalem, but he
desires one last meeting with the Elders of the Ephesian congregation. Let's
resume in Acts 20:29-38.
"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men
arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore
watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn
every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God,
and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an
inheritance among all them which are sanctified. I have coveted no man's
silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have
ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed
you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to
remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give
than to receive. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with
them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his
face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship."
Does that sound like they found him to be a false
apostle or does it sound like they loved him dearly and couldn't bear not
seeing him anymore? He left them on very good terms. However, in that meeting
he prophesied that grievous wolves would come to Ephesus and not spare the
flock. Others would draw away disciples to themselves. The "apostles"
Yahshua referred to were most likely these men who were grievous wolves.
Doctrinal Arguments
The anti-Paulists not only attack Paul
historically, but doctrinally as well. Let's explore some of the
"heresies" that the Apostle Paul supposedly taught.
No One
Righteous
In Romans 3:10-12, Paul refers to Psa.14 to prove all have sinned
and no one is righteous. Anti-Paulists say Paul misquoted Psa.14. Paul wrote,
"There is none righteous, no not one." Psa.14:3 reads, "there is none that doeth good, no not
one." There are a few other differences as well. The truth is, Paul was
not quoting, but paraphrasing. Even if he was quoting, there are other examples
of people not quoting exactly. For example:
Psalm 53 is almost identical to Psalm 14 with the
exception of Psa.53:5 and
"Elohim" in Psa.53 where Psa.14 has "YHWH". Is David
misquoting his own Psalm because it is not an exact quote? Does that make David
a false prophet?
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Yahshua was quoting Deut.8:3 which reads:
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee
with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might
make thee know that man does not live by bread only, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yahweh doth man live."
As you can see, Yahshua did not quote this verse
perfectly. He left out some words in the beginning and some at the end. Does
that make him a false Messiah? Or should we blame Matthew for misquoting
Yahshua and throw his book out along with Paul's writings? I'm being sarcastic,
of course. The truth is that the meaning and understanding of the Psalm is
being carried over by Paul.
Keep in mind that believers in ancient times did
not get to carry around the Scriptures wherever they went as we do. They did
not have computers to instantly write out a verse stored in its memory. They
had to rely on their own memories.
I can guarantee that every anti-Paulist, at one
time or another, has misquoted a verse. I wonder if they would consider
themselves false brethren because of such a mistake.
Because anti-Paulist's believe Paul falsely used
the word "righteous", they will also accuse Paul of teaching falsely
because Scripture says Noah, Abraham, David and others were
"righteous". Not only does Psa.14:3 read, "they are ALL gone aside, they are ALL
together become filthy, but Eccl.7:20 reads,
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and
sinneth not."
There were no righteous men on earth based on
sinlessness. Was Solomon wrong? Solomon said again, in 1 Kgs 8:46:
"...(for there is no man that sins
not,) ..."
The fact is, all the patriarchs sinned as well and
therefore were not perfectly righteous in the sense that Yahweh is. They were
righteous, not because they never sinned (never transgressed any of Yahweh's
commandments), but because they lived by faith, and that faith was imputed to
them for righteousness (Gen.15:6).
So why did Paul use "righteous" in Rom.3:10? Because Paul understood as did David and Solomon,
that it only takes one sin (one unrighteous act) to become unjust and
unrighteous. Since Paul was paraphrasing and not quoting verbatim, he
understands "none that does good" to mean "every man has committed
an act or acts of unrighteousness." If none do good, none are perfectly
righteous. The two words are synonymous in Pr.14:19:
"The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates of the
righteous."
Yahshua was sinless. Therefore, he is the only
absolutely righteous man that ever lived. His righteousness is imparted to us
through faith, paving the way for our justification apart from the law.
Justifying
the Wicked
In Ex.23:7, Yahweh says, "for I will not justify the
wicked." Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of teaching the exact opposite in Rom.4:5 which reads as follows:
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
If we read Ex.23:7 in context, including verses 1-6, we will notice
that Yahweh precedes His statement in verse 7 with a list of at least ten
commands. His meaning in verse 7, therefore, is that He will not justify the
wicked in their wickedness. Paul teaches the same thing and intended the
same meaning in Rom.4:5.
