The 12 Apostles Rejected Paul, part 1

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/727-proofs-the-12-apostles-rejected-paul.html

The ceiling of the train station in Baltimore.

A man named Doug has a website named "Jesus' Words Only". I came across it in 2018. He made claims about Paul that, frankly, alarmed me, because if even one of them was true I was in deep trouble. I looked into his arguments, satisfied myself that there was nothing to it, and went on with life.

Two years later I happened upon the web site again. The author claims he has gotten over 18 million hits. That warrants a response.

Doug's mission is to expose the Apostle Paul as a fraud. This is from his "about" page:

A true scholar and prolific author, the author approaches his extensive treatises on spiritual faith from a truly unique perspective. As an accomplished attorney for many years, he advances each quest-to-substantiate through exhaustive research, meticulous analysis, thorough presentation of opposing points-of-view, and indisputable verifications in defining his own interpretations of Christianity and the Bible. In the end, he presents a faithful answer, providing an incomparable bottom-line truth of what is conveyed in the inspired Bible.

I don't expect to change Doug's beliefs but it is important that people have a place to go for a contrasting viewpoint. This is not a full response to his article; only important points are addressed. As a beginning point, this is what I found about his technique:

Doug quotes Scripture to support his argument even though it might not say what he wants.
He cites writers from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century, giving them equal stature with Scripture, even though those writings were rejected from the New Testament Canon.
He uses non-Christian writings to refute Scripture. Sometimes those non-Christian sources are anti-Christian. It is problematic that he puts the opinion of these writers on the same level as the word of God.
When quoting sources, he will cherry-pick words from a sentence or paragraph that change the meaning of the original, often adds italics or own comments without notification that they are not part of the original, and is careless with quote marks to the extent that the reader cannot tell what is original and what is Doug's.
Doug changes timelines, puts people in places they weren't, and claims that pronouns (eg: they) and group words (eg: the Jews) point to individuals when the text doesn't say anything about those individuals.
He argues from silence: a person who does not expressly oppose his view proves his point.

Confused names, dates. and citations can make it difficult to understand his point, and to make a reply. I would be the last person to say no one can talk without a PhD, but some formal training might make him more attuned to the needs of his readers. It is the duty of the author, not the reader, to get names, dates, and quotes right, and to confirm the sources of citations.

(Note: Doug has made revisions to his web site since 2018. I copied the entire post in 2018 to make my comments, so that version is here. Some of it has been changed, but the majority is the same.)

Doug's arguments are in the red, sans-serif font.

James J. posted a challenge against the Jesus' Words Only principle. He wrote a message in October 2016 that contended:

"Surely, the apostles would have caught on to these details [i.e., the claims that Jesus spoke against Paul in Revelation 2; in Matthew 5:17 and Matthew 24:4-5, 24-27] or why would God allow Paul's writings to be a part of what is known to be the Bible for about centuries."

James J is referring to the "Jesus' Words Only" web site where Doug says that Jesus spoke against Paul in Rev 2.2, Matt 5, and Matt 24. James J asks why Paul's writings were accepted into the New Testament canon if the apostles knew he was a fraud. Here are those passages.

Rev 2.2

You have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false.

Doug says Jesus commends the church in Ephesus for investigating Paul and exposing him as a false apostle. Even if we discount Paul's writings about himself in Ephesus, Luke's account in Acts 19-20 shows nothing to suggest the church in Ephesus was suspicious of Paul.

If the writings of Paul were such a threat, why would Jesus' warning be stated in general terms? Jesus never hesitated to confront people who were leading his people astray. He names the Nicolaitans in v 6; why not Paul? It is not credible that Jesus would withhold the name of such a dangerous enemy to his Church, leaving his lambs to the wolves because they wouldn't know who to watch out for.

Significantly, it is not the false apostles that Jesus threatens in Rev 2, but the church at Ephesus. They have abandoned the love they had at first. What was their first love? Was it not the love they had in those early days when Paul was with them? Acts 20.18-21:

You yourselves know how I lived among you the entire time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears, enduring the trials that came to me through the plots of the Jews. I did not shrink from doing anything helpful, proclaiming the message to you and teaching you publicly and from house to house, as I testified to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus.

There was no suspicion of Paul, only tears that they would never see him again. Acts 20.36-38:

When he had finished speaking, he knelt down with them all and prayed. There was much weeping among them all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, grieving especially because of what he had said, that they would not see him again.

The account is recorded by Luke. We must regard it as credible. If he thought anything suspicious or insincere, he had the responsibility to say so, and would have.

Matt 5.17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Jesus was talking to the Jews. Paul never said the Jews had to give up the law; Jesus never said the Gentiles had to observe the law. Paul only insisted that the Gentiles who were turning to God did not have to become Jews. James, Peter, and John agreed (Acts 15). If Doug is saying that the Gentiles had to become Jews then he throws out not just Paul, but also Peter and John and James and all the other apostles and elders who were at that council.

There is more to say about Matt 5.17, but this is an explanation of the question by James J, so it is short. The response to Doug is in point 18 (part 2).

Matt 24.4-5

Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray.

Paul never claimed to be the Messiah. He preached to the Gentiles, who had no Messiah, so claiming to be the Messiah would not carry much weight with them.

If we want to move the warning closer to home, James rose to fame for no reason other than he was the Messiah’s brother, and at the time Jesus made this statement James was a nonbeliever who tried to lure Jesus into being arrested. James is a better fit for this warning than Paul.

