The Christian world today marches blindly forward, espousing Paul’s counterfeit plan of salvation with total confidence that it was introduced, endorsed, and fostered upon the world by Jesus Christ! For some reason, the average Christian today ignores the obvious fact that Paul and the Apostles differed on almost all of their doctrines. For instance, they had different concepts of Jesus’ nature. To the Apostles, he was the Messiah; to Paul, Jesus was the son of God. In the Apostles' view, Jesus would return to bring judgment upon the wicked and usher in a literal kingdom of God on earth. Paul’s concept was of a spiritual kingdom. Even their perception of salvation was different. The Apostles believed that salvation came through obedience to the Law, while Paul taught that Jesus fulfilled the Law.

Paul’s intelligence and intent were so masterful that, even today, Christians are simply bound to refuse to believe the truth. Although that truth is openly displayed in every New Testament, people still desire the story concocted and perpetrated by the Catholic Church. By way of explanation, let me try to explain the elements involved and how they were manipulated.

The Scriptures of the Essenes/Nazarenes and orthodox Jews were rigid, unyielding, bound tightly within the Law of Moses and required literal interpretation. This appealed to the heritage of the Nazarenes. While they might use allegories and mysteries to conceal their teachings from the profane, the Law was written in stone, and had to be observed to the letter. The opposite was true for the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. Their philosophies and religions were built upon mysteries and magic so Paul was able to translate all that he had learned during his early life at Tarsus, his studies as a Pharisee, and, possibly, as a sojourner with the Essenes, into the type of religious philosophy for which the Gentiles were clamoring. Let’s see how he accomplished this, step-by-step.

The first step was to establish an authority for his teachings. As we observed earlier, for the Essenes that authority was the Zaddik, the Teacher of Righteousness. He was one Perfect Teacher who spoke for all the people, a community pillar—such as Noah, David and James, who were “called from the womb". Such an authoritative figure wasn’t limited to only the Essenes; the idea of a protecting and nurturing leader originated with Adam, the First Man, and was a common tenet of Jewish tradition. Therefore, all Jews understood the import of Paul’s declaration when he claimed that authority for himself:

 

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen… (Galatians 1:15-16).

 

His credentials, Zaddik of a new priesthood, called by God, answerable to no man:

 

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1).

 

With one verbal claim, Paul established unquestionable (in that it could not be disproved) authority which immediately placed him on equal footing with James, the Zaddik and Righteous Teacher of the Jerusalem Church. And in the same breath, Paul validated the resurrection of Jesus. For years, stories of Jesus rising from the grave and speaking with his disciples and loved ones had been passed among the believers, but he had ascended to heaven, leaving everyone suspended in a state of expectation. Now, Paul was telling them Jesus had returned. And, he had no trouble selling a salvation to those desperate to believe.

Professor Burton L. Mack, author of Who Wrote the New Testament?, is referencing Galatians 1:16 when he claims that God only “made his son known” to Paul. Mack further states that there was no “personal, private experience of encounter with God’s son". Nevertheless, the author of Acts describes Saul’s conversion as a personal, private, spiritual encounter with Jesus twice, in Acts chapters 9 and 22. Obviously, these passages were intended to establish such authority for Paul’s ministry.

This is a perfect example of one problem that is presented in New Testament studies. As noted earlier (chapter three), it is readily acknowledged by most theologians and Bible scholars that the New Testament does have errors, corrections, and additions. Thus, our problem: how do you differentiate between the truth and spurious statements? And how can you refer to one passage as proof, while denying the validity of another?

In addition, I’m sure many of my readers are wondering, “How can he claim the Scriptures are corrupt and unreliable and still turn to them as proof?” I do so, based upon Christianity’s valuation of the Scriptures. Christians turn to the Bible for divine, final proof. What choice do I have, but to let the Scriptures witness to their own fallacies?

Understand the situation in which these passages were written. Paul was writing to the churches in Galatia, probably two or three years after his confrontation with James and the Jerusalem Church council. According to Paul's account, either fourteen or seventeen years, depending upon chronological reckoning, had passed since his call from God. Three of those years had, presumably, been spent within the Qumran Community; the balance had been dedicated to formulating his theology and building his ministry, almost exclusively among the Gentiles in other nations. Now, he was explaining to the Galatians what had transpired at the Jerusalem Council. He was confident, even a bit defiant and, perhaps, angry. At the time of the meeting, he had made one successful missionary journey and had already established a number of churches; he would not be intimidated.