"And the times of this ignorance [Elohim] winked at; but now
commandeth all men every where to repent:"
Paul calls for the wicked to repent (turn away from
their sin). In Rom.4:5, Paul is
teaching that Yahweh will justify the wicked after they repent,
believe and have faith. This is why Paul quotes from Psalm 32 in Romans 4:7 and says, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered." This is exactly what Yahweh
taught in Hab.2:4, "the just
shall live by his faith."
Call No Man
Your Father
"For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Messiah, yet have
ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of not obeying Yahshua's
command in Mt.23:9 to call no
man "father".
However, Yahshua himself and every New Testament
writer except Jude used the word "father" in reference to men. James
calls Abraham "our father" in Ja.2:21 as did Stephen in Acts 7:2.Therefore, we are not to understand Yahshua's
words as anti-Paulists interpret them.
Yahweh says to "honour thy father and thy
mother". If I then say, "I would like to honour my father in a
special way," am I breaking Yahshua's command? Obviously not, for Yahshua
probably had practices similar to the Roman Catholic practice of calling their
priests, "Father so and so" in mind.
Justification
by Faith or Works?
Anti-Paulists are quick to bring up the supposed
contradictions in Paul's teaching of justification by faith alone and what
James taught in James 2.
Paul wrote:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from
the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)
James wrote:
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith
only." (James 2:24)
Interestingly, both apostles use the same verse (Gen.15:6) to support
their position.
Paul wrote:
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed Elohim, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness."
(Rom.4:3)
James wrote:
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed
Elohim, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the
Friend of Elohim." (James 2:23)
To understand this seeming contradiction, we need
to understand that each apostle is looking at justification from a different
viewpoint. For example, two people can look at a triangle. One may only see a
triangle while the other sees a square! How can that be? They were both viewing
a pyramid; one from the side and the other from the top.
Paul is looking at justification in it's initial
stage (when a person first believes). James is looking at justification after
one first believes. Paul sees Abraham's faith (belief in Yahweh) prior to
Abraham's work of offering up Isaac. James sees Abraham's works of offering up
Isaac as a fruit of his faith (after he was justified by faith).
James did not say, "You see then that a man is
justified by works, and not by faith" (James 2:24). He added the
word "only" after "faith". In other words, faith comes
first, but it cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by good works.
In writing about justification, Paul was not
addressing the believers behaviour after having been justified. Had he
addressed justification from James' viewpoint, he undoubtedly would have agreed
with him. Both apostles believed the words of Habakkuk 2:4b:
"but the just shall live by his faith."
The Greek word "dikaioo", translated
"justified" in James 2:24, means
"to render (i.e. to show or regard as) just or innocent." Therefore,
Abraham was "regarded" by Yahweh as being justified through faith,
but he also "showed" he was justified by his works.
Paul the
Hypocrite?
Gal.2:11-14 states, "But
when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood
condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles;
but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of
the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him;
insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when
I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I
said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, live as do the Gentiles,
and not as do the Jews, how compel thou the Gentiles to live as do the
Jews?"
1 Cor.9:19-22 read, "
or though
I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might
gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that
are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not
without law to [Elohim], but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them
that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak:
I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. "
1 Cor 10:31-33 read, "Whether
therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of
[Elohim]. Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to
the called out of Elohim: even as I also please all men in all things, not
seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be
saved."
The anti-Paulist then says:
"Why does Paul rebuke Peter for not giving
offense to the circumcised and yet he himself says we should give no offense to
the Jews or the Greeks and that Paul himself had become as a Jew to reach Jews
and like a Greek to reach Greeks? Does Paul have a double standard?"
Is Paul being a hypocrite with a double standard?
The answer is found in the motive of each man's actions. Paul's motive is found
in 1 Cor.9:22:
"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am
made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing
them which were of the circumcision."