Matt 24.24-27

False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, “Look! He is in the wilderness,” do not go out. If they say, “Look! He is in the inner rooms,” do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Paul never claimed to be the Messiah, nor did he call people to the wilderness or to inner rooms, or attempt to lead the Jews anywhere: astray or otherwise. Paul worked outside Israel. Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple (v 2: in Jerusalem), the desolating sacrilege (v 15: in the holy place), people fleeing Judea (v 16) and the coming of the Son of Man (probably to Jerusalem). This has nothing to do with Paul. He stayed as far way from Jerusalem as he could. Jesus' description makes Paul the least likely candidate.

We continue with Doug's reply to James J:

Here is my reply.

The apostles did catch on. Here are 12 proofs:

1. After Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus, he went to Jerusalem to tell the apostles what happened. Paul fell into a trance in the Temple and was told to leave Jerusalem because the apostles would not believe him. Acts 22:14-22.

Ask yourself why Jesus did not appear to the Twelve and tell them Paul was genuine? Why did Jesus know the Twelve would not believe Paul, and tell him to leave rather than clearing it up himself?

Once you have this question in mind, the Twelve’s disbelief that Paul was in contact with the true Jesus makes sense. Even if Jesus predicted this to Paul, he still felt incapable to change the apostles’ minds. Who is this so-called Jesus that Paul met outside Damascus?

Acts 22.14-22

Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

“After I had returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw Jesus saying to me, ‘Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. And while the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing by, approving and keeping the coats of those who killed him.’ Then he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”

Up to this point they listened to him, but then they shouted, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.”

The text says nothing similar to what Doug argues in point 1. In Acts 22 Paul is defending himself against the Jews who had stirred up the city by claiming Paul had brought a Greek into the Temple (21.27-28). The apostles were not part of this mob. Acts 21.17 said they welcomed Luke and Paul warmly and praised God because of his work among the Gentiles (21.20). They didn't like what Paul was teaching, but Doug's claim that they knew Paul was a fraud is impossible. If the disciples knew he was a fraud but acted like nothing was amiss, then they woefully betrayed their roles as disciples.

The disciples dealt with Ananias and Sapphira and Simon the magician harshly and immediately. It is unbelievable that they would have allowed someone into their group for years who claimed to have seen Jesus, when they knew it was a lie.

It is to their shame that the disciples did nothing to stop Paul from being arrested—especially since it was James who exposed Paul to the Jews—but this is not the first time he did such a thing. James didn’t like Jesus and dared him to go to Jerusalem, knowing the Jews wanted to arrest him (John 7.3-8). Now, James doesn’t like Paul and puts him through a charade that keeps him in Jerusalem, which, unsurprisingly leads to the Jews arresting Paul (Acts 21.23-31).

The next day Paul is brought before chief priests and the council, not the disciples. The charge is not that Paul is proclaiming a different Messiah but that he is saying Jesus of Nazareth (22.8) appeared to him, which sets the Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection or angel or spirit) against the Pharisees (who acknowledge all three), who then defend Paul against the Sadducees (23.6-9).

Back to Acts 22: Paul is explaining what happened during a visit to the Temple years before. He tells them that he, a persecutor of the church (they knew this), was on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus when he was stopped by Jesus and blinded. He was healed and baptized. After returning to Jerusalem, he went into the Temple to pray. This same Jesus met him and told him to leave Jerusalem. (This second encounter is not part of Acts 9. Acts 22 is the first we hear of it.)

Jesus does not say who "they" are, but Paul's reply that “they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you” points to the Jews, not the disciples (yes, they were Jews, but not The Jews). Paul’s reasoning is that the Jews will not harm him because they consider him to be one of them. The disciples knew he was a believer but the Jews didn’t. That is his safety. For Paul to say he is safe from the apostles because he used to hunt them makes no sense.

If we are going to be fair to the text and to logic, we must allow that Paul knows what Jesus is talking about. We cannot make Paul talk about people we want him to talk about. So: would the apostles feel better about him, knowing that he persecuted the church? Impossible. This is very early: before Paul is known as a convert except inside a small circle of believers, before he is the apostle to the Gentiles. The Jews had no reason to hate him. He is their star. Paul thinks he is safe from the Jews precisely because he persecuted the church, and, as of yet, they don’t know anything different.

The apostles, who do know of his conversion, would not be calmed by Paul reminding them he once hated Christians. This makes sense only if Paul is talking about people who also hate Christians.

Why would Jesus say “they will not accept your testimony about me”? Jesus’ full statement is, “Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.” The “they” who will not accept his testimony must be the same “they” who require Paul to get out of Jerusalem. The disciples are not murderers. Paul did not need to leave Jerusalem because the apostles would kill him. James had a history of letting the Jews do his dirty work, but there is no reason to believe he would lift the club himself. The apostles didn’t like what Paul was teaching, but murder? No. Even Judas betrayed with a kiss.

The reason Jesus told Paul to leave can be seen in Jesus’ own life. He went o Jerusalem, and into the Temple area, only for precise reasons and for limited times. Luke 13.31: “It cannot be that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.” Acts 7.52: “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?” The sad truth is: there was no more dangerous place for a prophet of God than in the City of David.

Paul is safe. The Jews don’t know anything has happened, so they have no reason to turn on him. But when they learn he is a believer, then there will be blood. They beheaded John, crucified Jesus, stoned Stephen, and killed James with the sword. Paul was staying in Damascus without any problems. It was when he began proving that Jesus is the Christ that the Jews (not the apostles) in Damascus tried to kill him. (Acts 9.22-24)

Paul is safe, for now. But like the Jews in Damascus, the Jews in Jerusalem will not accept his testimony about Christ, and again he will have to flee for his life. Jesus is both concerned with Paul’s safety and with his work. There is work to be done. You will not go to Samaria or Galilee. Others can do that. Your work is far away.