 

Attack on the Law

 

Paul lost no time in attacking the Jews’ central tenet of belief—the Law of Moses—by insisting that Gentiles were not bound by the Abrahamic Covenant, and were, therefore, free from the bondage of the Law.

 

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (Galatians 3:6-9).

 

As we noted before, there is no indication that Paul made assertions such as this to the Jerusalem Church when he was defending his teachings. Do you suppose he informed them that their belief in Abraham was only a stepping stone to his ministry? If so, imagine the shock that would have reverberated throughout the ranks of the Nazarenes and the Jewish community! The audacity that one man could not only elevate himself above the high priest and religious leaders of the land, but also presume to condemn God’s Law! The Jews in the cities where he preached were so upset they tried to kill him, and yet, we find no indication of similar outrage among the members of the Jerusalem Church. This reinforces the idea that his teachings were not publicized in Jerusalem after he was forced to flee the city.

The Abraham reference must refer to Genesis 22:18, even though the "seed" promise is made to Abraham in 12:2-3, 18:18, and repeatedly in chapter 17. However, in every instance seed is used in the plural tense.

It is impossible to ascertain whether or not James, the brother of Jesus, was truly the author of the book of James. Nor can we know if the writer was responding to Paul's charge, but there is certainly a countercharge in the Epistle of James:

 

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the alter? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God (James 2:20-23).

 

Notice that both Paul and James turn to Genesis 22:18 for their authorization. James interpreted the passage in context by including Abraham’s “works"; Paul only wanted to reinforce the idea that faith equals righteousness. The passage in Genesis speaks of Abram’s “seed". To James, the reference was to Isaac’s descendents but Paul had discovered the power of allegorical interpretation, and saw his definition as one seed—“Christ".

 

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ (Galatians 3:16).

 

Paul's interpretation is simply a play on the Hebrew word, Zera, meaning: fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity—carnally, child, fruitful. However, the word is used in the plural form extensively throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Time and again, Paul uses this method of reasoning as he casts doubt upon the validity of the Law. To those familiar with Christian doctrines, such statements sound more sensible and pleasing than the harsh demands of the Mosaic Law, but the reader should place all partiality aside, and concentrate on the historicity of the events taking place. The point is not whether Paul was performing a service or disservice, or if he was introducing a better religion or philosophy. Instead, focus on the mechanics of how he did it. Were his interpretations of Scriptures accurate? Did they truly support his claims?

In Galatians 3:14, we find Paul reiterating God's alleged promise to Abraham of a savior to the Gentiles, in which Paul again distinguishes "seed" from "seeds". And here, once again, we must point out the fact that Paul's interpretation is incorrect. Paul was a master at making assumptions, based on Hebrew Scripture taken out of context. His hypothesis was plausible to pagan Gentiles who probably had no access to the Jewish Scriptures, but were familiar with the idea of a dying and resurrected god from their own culture. And, despite his claims to the contrary, Paul had the ability, charisma, and eloquence to weave an appealing story from the Scriptures, credible even to some of his more intellectual listeners.

In this passage, Paul's idea of a promised seed is described as a covenant that was given before Moses introduced the Law to Israel. Why then, Paul asks, was the Law given? It was given, he said, because of the transgressions of the Israelites. The Law was a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24), a training aid, until Jesus came, but the Law couldn't give eternal life. By some mysterious logic, the blood of bulls and goats could only cover man's sins—not eradicate them (Hebrews 10:4). Eternal life could only be acquired by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). However, when we consult the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that Paul's concepts of forgiveness of sin, faith, and eternal life are in stark contrast with God's principles. Leviticus and Numbers are dedicated to instructions for sin offerings and forgiveness of sin is promised in Leviticus 4:20, II Chronicles 6:25 & 7:14, Psalm 32:1, 51:2 & 85:2, Ezekiel 33:13-16—and repeatedly throughout the Scriptures.

Paul makes vague references to the Hebrew Scriptures but when we refer to the verses, we find they don't exactly fit Paul's context. One of his main points of contention in the following passage refers to God justifying the heathen and preaching the gospel to Abraham. Paul's reference to Genesis 22:18: "In thee shall all nations be blessed," teaches that God came to Abraham and allegedly promised that his "seed," Jesus, would open the door for salvation to the heathen, or Gentiles. Let's see what was actually stated.