Paul acted out of love and Peter acted out of fear.
What does the Apostle John teach about fear?
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear:
because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." 1 Jn.4:18
Peter's fear of the Jews led to the fruit of
hypocrisy and was a manifestation of a lack of love on his part. Motive is the
key.
Circumcision
Now we come to the two most difficult teachings of
Paul, circumcision and eating meat sacrificed to idols. First we shall consider
circumcision.
"And when the seven days were almost
completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all
the multitude and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is
the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and
this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath
defiled this holy place."
The anti-Paulist then says,
"To me it seems clear that the Jews from Asia
are upset with Paul in particular for bringing uncircumcised men into the
temple in violation of the words of Ezekiel. "
That is stated as fact by this anti_paulist author.
However, in verse 29, Luke says:
"For they had before seen with him in the city
Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into
the temple."
In other words, Paul was being falsely accused of
polluting the temple. They assumed he brought Trophimus into the
temple, but they never actually saw him do that. A similar instance can be
found where Naboth the Jezreelite was falsely accused of cursing Elohim and the
king, and even stoned, yet he had committed no crime (1 Kings 21:5-16).The remaining seven chapters of
Acts are all related to Paul's defense against those same false accusations. It
is ironic that those same false accusations are being leveled against Paul even
today, and by professing brethren in Messiah, nonetheless!.
"Only, as the Master hath distributed to each
man, as [Elohim] hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the
assemblies. Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become
uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be
circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the
keeping of the commandments of [Elohim]. Let each man abide in that calling
wherein he was called."
The anti-Paulist would then say,
This last statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians is
particularly troubling since he clearly seems to indicate that if you are
called when you were not circumcised then you should REMAIN uncircumcised. Why
then, we must ask, does Paul have Timothy circumcised if, by his own
instruction, a man should remain uncircumcised if he was "called"
while uncircumcised?
We need to note that 1 Corinthians was written
after Paul's first visit to Corinth in Acts 18:1-17. Therefore, Timothy's circumcision in Acts 16 and
Titus' avoidance of circumcision referred to in Gal.2:3-5 and which took place in Acts 15, where both before
Paul's statements in 1 Cor.17.
Note in Galatians 2:3-5, Paul refused to submit to the
false brethren who demanded Titus' circumcision. It reads,
"But not even Titus who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren
privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in
Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place
in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel
might continue with you."
This shows Paul's consistency in his teaching that
Gentile converts need not be circumcised. After the Jerusalem council's
decision, which agrees with Paul's teaching in that circumcision was not one of
the four requirements imposed on Gentiles, Paul has Timothy circumcised. Does
this contradict his belief? No.
Timothy was being chosen to accompany Paul in his
ministry. Had Timothy remained uncircumcised, it would have been a great
hindrance to Paul's ministry to the Jews in that area. Timothy evidently agreed
to "become as a Jew to win the Jews."
Paul was not giving a steadfast command to which
there could be no exceptions. Since Timothy was not fully a Gentile, his
extenuating circumstance warranted a different approach. He was not being
circumcised in order to be saved, but so that others would be saved. Had
Timothy not been chosen for the ministry, there would have been no need to
circumcise him.
Paul was not teaching against circumcision itself,
but against circumcision for the wrong reason. To be circumcised in order to be
saved or justified is wrong and is a denial of salvation by grace through
faith.
Meats
Sacrificed To Idols
(Revisions
as of 12/4/10 in red)
I would like to conclude this study by examining
Paul's stand on eating meats sacrificed to idols.
There are those who believe the Apostle Paul’s
teaching concerning meats sacrificed to idols is contrary to Torah and contrary
to Yahshua’s teaching on this subject. This study will examine Paul’s position
and show that it is in harmony with both Torah and Yahshua.
Torah’s Position
Exodus 34:14-15 - For you
shall worship no other elohim: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is
a jealous El: Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land,
and they go a whoring after their elohim, and do sacrifice unto their elohim,
and one call you, and you eat of his sacrifice;
Numbers 25:1-3 - And
Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with
the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their
elohim: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their elohim.