Now, years later, in Acts 22, Paul’s remarks make sense only if he is talking to haters of Christ. He is not in danger because he claims to be the Messiah: he is in danger because he claims Jesus is the Messiah. The apostles would not have shouted “Away with such a fellow from the earth! He should not be allowed to live.” The disliked him and interfered with his work, but they were no risk to his life.

We must trust Luke over Doug. If the apostles were in that mob, then we should just turn off the lights and go home, because there is no point in talking about anything.

2. Three years later, Paul went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with Peter. Paul also met James, the brother of Jesus, but no other apostles. (Gal. 1:18-19)

Paul speaks about a fourteen-year period where he can still brag in his encounters with the churches that the apostles “imparted nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). In context, this was said to Gentiles to prove that his revelations from Jesus alone suffice.

Gal 1.18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal 2.6

And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.

Doug says that "in context" this was said to Gentiles to prove that his revelations from Jesus along suffice. This is the context:

Gal 2.7-9

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The rest of Paul's statement does not agree with Doug's contention. The apostles not only accepted Paul's explanation, but offered their hand and agreed he should keep doing it.

There was a reason for the meeting in Jerusalem, and there was a reason for Paul defending himself as he did. He did not call the meeting; he did not go there to brag. And he was not explaining it to the church in Galatia to prove he was something special.

The accusation being made against him by the church in Galatia is that he is a lackey and a hypocrite. He is being accused of presenting himself as something special when he is only a bootlicker of the apostles in Jerusalem (1.17) and yearns for their approval (1.10). He is being accusing of preaching one thing to them but backtracking on that as soon the shadow of the pillars falls upon him.

In reply, Paul explains what happened in Jerusalem to counter the lies that have been told, not to brag. In Gal 1.11-12 he says the gospel is not from Jerusalem but from Christ. His impulse was not to ask for help from anyone (why would he ask for the advise from them on the Gentiles when they were not doing it?) but admits he did go Jerusalem, but not to be taught by them. His point is not to brag, but to make it clear (and anyone who wanted to provide evidence to the contrary is welcome to) that he is not someone who secretly dreams of being one of them, but someone who stays away from them as much as possible. He had no aspirations of being a pillar; he was not in the Gentile areas because he could not compete with the giants in Jerusalem, and he was not exiled to the Gentiles areas: he was there by commission and by choice.

As proof he tells them how, when Peter came to Antioch, he opposed him to his face, because he was the hypocrite. In defense of his gospel, he asks them how they could be so foolish as to believe the lie that Jesus' death counted for nothing. In defense of himself he asks why they believe he is preaching circumcision if the people who preach circumcision are persecuting him (5.11). In 6.12 he says it is not he who is seeking human approval, but those who like to impress with their credentials and appearance. In 6.13 he warns them that these people, who they are siding with against him, care nothing about them. In 6.17 he tells them: be careful in your accusations, for he has on his body the marks of his genuineness, and it is not circumcision, but beatings and stonings and lashings and floggings.

Back to Gal 2:

Paul submitted to the group as much as possible. He met with them and explained what he was doing. Although there were Jewish believers who insisted on Gentile circumcision—and Paul expected a confrontation—none in that group required it of Titus.

Paul submitted to the leaders and explained everything. But to some false believers had infiltrated the meeting, no: he did not submit to them for even a moment.

The leaders added nothing to what he had told them: what he had done, or was doing, or was teaching. On the contrary, after they understood they shook hands with him and Barnabas and agreed that it was a good idea to separate the areas of work.

Paul is not bragging. His statement that they “contributed nothing” to him is not a boast: it’s his defense. To claim that “this was said to Gentiles to prove that his revelations from Jesus alone suffice” is amateurish and boring: a thin, surface criticism. Certainly, Paul would say that Jesus suffices, but that is not the point. The point is that the disciples had this same revelation, and they disbelieved it. They lived with Jesus for three years. It wasn’t enough. Three times Jesus asked Peter if he loved him enough to take care of his sheep. Three times the Lord lowered the sheet with the three-times repeated command, “call nothing unclean.” Yet, after all that, Peter could still not love all of Jesus’ sheep, as he did, and insisted that there was clean and unclean: Jew and Gentile.

The Twelve didn’t need a replacement for Judas. They needed a replacement for the Twelve. To think that Paul would only slip into the vacant spot when the whole group was unworthy of the title “apostles”, made worse (much worse) with the addition of James, and now Jude: it is incredible to think that Paul wanted to fit in. He absolutely did not. He wanted to not fit in. He wanted distance. He wanted to not be seen with them, as part of them, and certainly not as their student.

In Gal 1.10 Paul exclaims: “Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people?” The charge against Paul is that he is also proclaiming a contrary gospel (1.8-9). The charge from those who have come in is that they are not preaching a different gospel: they’re simply repeating what Peter and James and John—and Paul!—are also preaching. Paul, in the strongest words he can use to deny this ugly characterization of the gospel, says: whatever you want to say about Peter and James and John is one thing, but when you make the accusation against him! Well, that is intolerable. Paul charges into the controversy with anger, because he will not allow even one word of such vile poison to be spoken.

And so he distances himself from the others, not to brag, but to make it clear beyond any doubt that what they teach is their teaching, not his. He didn’t go to them for instruction, he didn’t spend time with them when he was in Jerusalem (their turf, not his), and on the rare occasions when they happened to cross paths in Paul’s area of work, he did not back down for one second on calling them out, even if it meant embarrassing Peter in front of all for his hypocrisy.