 

…because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies (Genesis 22:16&17).

 

The first rule of Bible study is to consider context. In context, what God tells Abraham is a simple and clear promise. Paraphrased, God is saying: "Abraham, I'm going to make a great nation of you. I'll bless those that bless you, and curse those that curse you. If any other nations wish to receive my blessings they'd better treat you well." That is it. Abraham committed to an act (sacrifice of Issac), performed a work and God made the promise. The only seed inferred is Abraham's son, Isaac; the promise is a multiplicity of seed—seeds.

When Paul returns to his attack upon the Law, he does present a scripturally true statement. He just packages it in a unique manner.

 

For as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith (Galatians 3:10&11).

 

To find this referenced curse, we must go to Deuteronomy 27:26, where the commandments were given to the Israelites, and the Levites were pronouncing curses upon all those who chose not to obey the Law.

 

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

 

At this event, the people had heard the commandments, or Law, and were basically confirming their desire to either continue as Israelites, or reject the commandments and join those outside the Law—the cursed. It's a decision that today might be referred to as a "no-brainer". The God of the Hebrew Scriptures dealt very directly with the ones He chose. He blessed or cursed them, whether the person (or nation, as in the case of Israel), obeyed or disobeyed the Law. In that sense, Paul's assertion that no man was justified by the Law was correct, but his idea that there was a salvation apart from the Law just isn't scriptural—at least it's not in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea that no man is justified by the Law might be evident to Christians today, but that wasn't a Jewish concept.

The concept of salvation in the form of eternal life wasn't Jewish either. Look at the promises God made to Abraham, his son Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 13:14-16; 26:3-4; 35:11-12): land, wealth, fertility, power over their enemies and longevity—nothing about eternal life. The same promises were relayed through Joseph, Moses, Joshua and other descendants, until the nation Israel evolved into city-dwellers out of nomadic tribes, and David consolidated the empire. At that time, the emphasis of God's promises seemed to shift more toward maintaining the mighty and wealthy nation of Israel, and protecting the empire from its many enemies—still nothing about eternal life.¹ There is only one reference to eternal (or everlasting), life in the Old Testament, prior to the book of Daniel (12:2), where it is mentioned in an eschatological prophecy. But that reference makes it obvious eternal life for man was not in God's plans.

 

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore  the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken (Genesis 3:22-23).

 

Why was it introduced in Daniel? It wasn't mentioned earlier because it wasn't an original Jewish concept but was adopted from the pagan worship of their captors, the Persians.²

Yes, the passage in Hebrews 10:4 (referring to Isaiah 1:11 and Micah 6:6), condemns blood offerings. Does that mean God abolished them? We must keep everything in context. The question in these instances wasn't the efficacy of the sacrifice but the attitude of the worshippers. They performed the rituals of sacrifice, but their intentions were evil—therefore, their offerings were an abomination.

Jesus recognized offerings and sacrifices as part of the Law, for he commanded those he healed to go to the priest and offer the gift commanded by Moses (Matthew 8:4). The main concern should not be whether or not offerings were abolished, but the fact that Paul was teaching something contrary to the Law. No matter how vehemently he denied that his intent was to negate the Law, that's exactly what his actions and teachings did.

As for his message of the just living by faith, the word faith is used just twice in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first instance of use is found in Deuteronomy 32:20, where God accused the children of Israel of lacking faith. The second is Paul's reference to Habakkuk 2:4:

 

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

 

Here we have to make a distinction between Paul's faith and the faith demanded by the God of Israel. In this regard, the key definition in the Hebrew Scriptures was obedience; faith was simply a measurement of obedience. What was Paul's faith? How was it measured? We know it wasn't faith in the Law—Paul was negating the Law. It couldn't have been faith in Yahweh—the harsh, vindictive God of the Old Testament because He had taken a backseat to Paul's idea of a son of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. What we do know is that Paul's faith evolved into the "miraculous" filling of the Holy Ghost. Notice in his rhetoric to the Galatians how he is able to present inferences and insinuations as truth, and simply sweep Hebrew teachings aside. In 3:1-3&5 he belittles his readers:

 

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? …He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law; or by the hearing of faith?