And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of Yahweh was
kindled against Israel.
While neither of these passages contain a direct
command from Yahweh to not eat meat sacrificed to idols, they do show Yahweh’s
concern that Israel avoid such idolatrous covenants and actions. We also see
Yahweh’s anger when such idolatrous covenants were made and pagan sacrifices
eaten.
Yahshua’s Position
Revelation 2:12-14 - And to the angel of the
assembly in Pergamos write; These things say he which has the sharp sword with
two edges; I know thy works, and where you dwell, even where Satan's
seat is: and you hold fast my name, and have not denied my faith, even
in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain
among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you
have there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a
stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto
idols, and to commit fornication.
Revelation 2:18-22 - And unto the angel of
the assembly in Thyatira write; These things say the Son of Elohim, who has his
eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know
thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and your patience, and your
works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a
few things against you, because you suffer that woman Jezebel, which calls
herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication,
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent
of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed,
and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they
repent of their deeds.
Paul’s Position
1 Corinthians 10:16-21 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the
blood of Messiah? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body
of Messiah? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we
are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not
they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? That
the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any
thing?
But I say, that the things which the
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would
not that you should have fellowship with devils.
You cannot drink the cup of the Master, and the cup
of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Master's table, and of the table of
devils.
It seems abundantly clear in this passage that Paul
is teaching the Corinthians to not eat meat sacrificed to idols because, in
reality, it was sacrificed to devils.
However, in other places in the same epistle, Paul
seems to teach the Corinthians that it is permissible to eat such meat. Let’s
examine those passages, but first, let’s build the foundation upon which Paul’s
position is built.
Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto
me: . . .
This teaches us that there were problems/questions
that the brethren in Corinth needed help with. Out of their great respect for
Paul, they chose to write to him and ask his advice. So Paul’s first epistle to
the Corinthians contains his reply to their questions. The question must then
be asked, “What were the questions the Corinthian brethren were asking Paul?”
Now we can begin to understand Paul’s first address of this issue.
Paul’s First Argument
He writes in 1 Corinthians 8:
1Co 8:1-3 - Now as
touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge.
Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if any man think that he knows any
thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love Elohim,
the same is known of Him.
The issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols is
obviously one of the concerns the Corinthian brethren asked Paul about. In Acts
15, it was decided that, among other things, the Gentiles should abstain from
such meat. The Jerusalem Council’s decree on this issue was then sent to
Antioch, Syria and Cilicia which are far from Corinth (Acts 15:23). This decree was sent by agreement of all present
at the meeting, including Paul, and it was delivered by Paul himself. This
shows his agreement that Gentiles are not to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Eventually the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols had arisen in Corinth
and they needed to know how to deal with it.
Paul seems to have sensed pride or conceit among
some in Corinth that were elevating themselves due to their knowledge. This
usually results in treating others as less important and failing to have
concern for the good of others and for their edification. This, therefore, is
Paul’s first correction of the Corinthians concerning this issue.
1Co 8:4-7 - As
concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice
unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there
is none other Elohim but one. For though there be that are called elohim,
whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be elohim many, and masters many,) But
to us there is but one Elohim, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in Him; and one Master Yahshua Messiah, by whom are all
things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge:
for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing
offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
There were brothers in Corinth that had that
knowledge and therefore felt at liberty to eat meat sacrificed to idols. So
Paul begins his teaching on this subject by directing his reply to those who
had that knowledge. He first confirms the truth concerning their understanding
of the one true Elohim and that idols are nothing. Then he goes on to teach
them that their conclusion that it was permissible to eat such meat was
dangerous because it may cause a weaker brother to stumble. This would be the
first reason Paul gives for not eating such meat. The second reason he gives
would be further on in this same epistle (Chapter 10).