Paul is not saying he is anything special, but he is saying that he learned what he learned from Christ, not from them. Where they got their information is not his concern, but what is his concern is where he got his information, and it was not from them!

In Gal 1.10, when he blurts out “Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people?”, he is reacting to the characterization of his ministry that he was only a tag-along, bouncing puppy to the Big Three. The charge was that he liked being around the Pillars because he got to bask in their greatness. The charge was that he was not one of the Big Three, but a third-rate wannabe. And Paul says, “yes, I am not one of the Big Three, and I am pleased about that and stay as far away from them as I can. If I must see them, it is because the work brings us together, but those occasions are rare, years apart, for only a few days or weeks, and involving as few of them as possible.”

What Paul is upset about is that people were saying that what he was preaching to the Galatians was not how we was acting once he was away from them, that he was not one of the true apostles and was under their tutelage, and worse: that he was a bit of a groupie: wanting to hang around with the big kids because he was so awestruck by them. And so the Galatians should follow the Big Three and not Paul because they had been with Christ, knew better what the Gospel really was, and were much more important.

Paul is upset not just because the Galatians wanted to pervert the gospel by submitting to the Law, but that they were doing it because of him! The Galatians were being told that it was okay for them to do it because Paul did it too—once he was away from them—and even preached that circumcision was still required. The slander was that Paul was telling them one thing, but then talking quite differently once he was in the company of Peter and James and John.

Paul brings up the Jerusalem Council to provide evidence that this issue had already been dealt with, and the decision of the Pillars was that the Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised. But he goes this distance only with great care. He specifically says he went to the meeting because of a revelation, not because he was summoned by the Pillars.

It is likely that Paul’s outrage in v 10 (Am I now seeking human approval, or am I trying to please people?) is a reaction to how people were twisting what actually happened: that Paul attended because he was ordered to, that he was not important enough to be part of the discussion but was informed of the Council’s decision after they finished, that he was appointed a messenger boy to deliver the Council’s decision, and that everyone knew he was an inferior: a late-comer who was nowhere near as important as those who had walked with Christ (and certainly nothing compared to James, the physical brother of Christ) and a second-generation apostle who depended upon them for everything. In short, Paul was the lesser of them and was mesmerized by their greatness. He was told to appear before them, was not important enough to be invited into the committee but was only informed of their decision, and was then appointed as their messenger. And why? Because he was eager to be included with the true leaders, submissive to their will, and qualified only to be their delivery boy.

And so Paul lashes out. His emotions are at their end when he cries, “Before God, I do not lie!” This was desperately important for him. He was upset. He was yelling.

Yes, he went to Jerusalem, but not because he was instructed by them to appear. Yes, they discussed the issue of circumcision, but he had an uncircumcised believer with him and no one suggested that he be circumcised. Yes, the Pillars were there, and it was their decision, but they had contributed nothing to him. Yes, some the people attending advocated circumcision, but they were spies and not even true believers. Yes, the Gentile churches were discussed, but the Pillars were the ones to came to Paul’s point of view, not he to theirs, and in the end their only request was that he remember the poor, which really wasn’t a request at all because the fact that he loved the Gentiles did not mean he hated the Jews. Yes, he spent time with the other apostles, but only a couple of them and only for brief periods. Yes, he knows all about the Pillars, but he is not awestruck by them and in fact has confronted the greatest of them in public, shaming him for building up the very things that he should be tearing down and for making Christ’s death of no account. And—although he is unwilling to name names—he wishes them all accursed if they continue preaching this gospel which is not really a gospel at all.

It is not the “Judaizers” who are his problem: it is the Pillars! The Judaizers are nothing: just wasps to swat at. But the Pillars—Peter, James and John—they carry weight. When they pervert the gospel, people listen: Peter being the most obvious example. The very people who should have been the light have instead settled for being in the limelight. The very people who knew Christ best now know so little of his heart. The very ones who were charged with taking the gospel to the world (Peter and John anyway; James was self-appointed) are now standing in the way.

Paul talks about his pre-conversion life to confirm that he has nothing to do with these people: not before, not after, not now, not ever. He wasn’t with them at any time and never will be... at least if they keep acting like this.

The Judaizers could claim that Paul had been instructed by the Pillars in order to have the Galatians believe that his message was no different, but no different from what? The Judaizers? No! Peter! This is vitally important. The only currency the Judaizers can get from such a claim is that the churches should believe them because they were sent by James and Peter is also an ally. Peter and James are believable because they have the stature. Paul is a latecomer who sat under their instruction and is not to be regarded as anything special: he’s only one of their students who has apparently not gotten their teachings right and how has gone a bit haywire.

And so Paul wants it understood that the people who are causing problems in the church—the Pillars!—are, and always have been, the problem. Paul has never been with them, except for a short period of a couple weeks, and not for the purpose of instruction but for the purpose of meeting face-to-face to confirm the boundaries of their respective areas of work. But now, when they are not face-to-face with him, they change their spots and work, not only against him, but contrary to what they been already agreed. And Paul, when he finally does meet one of them face-to-face (he calls him Cephas: his BC name) announces to him, and everyone else, publicly, that he is a hypocrite!

The problem is not a group of Judaizers that war against Paul and the Pillars. The problem is the Pillars. Paul did not call out the Judaizers: he called out Peter. Peter is not living as Christ insists he must. God told him personally and directly that nothing is unclean and he is willing to do that: he can live outside the dietary restrictions. But he can go no further. He cannot let Jews see him doing it, and he certainly cannot go the distance Paul has gone: that the Jews are no more righteous than Gentiles; that the Gentiles are no greater sinners than Jews. And so the Judaizers have free reign because no one stands against them. Peter, who should be calling the Judaizers to task, instead becomes one of them when they show up. The Pillars, who should stand for Christ, instead just stand in the way.