 

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Paul delivered his message, and the manifestation of the Holy Ghost testified to the truth of that message, in the form of bodily possession and ecstatic jabbering. Understand, the idea of a person being filled with the power of God was not a new concept. Similar incidents are recorded throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus 31:3; Numbers 24:2; I Samuel 10:10; and Isaiah 61:1, to name only a few).

Paul's faith was not faith in God's word; it was simply belief in what he was teaching—eternal life through belief in the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. To Paul this was truth. And even as he undermined the tenets of the Law, he did not see his actions as destructive. No amount of blood or slain animals could make a man righteous; righteousness must come from the heart. This is a truism. Paul saw its higher value and knew he had found a better way, but it did contradict the legalistic interpretation of the Judaic Law!

Apparently, the Galatians had received the Holy Ghost, which was Paul's proof that his message of an indwelling spirit was truth. However, he had left and their initial euphoric high of an emotional experience had faded. Doubts had led some Galatians to question Paul's stance against the Law. Basically, Paul asks, "Who has bewitched you, so that you can't see the truth that has been presented plainly before your eyes—the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified? Tell me, did you receive the Holy Ghost by keeping the Law, or by faith?"

Notice, Paul had established his gospel as "truth," but by what criteria? Galatians 3:5 tells us it was by the working of miracles and the giving of the spirit. Paul preached his message, worked a few "miracles" and, with fervent oratory and laying on hands, gave his listeners the gift of the Holy Spirit. And why shouldn't one believe such power was derived from God? Let's face it, not everyone can walk into a strange town and heal the sick, chase demons away, impart the Holy Ghost, and have people jabbering in unknown tongues! There have been a few such hypnotists or charismatic evangelists in our age. Ernest Angley, Jimmy Swaggart, or Oral Roberts were capable of such crowd manipulations. But consider Paul's message! Where are the facts? "Jesus died for your sins," is the central tenet of Christian belief. But why should one believe such a statement? We are expected to believe because Jesus arose from the grave. His resurrection is our proof. Still, that is just another assertion; where is the proof?

We are told it is true because he was seen by many after his resurrection. He even gave the new gospel to his disciples and instructed them to carry it to the whole world. That does sound like something a little more solid. At least, it is something we can check. When we do, the first hurdle we must overcome is the integrity of the New Testament. We can't even find out who wrote it. And even if we accept its authenticity, we still have to explain how the disciples knew nothing of Jesus' commission. Instances in which they refused to associate with Gentiles are found in Acts 2:5, 10:34-43, 11:3 and Galatians 2:9. If they wouldn't even go near a Gentile, how could they convert them? And if they couldn't touch them, how could they lay hands on them to impart the Holy Ghost? Should we believe that Jesus' trained Apostles ate with their resurrected master, received his commission of salvation to any who would believe, understood that this message was to overshadow all racial barriers and transcend the Judaic Law, and yet they continued to observe the Mosaic Law and even opposed Paul's ministry? No. The facts don't support that story. On the contrary, the story presents no facts worthy of consideration!

In Galatians 2:16, Paul leaves no doubt that it is either the Law—or faith.

 

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

 

And it wasn't just the saving grace of the Law that came under Paul's condemnation. His teaching of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost conflicted with another facet of the Law—the dwelling place of God's Holy Spirit.

 

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (I Corinthians 3:16).

 

What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (I Corinthians 6:19).

 

Imagine how a statement like this would have been received by someone who had just received the Spirit and spoken in tongues. I was saved in a Baptist church and never spoke in tongues, but my conversion was a spiritual experience—one that I'll never forget. I was filled—filled is the only word for it—with a buoyant sense of excitement, and simultaneously, the most relaxing peace imaginable. And I had no doubt as to who the author of that spiritual blessing was. Therefore, it is easy for me to understand just how Paul's listeners would have felt upon hearing that their body was the temple of the Holy Spirit. Any of Paul's listeners who experienced that exhilarating feeling and hear unintelligible, unbidden speech coming from their own mouth would almost certainly have believed they were possessed of the spirit of God. The holiness churches of today still do.

The concept of eternal life is also tied to the doctrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit:

 

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. …For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory (I Corinthians 15:50, 53&54).

 

Paul was able to conjure up secrets from the Hebrew Scriptures never before imagined, in this world or in the world to come.

 

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, then shall we ever be with the Lord (I. Thessalonians 4:15-17).