Many of the Corinthian believers were converted out
of idolatrous lifestyles. Some believed such meat should not be eaten because
it somehow became defiled, common, or unclean through the sacrificial rites. On
the other hand, there were those with no regard for idols, knowing they were
nothing and could have no effect on the edibility of the meat, which saw no
problem in eating it.
1Co 8:8 - But meat
commends (Greek – paristemi) us not to Elohim: for neither, if we eat, are we
the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
It may be that the brethren in Corinth that had
such knowledge felt their knowledge and perceived liberty would cause them to
be in better standing (paristemi) with Yahweh. Paul says to them “you are no
better in Yahweh’s sight if you eat such meat; neither are you any worse in His
sight if you don’t eat it.”
1Co 8:9 - But take
heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to
them that are weak.
Paul gives a warning to those with such perceived
liberty should they choose to eat such meat. They will be risking causing
another brother to stumble. When Paul writes, “this liberty of yours”,
is he acknowledging that it is a valid liberty for all or is he stating it is a
liberty that the certain Corinthians with knowledge believe they have, but, in
reality, don’t?
1Co 8:10 - For if
any man see you which has knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not
the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are
offered to idols;
Does this example come from Paul’s heart or is he
restating a question that was asked of him when the Corinthians wrote to him?
Did someone ask, “Can we, who have such knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s
temple?” I suspect the latter is true. So Paul restates the question with his
ensuing answer which stems from his concern that we not be a stumblingblock to
any.
1Co 8:11-13 - And
through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
But when you sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you
sin against Messiah. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat
no flesh while the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend.
Paul concludes his first of two arguments against
the reasoning of those in Corinth who felt at liberty to eat meat sacrificed to
idols. This first argument stems from the second greatest commandment, “love
your neighbor as yourself”. Love would not cause another brother to stumble.
His second argument stems from the greatest commandment, “love Yahweh your
Elohim with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might”.
This argument is found in 1 Corinthians 10:14-33.
Paul’s Second Argument
1Co 10:14 -
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
In this and the following verses, Paul returns to
the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols by laying out his second argument
against it.
1Co 10:15-18 - I speak
as to wise men; judge you what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it
not the communion of the blood of Messiah? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Messiah? For we being many are one bread, and
one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the
flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
The answer to the last question is “yes”. The
priests and Levites who ate of the sacrifices to Yahweh were partaking of the
altar and the sacrifices on the altar. By doing so, they also declared their
allegiance to and fellowship with Yahweh.
1Co 10:19-21 - What say
I then? That the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to
idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that
you should have fellowship with devils. You cannot drink the cup of the Master,
and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Master’s table, and of
the table of devils.
By eating meat sacrificed to idols, the eater
declares his allegiance to and fellowship with devils. Paul is making a
reference to Deuteronomy 32:17:
They sacrificed unto devils, not to Elohim; to
elohim whom they knew not, to new elohim that came newly up, whom your
fathers feared not.
Not only is this unacceptable by giving one’s
allegiance to another (devils) in opposition to Yahweh, but it creates a
division between the Master Yahshua and the one who eats meat sacrificed to
idols.
Once one knowingly eats meat sacrificed to an idol,
he cannot partake of the Master’s table (the symbols of the bread and the fruit
of the vine) until he repents and is clean once again.
1Co 10:22 - Do we
provoke Yahweh to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?
We provoke Him to jealousy by giving our allegiance
and fellowship to another (idolatry). By partaking of idolatrous practices like
eating meat sacrificed to idols, we are putting ourselves in opposition to Yahweh
and fight against Him. However, since Yahweh is omnipotent, it would be utter
foolishness to fight against Him. Therefore, Paul is teaching the Corinthians
to not fight against Yahweh by eating meat sacrificed to idols.
1Co 10:23-24 - All
things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are
lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man
another's profit.
If this verse is translated correctly, we cannot
understand Paul here in the literal sense. For example, Paul is not saying it
is lawful for him to murder or commit idolatry. I believe Paul’s sense is that
Yahweh has given us a free will and allows us to choose right or wrong. Our
wrong choices are not expedient (not to our advantage) and they do not edify us
or others. Just the opposite is true; our wrong choices are to our hurt and
tear us down. Idolatry and eating meat sacrificed to idols are wrong choices.