If the Twelve had done their job, there would have been no need for Paul. And so since Paul was necessary to get the Gospel to the Gentiles, he was also necessary to keep at arm’s length those who interfered. The fact that Peter should have gone but didn’t now puts him on the other side. Paul diplomatically says that Peter’s territory is Jerusalem, but that is only a recognition of how things had turned out, not how they should have been. And now, because they are Jerusalemites they cannot stand Paul saying things in the outlying territories that cause problems for them. They are Jerusalemites not just in locale, but in ideology. And so they come to Paul, to reign him in, to make him like them. If Paul had not resisted them, they would have prevented the church from ever developing.

Paul rightly says are of no importance, and he is living proof of it: he shouldn’t even exist. But they proclaim their self-importance, and everyone believes them!

The Jerusalem Council was an embarrassment. The fact that their pronouncement did nothing to change Paul’s ministry does not excuse them. The Council declared the Gentiles second-class Christians. It announced that the Jews were still being firmly entrenched as the people of God, with the Gentiles subservient to their decision on who and what was acceptable to God. James, in his decision, says this:

I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

First, who died and made James boss?! Who gave him the right to make any decision about how the work of God is done?! He certainly wasn’t the shining example for anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. Seriously: what one thing did James do that ever exemplified the example or demands of Christ?

Second, why does James call them “those Gentiles”? Paul calls them brothers and sisters, saints, beloved, children of God, heirs, friends, and children of the promise. James obviously has no intention of elevating them to the position of full-blood brothers. To James, they were Gentiles, and it was the Jews who had the priority. That’s understandable you say? The Jews had been the people of God for centuries, so taking this sharp turn was going to take a while. We must give the Jews time to adjust to this new arrangement, right? Wrong. Paul is the proof that it didn’t take time. It wasn’t a matter of adjusting; it was a matter of obedience. The disciples didn’t have to work this thing out in their minds: they were refusing to do what God had explicitly told them to do. They had no right to do it halfheartedly or to allow their prejudices in. They were the ones that Jesus personally selected (except for James) and if they weren’t going to do it, who would? It was deadly serious stuff. While the Jews were taking time to adjust, they were making war against Paul. While the Jews protected their sensitivities, the Gentiles were left exposed. While they insisted on privilege for themselves, they denied privilege for everyone else.

It is the Jonah story. The Jews couldn’t imagine a situation where were expected to actually take the word of God to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were supposed to come to them. Jesus told the disciples to go, God told Peter in as clear terms as possible that nothing was unclean, and still he balked. And when Paul came in with no prejudices and no self-interest, when they saw that there was one who was doing it as Jesus said they must, they still resisted, and worse: they interfered. Simon, son of Jonah, might have thought this way, but not Peter, the rock.

(Jesus told the disciples that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. If two of you agree, it will be done for you.” Were the Three banking on this: that the three of them agreeing fulfilled this promise and so their decision was final because it was grounded in the teachings of Christ? Whether or not that was in their minds, it is interesting that in Matthew 18 Jesus’ teaching about “binding” comes immediately after his teachings about children and the lost sheep. Whatever Jesus meant by binding and loosing, it certainly could not have included obstructing the Gospel.)

Paul said he would never do anything to interfere with someone’s relationship with Christ: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.” The others demeaned the clear message of the gospel because—and here’s the real reason—it was too difficult. It was too physically, emotionally, and religiously fearful and painful. They couldn’t leave the comforts of their homes, country, and beliefs. Paul called it all rubbish. They couldn’t. And since it wasn’t rubbish, but valuable, they protected it.

Third, by declaring that they are to observe the Noachic laws James demotes them from brothers to resident aliens. Of the three classifications that the Jews had for Gentiles (proselyte, God-fearer, and resident alien) this is the lowest. The Noachic Law was for Gentiles residing within Israel: they were required to observe basic pre-Abrahamic, pre-Mosaic laws of decency so as to not offend the Jew. In his pronouncement James tacitly brings all Gentile churches under the thumb of the Jew, and then humiliates them by declaring them just one step above unbelievers: “our expectation is that you be good Gentiles”. By doing so he does two things: he confirms their subservience and lets the Jews know that nothing has changed: the Gentiles are still only resident aliens.

And last, why should the Gentiles be placed under any restriction at all? What wrong did they commit? Believe in Christ? If James wants to fix something, fix the Jews! They were the ones in the wrong. Yet he says nothing to them and instead tells the Gentiles to do nothing to offend the Jews.

What utter nonsense! The children are instructed to be careful to not offend the adults! The weak are told to accept the prejudices of the strong!

Of course the reason James does this ridiculous thing is that he doesn’t care what the Gentiles think but he cares a lot what the Jews think. The Gentiles are of no importance, so if he can talk down to them and no one, Jew or Gentile, is going to complain. But, if he acts like Paul, if he accepts the Gentiles as equals, then the Jews would be outraged. But James is not Paul. James will never do anything to offend the Jews. Why? Because he’s afraid of them? No. Because he’s one of them. He acts from his nature.

When the apostles and the elders compose the letter, they expose their grudging acceptance of the Gentile believers. They are, by nature, Jews: the sons of Abraham. The Gentiles are, by nature, Gentiles: not the sons of Abraham. James and Peter will never think anything different:

The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

Why does the Council call them “believers of Gentile origin”? Could there be a less friendly greeting than this? And then they impose this bizarre obligation around them: that if they observe basic standards of decency, then the Council will impose no other burden on them.