 

Since Paul's teachings have no support in the Hebrew Scriptures, how did he come to this synthesis of ideas? How could he sanction his statements as "the word of the Lord?" Remember, Paul was the first author of the New Testament. The Gospels hadn’t been written, so he wasn’t parroting words that had been put into Jesus’ mouth. And he certainly wasn’t expressing the teachings of Jesus. Otherwise, he and the Apostles would not have been in council discussing conflicting doctrines. They would have been in agreement and they would all have been teaching the same doctrines. Where did Paul get his knowledge? As I said before—he knew the mind of God. God told him. God revealed to him what no other man since Adam, including Jesus, God's own Son, had been unable to discern.

 

For by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:17-19).

 

So, here we have the genesis of salvation through Jesus Christ. It's defined as an allegory, which is, according to Webster, “The veiled presentation, in a figurative story, of a meaning metaphorically implied but not expressly stated.” In other words, God never said this; it’s just something Paul figured out. Here we see the genius of Paul’s interpretation of Scripture.

But even geniuses err. The error in Paul's reasoning is found in his assurance that the death of Jesus Christ provided a "free gift" of justification to all men. Under Adam, all came under sin and all died, even those who knew nothing of Yahweh. Therefore, reason demands that, under Christ, all should receive the "free gift," regardless of whether they know God or not. However, under Paul's message, only those who believe his gospel will be saved. That means it wasn't a free gift; the price was that most priceless of commodities—freedom! But Paul was even able to present such bondage as freedom! He pressed his attack:

 

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage… For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:1, 3-4).

 

Here Paul is calling for a separation or setting apart, terms emphasized in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and practiced by the Essenes, except that, as in most of Paul’s teachings, he is reversing the community’s rationale. Instead of separating from the unclean world in order to preserve the Law, Paul is advocating a separation from the Law, and implying nothing is unclean. He even contradicts James' edict to the Gentile believers against eating things offered to idols.

 

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God the same is known of him. 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 God but one… But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge:… But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak (I Corinthians 8:1-4, 8-9).

 

Since most people today do not believe in pollution of idols, it is easy to become sidetracked by sympathizing with Paul’s logic, but we should focus on the issue—Paul’s masterful emasculation of the Law. And that is the thrust of almost every attack, whether the subject concerns faith, circumcision, diet, freedom, or whatever; the negation of the Law of Moses is the intended goal.

Notice the not-to-subtle attacks upon James and the Apostles: “If any man think that he knoweth anything.” That's a wicked jab at James and those who upheld the Law, those “weak” men who were foolish enough to believe in idols. Paul is basically giving the same answer to all of James’ directives; “all things are Lawful for me". He is making his position clear on bondage to, or freedom from, the Law.

Paul used another trick to conceal his intent. Repeatedly, he offered assurance that the Law was good and holy (Romans 7:12), and that his teachings were not voiding it (Romans 3:31). Apparently, Paul was able to keep up the charade until he was mobbed by the Jews (Acts 21). At that time, he was ejected from the country and, it is assumed, he never returned. Yet, even as he called the Law holy, just, and good, he was declaring it abolished (II Corinthians 3:9-16).

Although Christians claim he was only voiding the ceremonial rituals, from the Jews’ perspective he was flat-out lying. He was apparently accused of this, because on numerous occasions he assured his readers that he did not lie (Romans 9:1; II Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:20).

To be fair, we should attempt to understand Paul's point of view. His assertion was understandable on the basis that he truly believed the Law was to be observed spiritually. The social and religious upheaval taking place at that time in Palestine must also be considered. Grecian Hellenist concepts had been weakening Jewish culture for centuries. Judaism had reached a major impasse. The Roman occupation had disrupted the temple services and was making it impossible for the Jews to observe the Law as they were commanded by God. The Jewish and Roman rulers were corrupt. The priesthood and the people were divided in their loyalties. And, because of the wickedness of the people, they couldn't even cling to the hope of deliverance by God.