In all the choices we make, we should consider
others first and put their good or their profiting before our own. (see verses
33 concerning the addition of the word “profit” in verse 24).
1Co 10:25-29 -
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (meat market), that eat, asking no
question for conscience sake: For the earth is [Yahweh's], and the
fullness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast,
and you be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no
question for conscience sake. But if any man says unto you, This is offered in
sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience
sake: for the earth is [Yahweh’s], and the fullness thereof: Conscience,
I say, not your own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's
conscience?
These two situations (vss. 25 & 27) may have
been questions asked by the Corinthians. “Can we eat whatever is sold in the
meat markets or put before us at an unbelievers feast that we were invited to?”
Or, Paul may be trying to give real life examples of situations that may arise.
First, this is not referring to eating unclean meat. The context is only
dealing with eating clean meat sacrificed to idols. We cannot cross examine
everyone who offers us food to be sure it was not offered to idols. Yahweh will
not hold it against any believer if they eat meat sacrificed to an idol
unknowingly. In fact, Yahweh will not hold any transgression against a believer
if they are transgressing unknowingly. That is where His grace comes in as well
as the power of Yahshua’s cleansing blood. However, once we find out it was
sacrificed to an idol, we should not eat it so as not to grieve or offend
another’s conscience.
In 1 Corinthians 10:28-29, Paul is returning to his previous argument against eating meat
sacrificed to idols. That is, we must be careful to not cause another to
stumble or wound their conscience. Verse 29 is often misunderstood. Why doesn’t
Paul seem concerned about one’s own conscience? As they are eating meat
sacrificed to idols unknowingly, they cannot have a conscience about it.
Once it is revealed to them that the meat was sacrificed to idols, it is the
conscience of the other that is to be their primary concern. Those that are
eating know that Yahweh has given them grace to eat in such situations, but the
other does not have that knowledge or liberty. When Paul writes, “my liberty”,
he is not referring to the liberty he has to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but
to eat such meat unknowingly.
1Co 10:30-33 - For if I
by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give
thanks?
Paul is still referring to the two examples given
above in verses 25 & 27. In other words, if we partake of meat sacrificed
to idols unknowingly, Yahweh will give us grace because it was done in
ignorance. Therefore, if Yahweh gives grace in such a situation, no one should
speak evil of us for eating in ignorance.
1Co 10:31-33 - Whether
therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of
Elohim. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the
assembly of Elohim: Even as I please all men in all things, not
seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
If only we would heed these words today. We would
have much more peaceful homes and assemblies.
I do not believe the Apostle Paul was teaching
contrary to Torah or Yahshua. Nor was he teaching the Corinthians to eat meat
sacrificed to idols. He was responding to many questions they had on various
subjects, one of which was whether or not a believer who knows an idol is nothing
has the liberty to eat such meat. Paul says no on two accounts; 1) that it may
cause another to stumble or grieve his conscience and 2) such meat was
sacrificed to devils with whom we are not to have fellowship or give our
allegiance.
Conclusion
I believe this study provides a strong explanation
that should make those who oppose Paul and accuse him of teaching falsely think
twice. As an apostle of Yahshua and a Spirit filled teacher of truth in many
other areas, Paul deserves the benefit of the doubt if questions arise
concerning his teachings. If you disagree with any portion of this study, I
admonish you to seek further concerning how to harmonize Paul’s teaching rather
than seeking to prove him wrong. To accuse him of being wrong and exalt our own
understanding of the situation as though we are right and Paul is wrong may not
only be arrogant, but dangerous. Yahweh forbid that we be found doing Satan’s
work of falsely accusing the brethren.
The Apostle Paul was truly that, an Apostle
appointed and sent by Yahshua himself. His writings, when properly exegeted and
rightly understood, were and are a blessing to millions of believers. May they
continue to be so.