Why don’t they tell the truth: that this has nothing to do with Christ? Why don’t they warn these new brothers and sisters, like Paul did, that if they listen to this nonsense Christ will be of no benefit to them? When Paul says that if the Galatians follow Jewish laws they will fall from grace, is it imaginable that if they follow pre-Jewish laws they will do better?!

(This is a good example of how we cannot believe everything a disciple or apostle said just because they are a disciple or apostle. The Twelve were often desperately wrong (how much more so the twelve sons of Jacob!). To think they somehow magically got it right after they were given the Spirit is a bit silly. If they couldn’t get it right while Christ was with them, how were they suddenly infallible after he left?

Where would the church be if we imposed no burden on new converts other than to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication”? Can you imagine what kind of church we would have if that was still our instruction and expectation?

The Jerusalem Council’s ruling had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. We would not “do well” to follow these instructions. What they said is wrong for the churches now and it was wrong for the churches then.)

Instead of “these essentials”, they could have offered (like Paul) true spiritual guidance. Instead of lecturing the Gentiles, they should have sent a letter to the Jews, telling them to stop harassing these new converts to Christ.

But they had no intention of saying anything to the Jews. They were Jews. They did not regard the Gentiles as equals, they did not believe circumcision was wrong, and they thought Paul was going too far. In short, they were deeply entrenched in their belief that physical descendance from Abraham determined who were (and weren’t) the people of God, that the Law was incumbent upon all true believers, and that Temple worship was the highest form of worship—and was off-limits to the Gentiles.

Paul accepted the Council’s decision, not because it was correct, but because it was the quickest way to get back to work. Arguing would have accomplished nothing. He could have talked forever and it would have only produced heat, not light. They were who they were. Nothing more could be expected of them. Paul was relieved just to have the Pillars leave the Gentile believers (and him) alone.

In the end, none of them, not one, would grant the Gentiles a standing equal to the Jew. No Gentile would ever be good enough without going the whole way. They could be “believers of Gentile origin”, but without submitting to circumcision and observing the Sabbath and dietary laws they would never be truly accepted because, as everyone knows, the only good Gentile is a Jew.

Why did Christ appear to Paul on the road to Damascus? If he already had the Twelve (and the Three) why did he need Paul? Because they were not doing what they were told. They would never go. They would stay Jews. They would never speak the gospel in its entirety.

God was not calling for an “adjustment” in Jewish beliefs. There’s no such thing. The only way to make it happen was to tear it down. It required nothing less than what Paul was saying: that in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile. Yes, it was difficult, but the disciples—who were supposed to proclaim this “good news”—were choking on the gospel rather than proclaiming it.

And for them to say that Paul was leading a double life, preaching one thing when he was with the Gentiles but doing another when he was with the Jews, was unconscionable. There was no excuse for that. The truth was staring them in the face. The truth was being preached.

It’s one thing to not do it, but to interfere with those who do is a dreadfully serious matter. Paul says:

Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Paul doesn’t directly name the Three, but the inference is clear: no matter who it is, no matter how important they claim to be, no one—not even an angel from heaven (are the Three higher than that?)—can pervert the gospel and expect to walk away unscathed. They will pay, because this Jesus, who they are saying died for nothing, is in heaven, waiting. And everyone will stand before him to be judged for what they have done.

No matter who they are.

3. Then in Acts 9:26-31—apparently 14 years after this 3-year visit, according to Gal. 2:1 (Barnabas with him); 2:6—Paul is brought to Jerusalem by Barnabas and introduced to the twelve. But the 12 apostles still had the same disbelief and lack of trust in Paul: “And Saul, having come to Jerusalem, tried to join himself to the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he is a disciple...”

Acts 9.26-31

When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.

Acts 9 does not take place before Gal 2. Doug is confusing Paul's trips. The account in Gal 2 is after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Whether the disciples were wary of Paul at first is a non-issue. They were, as they should have been. They got over it.

Acts 9 says nothing about the disciples questioning Paul's account of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. If they had doubts, they hid them very well, for they told no one. Ever.

4. Luke records no positive apostolic response in Acts 9:26-31 et seq to Barnabas’ introduction of Paul to the apostles. All Luke records is their distrust, then Barnabas’s introduction of Paul, and then it moves into the general peace of the churches since Paul’s persecution stopped. But Luke says nothing about the 12 accepting Paul as a believer, let alone as a 13th apostle of the true Jesus which Barnabas’ speech does not claim for Paul.

Luke provides an entirely mute response from the 12, other than the rejection of Paul cited in verses 26-31.

To say that Acts 9 is an “entirely mute response” is unwarranted. Luke records their distrust and then their acceptance. If he does not record other discussions that means he did not consider them germane. It does not mean the disciples bit their lips and said nothing.

That the apostles were afraid of Paul at their first meeting is expected. He had been hunting them. It makes sense. For them to act any differently would have been unreasonable.

About them being distrustful: Yes! Hopefully they would have easily accepted anyone upon a first meeting, much less someone who had persecuted the church.

The scene as Luke records it is believable and realistic. Doug wants to find something sinister in the fact that the apostles, Luke, and Paul, all acted normally.

5. Luke’s negative-only response from the 12 is consistent with Paul’s record of this first meeting of all twelve after the Damascus experience. For in Gal 2:6, Paul recounts that after meeting with the apostles/leaders of the Jerusalem church that the apostles still “imparted nothing to me,” and the esteem others had in them meant “no difference to me.”

In point 4 Luke’s response is “entirely muted” and now in point 5 it is “negative-only”?