The future promised only a rebellion that would end in total suppression of the people and their religion. Many of the people, such as the Essenes and Zealots, who held messianic expectations, were blind to the hopelessness of their faith. The more orthodox and moderate intellectuals, including Paul, realized changes and compromises had to be made in order to preserve their heritage. Was Paul a realist in that sense? Did he allow those compromises to corrupt his religion and faith in God? Was he, as the Ebionites charged, a charlatan, intent upon promoting his own agenda? Was he pursuing some clandestine or vengeful effort to destroy the Law? After reading of the love, concern, and dedication he expressed to all his followers in his epistles, I have to say, no, to that accusation. What man would dedicate his life to such a hazardous occupation, when there were obviously no material rewards? Did Paul truly have a one-on-one relationship with a spiritual Jesus?

I don't believe in gods or miracles, but I do believe in dreams. And I do believe many physical, natural phenomena occur and have no present-day explanations. I have witnessed such occurrences for example, in the form of a hopeless alcoholic, or drug addict, who dedicated his life to God and immediately kicked his habit. And I've heard of numerous near-death experiences that produced like results. Why, then, should I not believe Paul experienced a similar event?

Do I believe God miraculously filled him with the knowledge of a new religious concept? No. Paul was a student of the Law and, no doubt, well-acquainted with the Scriptures. Adapting that knowledge to a new concept would have required some time and study, but most likely only months, instead of years. Once an idea occurred to him, say, his principle of faith, he would only have had to research familiar Scriptures to solidify his thesis.

The temple was already desecrated. Any man trained in the Law and politics, as Paul was, would have been able to foresee the inevitable collapse of Palestine under then-present conditions. As a Pharisee, Paul's political and religious values were most likely aligned with the Herodian regime, as demonstrated by his persecution of the Nazarenes. No doubt, at that time he didn't believe in the return of a messiah. Like many Jews, he probably believed Israel's best chance for survival was cooperation with the Romans. We will never know why, but for some reason, Paul envisioned a masterful transition from a failing form of worship to a new avenue of salvation.

Christians today are able to understand that, by introducing a spiritual interpretation of the Law, Paul was offering freedom from the rigid adherence to obsolete and useless rituals. But we must not forget the mindset of the orthodox Jews and Nazarenes, who had dedicated every waking minute of their adult lives to pleasing their God. For them, those physical observances of the Law, such as circumcision, sacrifice, and separation, were just as important as the spiritual acts. Under Paul’s teachings, those observances would definitely have to go. Paul presented an escape from a failing form of worship, but for it to succeed he had to discredit the Law. And, to do so, he had to undermine James’ authority, while establishing his own.

 

Do we begin again to commend ourselves, or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistles of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God: not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart (II Corinthians 3:1-3).

 

Paul’s reasoning is beautiful, superb, and undeniable. Letters of authority from the Church were issued to the Apostles—of course Paul had none. In effect, he is saying, “Here are my works, my letters of recommendation, my converts and believers—all alive, well, and happy, blessed by God!” Then he attacks the Mosaic Law by comparing his “letters,” which have made them ministers of the New Testament, to the Commandments.

 

…for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away… Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart (II Corinthians 3:6-7; 12-15).

 

The most striking aspects of Paul’s attacks are the bold, vicious assaults. No insinuations, subtle suggestions, or reasoning, and not an iota of compromise. Each attack—there can be no other word—is sure and direct, without a trace of indecision. Here is a master swordsman, lunging, thrusting, and skewing a lead-footed, stumbling foe. In this passage, with a single strike, he tarnishes one of the Nazarenes most sacred traditions. By implying that Moses covered his face, not for the brilliance, but so the people would not realize the light had been extinguished, Paul was implying that Moses was a fraudster, deceiving the people. And how else can we interpret the phrase, “the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished,” other than the abolishment of the Law?

Notice the continual usage of allegories, and how smoothly Paul negates the Law by simply insinuating that its end was hidden from them. And still, probably one of his greatest allegories is yet to come—one reflecting his opposition to separation from the Gentiles, the one of the olive tree and the grafting in of the “wild” limbs. Speaking of Israel, he begins:

 

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy… For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy and it the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree: (Romans 11:11, 15-17).

 

The “branch” and “root” imagery, as used extensively throughout the Old Testament and Qumran documents, made reference to the Messiah. Here, as usual, Paul reverses it in what was probably the most horrendous method possible for the Nazarenes—applying it to the Gentile converts. Understand that this would include the Jews’ oppressors, the Romans, if they should “believe". This follows after Paul's reference to the “seed of Abraham” in chapter nine.

 

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac… It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger (Romans 9:6-10,12).