Regardless, Gal 2.6 does not refer to this first meeting. It refers to the Jerusalem Council, fourteen years later. Doug is very careless in his reading of the text.

Nevertheless, 14 years later Paul did say this:

And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.

Yes, Paul is not persuaded by “the esteem others had in them”, for he uses the term “supposedly”. But then he tells us why: That what anyone thinks of the apostles makes no difference to him—and it shouldn’t make any difference to anyone else either (especially them!)—because the only thing that matters is what God thinks. Disciples are not disciples because they volunteer. They are chosen, and they are chosen not for privilege or fame, but for the cross.

The apostles were at fault here, not Paul. They should have been the first to not be attracted—or worse: affected—by what anyone thought of them. Discipleship and apostleship have absolutely nothing to do with recognition. They should not have been flirting with this esteem thing.

John 16

I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. 3 And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me. 4 But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them.

If Jesus told them the Jews would put them out of the synagogues, why would they care what the Jews think? They had been told it was going to happen!

John 15

18 If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘Servants are not greater than their master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.

The disciples were told to expect hatred and persecution. Why should they be concerned with esteem?

Matt 10

16 “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. 19 When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all because of my name.

If this hatred against them would come from their religious leaders, their closest family members, and “by all”, why would they be worried about “esteem”? It’s nonsense.

Continuing in Matt 10

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

If the Twelve feared and distrusted Paul, why not more so James? He wanted to set up Jesus for arrest. James is exactly who Jesus is talking about here. Jesus is telling his disciples that in the same way that his own family made themselves his enemies, they should expect their families to be their enemies. How does James get off so easy?

The issue is not whether he disciples feared Paul: the issue is why Jesus had to fear his own brothers. The issue is not whether the Twelve didn’t trusted Paul, but whether James didn’t trust Jesus. Yes, we all know there is room for forgiveness and redemption in the church, and so, if James saw the light, there is no reason to keep him out. But after all that, to say there is no possibility of forgiveness and redemption for Paul… wow.

Matt 20

20 The mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.”

24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave.”

Peter and John had already tried the esteem route and were told it was not going to be like that. Why were they still concerned about who was at what level?

The problem is not Paul here. The problem is the apostles. They should not have been in the business of being the acknowledged leaders. To even think of themselves in that way put them far off the path of Christ.

Finally, 1 Peter 4:

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed.

How can Peter say this and still want to be acknowledged as a pillar? What a pitiful showing.

They should not have allowed it. They should have avoided it. They should have insisted that no one regard them as anything but servants. Unworthy to even until the laces of his sandals. The first time someone used the word “pillars” they should have gotten angry and said “never again will you disgrace us and our Lord like that!”

The problem is not Paul. The problem is not that he pointed it out. The problem was that it was true.

6. This distrust of Paul by the apostles continued. First, James, the Bishop of Jerusalem and brother of Jesus, and whom Paul identifies as an “apostle” (Gal. 1:19), confronts Paul in Acts 21:21 about charges that Paul is guilty of “apostasia”, Greek for apostacy, from the Law God gave Moses.

Acts 21

This is an astonishing statement. And pathetically ignorant.

The phrase in English “to forsake Moses” is apostasia Mōysēs in the Greek. That James distrusted Paul is true. That Paul was teaching the Gentiles to forsake Moses is true, for good reason: they were Gentiles. That Paul was teaching “all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses” is not true. Yes, that is the charge, but it is not true. Paul was telling the Jews they needed to accept Christ, not forsake Moses.

Acts 8

For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 All who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22 Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah.

23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him.

There is no insinuation that Paul said anything about Moses. The reason the Jews in Damascus wanted to kill him was because he was proving that Jesus was the Messiah—the same reaction the Jews had to Jesus.

Acts 13

5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.

38 Let it be known to you therefore, my brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; 39 by this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

44 The next sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy; and blaspheming, they contradicted what was spoken by Paul. 46 Then both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

‘I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

50 But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their region. 51 So they shook the dust off their feet in protest against them, and went to Iconium.

Paul was preaching forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. To think that Paul would go to these far-off regions, put up with hardships and persecution, to preach against Moses is absurd. He preached the gospel, suffered for the gospel, gave everything for the gospel. It was about Christ, not Moses. He did it for Christ, not Moses.

But then, Acts 15

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.

The issue was never what Paul was saying to the Jews, but what the Jews were saying to the Gentiles. Yes, Paul insisted that the Gentiles could not be compelled to be circumcised, and he went to war over that. The hatred of Paul was because he insisted that the Jews leave the Gentiles alone: they didn’t want to leave the Gentiles alone. Their attitude toward Paul was the same attitude James had: Do what we tell you. When he refused, they trumped up charges to make him do that they told him.

It is to James’ shame that (1) he didn’t correct the accusation, (2) he told Paul he need to do something about it, (3) he was telling the Gentiles they needed to follow Moses, (4) that he considered himself so important that he could tell Paul what to do: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you.”

Everything James did here was wrong.

John 5

44 How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?

John 7

19 Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?

John 9

28 Then they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.”

Hauntingly, James is recreating the confrontations Christ had with those who would kill him. How can he not hear himself?

7. Apostasy is a charge that one is violating Deut 13:1-10 where one with true prophecy and signs and wonders is a false prophet solely because one tries to “seduce” and “turn away” another from “the Law given you here today”—the Ten Commandments and concurrent Mosaic commands.

In the Greek Septuagint of 257 BC, the Hebrew word for “seduce” or “turn away” is translated in Greek in Deut 13:10 as the active verb form of “apostasia” meaning to “turn away.”