 

However, Paul’s interpretations were bound to anger and insult. God’s “children of the promise,” were alluded to as “the Children of the Flesh,” obviously referring to Paul’s new Gentile community. And with a master stroke, the “Children of Sarah” are transformed into “the Children of Hagar,” thereby reversing the Jews' own genealogical claims against them because, of course, Hagar’s son, Ishmael, was born before Isaac.

Paul bases his allegory upon Hebrew genealogy, and declares that God, in his infinite wisdom, will show mercy upon whosoever He will. Then, in verse 24, according to Paul’s conjecture, He pours that mercy onto the Gentiles.

 

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in O’see, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved… And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha (Romans 9:24-27, 29).

 

One often hears Christians speak of "rightly dividing the Word of God." And, for or the Christian, the denominator is always faith. They believe God is, by faith; that Jesus is the son of God, by faith; that he died for their sins, by faith; and that the Bible is the Word of God, by faith. This is the greatest fallacy of their reasoning; with faith as the denominator, there are no tangible values to establish truth.

Paul employs this practice in his interpretation of this Scripture. He takes a literal passage from the Hebrew Scriptures (in this case, four passages), changes them just a bit and, by giving them an allegorical interpretation, applies them to his purpose. He is using faith in what he perceives to be God's will as the determining factor to define truth.

Understand that Paul was not practicing deception. Again, he was using the gezerah shawah principle, an accepted use of interpretation in that era. He had no qualms about collecting and reshuffling Scriptures to conform them to his interpretation. In this case, he took snippets from Hosea (1:10 and 2:23), and two sections of Isaiah (10:22 and 1:9), then used them out of context to refer to his allegorical "Israel"—his Gentile converts.

In the original context of both passages, God is speaking to Israel and Judah, warning them of the captivity he will bring upon them, and promising he will bring a remnant out of captivity. In Hosea, God addresses Israel as an adulterous wife, and although the quote provided by Paul is far from exact, it is basically accurate. However, the prophecy is for the people of Israel, the Jews, not Paul's converts. It does not make any reference to Paul's Gentiles; faith must be used to reach that conclusion. Faith, I might add, in Paul's interpretation of Scriptures—not God's.

In the quote from Isaiah 10:22, Paul tells us the reference is to Israel. He only had to change one word to fit his purpose. God speaks of a remnant returning, Paul's Gentiles weren't returning, so he used "saved". He did the same thing in his quote of Isaiah 1:9. That passage said, God left "a very small remnant." Paul, again playing upon the word "seed," alluded to his Christ. In both of these cases, it was the numerator that was changed, but the denominator must still be faith. Today, Christians still use these passages to prove God rejected the Jews.

When we connect all of these conflicting teachings with Paul’s assertion in I Corinthians that his “Gentiles” are the temple of God, it becomes obvious that he was attempting to Hellenize, not just the Jews, but their own God! This feat has been established in Christianity.

 

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (I Corinthians 3:16).

 

Again and again, Paul makes it obvious that his intention is to build a community where Greeks and Jews can live in harmony. Today, that might seem socially desirable, and an admirable goal for strife-torn Jerusalem in the first century, but it must be remembered that the Jews had no concept of our pluralistic values. Their whole world centered upon their God and his Law. The audacity of Paul’s teachings would have been blasphemous to any orthodox Jew. One of God’s first commissions for the Israelites, when they were to enter Canaan, was to drive all the people out. God warned them that the Gentiles would be pricks in their eyes (Numbers 33:55). For fifteen hundred years their ancestors had been taught the laws defining the unclean and regulating its avoidance. And now, Paul was teaching that not only were the Jews unclean, but that which had been unclean to them for 1500 years, the Gentile, was now clean. And even more horrendous, that the Holy Spirit which dwelt in the temple, had now shifted into the unclean body of Gentiles. Paul’s source had to be from Isaiah:

 

Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord (Isaiah 52:11).

 

Paul’s interpretation of this passage still lives today within Christian theology. The descriptive title at the head of this chapter in my Thompson Bible reads thusly:

 

The church roused with God’s promise of free redemption. 7 Tidings of the gospel. 3 Prophecy of the glory of Christ after his sufferings.

 

There is no sense in debating such reasoning, I'll only remind you of Paul's formula for interpreting Scripture and ask: “Does it make any sense that God would suddenly do a 180-degree reversal, and desert his chosen people, when they were obeying his command by resisting the pollution of the Romans, even unto death?”

Engraved stones had been placed over the Jerusalem temple doors, warning foreigners, on pain of death, to stay out. The whole city was embroiled in a messianic madness that would lead to the slaughter of Gentile sympathizers, the expulsion of the Herodian rulers, and the torching of their palaces and residences. The main parties behind that insurrection were the followers of a Messianic Jesus! There is no way they would have accepted Paul’s doctrines. In fact, they were the same parties who would have torn him limb from limb, had the Roman guards not rescued him (Acts 21:32). The whole issue, as we have been studying, was the Apostles and Jews’ resistance to Paul’s teachings. Yes, Paul introduced and established Christianity—but it was never accepted by the Jews!

Regularly, worldwide ministers expound upon the Word of God from churches, radios, and televisions. And just what does expound mean in this sense? That is when a minister reads a five-second verse from the Bible, then talks about it for an hour. What is he doing? He is adding his thoughts, his reasoning, and his understanding to the Bible verse! Do all of his listeners believe his presentation? In most cases, yes, they do. Does the speaker believe it? Obviously he does, but generally only as a reasoned discernment; not in the divine sense. The same would be true of his listeners, but that was not the sense in which Paul's listeners believed him. Without a doubt, he and his followers believed he was speaking the word of God, there were even occasions in his writings where he informed his listeners otherwise (I Corinthians 7:6 and 12; II Corinthians 8:7 and 11:17). Here was a man of God who could heal the believer, cast out demons, impart the Holy Spirit, and open the door to paradise—yes, they believed him. And even more importantly, Paul believed himself. All he had to do was turn to the Scriptures to confirm that the concepts he believed came from a spiritual Jesus.

Whether Paul's assumptions were drawn from Hebrew Scriptures, or whether he concocted the concept and then searched the Scriptures for support, is impossible to say. But by the time he began teaching of the indwelling Spirit and stating that the believer's body was the temple of God, he was confident enough to write God's own script. In Philippians, he reveals what could only be first hand knowledge:

 

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

 

Here, apparently, Paul actually discerns the thoughts of Christ Jesus! He pretends to knowledge what is revealed nowhere else in earlier Hebrew Scriptures. And his knowledge seems limitless. He can expound upon the reasons why Jesus gave his life and the freedom from sin ransomed by that death (Romans 5:6-10). He knows all about death, resurrection, and the freedom from sin (Romans 6:1-7) and, of course, he knows all about the indwelling of the spirit:

 

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (II Corinthians 6:16-18).

 

Although Paul attributes this quote to God, it cannot be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, it is a composite of Scripture phrases and verses. Nowhere does God even imply that He will dwell in a person; that would contradict his greatness. How could a mere mortal survive the indwelling of an infinite God so powerful one cannot even look upon him or so unapproachable that a mediator between Him and man was necessary? The only Scripture that might be so mistakenly interpreted is Ezekial 43:9, which states, " ...I will dwell in the midst of them for ever"—a reference to Israel. The next phrase, "and walk in them," is equally ridiculous. Even the phrasing is awkward; how could God "walk" inside a person? God makes no such promise. However, the origin is clear. God repeatedly adjures Israel to "walk in my statutes," or "walk in my law" (Exodus 16:4; Leviticus 26:3; I Kings 6:12; and Jeremiah 26:4), but Paul couldn't say that because he was attempting to void the Law. The next phrase, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people," is stated seven times in the Old Testament, though sometimes in reverse order, but in each case, the declaration addresses the nation of Israel, and is never used in reference to other peoples.

Mosaic Law forbade touching the unclean, but nothing can be found similar to: "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you." The reference most similar to this commands Abram to leave his country and kindred (Genesis 12:1). There are numerous allusions to the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Ezra 6:21, 8:35 and Nehemiah 8:17 speak of the Israelites coming out of captivity, but all of these statements are promises made to Israel—not to Paul's new church. When God issued these proclamations, He was speaking of the Law of cleanliness and was calling for obedience to His Law. Notice that the statement actually contradicts Pauline doctrines, as it sanctions the Law of cleanliness: "touch not the unclean thing". One might argue that this call was a separation from sin and the worldly. However, Paul's teachings called for a breaking down of the barriers between peoples and races. If the believers huddled in isolation, how could harmony be accomplished?