Deut 13

If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, “Let us follow other gods” (whom you have not known) “and let us serve them,” 3 you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. 4 The Lord your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. 5 But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord your God—who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery—to turn you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

The claim that someone is “a false prophet solely because one tries to ‘seduce’ and ‘turn away’ another from “the Law given you here today”—the Ten Commandments and concurrent Mosaic commands” might be true, but it is not what Deut 3.1-10 says. Verse 2 warns against a person who would say “Let us follow other gods”. Verse 10 says to “stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God”. Everything in between reiterates that. The Law, the Ten Commandments, and the concurrent Mosaic commands are not mentioned. The issue is following other gods. Yes, verse 4 says “his commandments you shall keep”, but that is in relation to the point of the passage: YHWH is your God, and you shall love, follow, and obey him only.

The Law is scarcely in view. To disregard the point of the command and focus instead on something that isn’t even directly mentioned is a bad treatment of the text.

But Doug must do this because the charge is not that Paul enticed anyone to follow another god, did not speak treason against God, did not tell anyone to worship other gods, and did not try to turn anyone away from God. It is true people said he spoke against Moses, but he didn’t, and he certainly never spoke against God.

Maybe we could look for another text in Scripture somewhere that supports Doug’s claim, but this one does not. Paul was never accused, even by his worst enemies, of enticing people to worship other gods. Doug is wrong.

8. In Acts 21:21, this James known as James the Just—who was one of the “apostles” in Paul’s mind—asks Paul to reassure everyone that Paul is not guilty of “apostasia” by performing a vow and ritual that comes from Num 6, part of the Mosaic Law. Paul complies, and says nothing to dissuade James’ confidence that Paul is not an apostate from the Law.

Paul is hanging by a thin reed here. We must wonder about what would happen when the apostles of Jerusalem find out what Paul’s true views were, such as in Rom 7:1-7.

Acts 21

Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. 21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. 24 Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them.

Num 6

13 This is the law for the nazirites when the time of their consecration has been completed: they shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, 14 and they shall offer their gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old as a burnt offering, one ewe lamb a year old as a sin offering, one ram as an offering of well-being, 15 and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of choice flour mixed with oil and unleavened wafers spread with oil, with their grain offering and their drink offerings. 16 The priest shall present them before the Lord. 18 Then the nazirites shall shave the consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and shall take the hair from the consecrated head and put it on the fire under the sacrifice of well-being. 20 After that the nazirites may drink wine.

who was one of the “apostles” in Paul’s mind

the nazirite vow

It is an interesting claim that a person who doesn’t argue proves his guilt. Doug admits that James is confident Paul is wrong. James knows Paul is apostate, Paul says nothing… presto: he’s guilty! Wow. What a wonderful world you live in.

You have no sense of social subtlety, do you? If you’re discussing something with someone and they begin looking at their watch, looking past you over your shoulder, keep saying “yes, yes, I understand, sure, yup”, you think you’ve won the argument, don’t you? You actually think a “yes” means the person is agreeing with you.

Sometimes, actually, quite often, “yes” means “I’m not interested; I don’t want to talk about this.” “Yes” is easier than “no”, because “no” means the person is going to keep talking. They want agreement and will accept nothing until they get some sign of surrender. A gesture of resistance, or even the message that the argument is not understood, is met with louder, longer discussion. Most people know this. Most people know that trying to convince the person of their illogic is futile.

Most people know you escape more quickly and with less pain if you surrender, smile, and get away as gracefully as possible.

There is no argument with the phrase “James’ confidence”. James’ confidence is exactly the problem. He knows, and no amount of arguing is going to dissuade him. His view is this: “You’ve got facts? Well, I’ve got doubts. So we’re even.” James lives in ignorance and is confident that his ignorance is just as legitimate a point of view and someone else’s knowledge. He got where he is by force and bluster. He knows it works. In a pen full of sheep who have been told by Christ to love and to live in peace, James can get where he wants with almost no resistance or complaining. Somehow, even Peter, who is no pushover, lives in his shadow.

Paul is no fool. He knows how this will turn out if he argues logic. There is no way to win. The best he can hope for is to get away.

Let’s look at James’ confidence. First, nowhere does the text say James knows anything factual about the charge against Paul. He doesn’t tell Paul what he knows: he tells Paul what he has been told. Second, his stated motive is to prevent a scene with the Jews. Why? He is the brother of Christ. Why is he wanting to placate the Jews instead of defend Christ?

Why would Paul argue with James when James hasn’t accused him of anything? If James doesn’t agree with the accusations, why doesn’t he say so? If James’ agrees with the accusations, why doesn’t he say so? He takes the middle road: he says nothing and denies nothing. He’s just wanting the noise to stop.

Because he’s a coward. And a manipulator. And a fraud.

What is a thin reed?

9. The Ebionites Exclude Paul’s Writings as Written by an Apostate. It does not require us to wait for long to learn the apostolic conclusion to what began in Acts 21:21—examining Paul for apostasy. The Ebionites—the Jerusalem Church under the twelve, as we will prove in 10-13 below, declared Paul’s writings are “excluded” from being read by believers, because Paul is guilty of “apostasy.”

For example, Irenaeus (early 100s -202 AD), wrote that the Ebionites from an early stage “use the Gospel of Matthew only, and repudiate... Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the Law.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26.)

Eusebius in 325 AD likewise said the Ebionites “thought it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle Paul whom they called an apostate from the Law.” (Eusebius, History of the Church 3.27.)

Paul lists James prior to "Cephas" (Peter) and John as those considered "pillars" (Greek styloi) of the Jerusalem Church.

At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49), Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances for non-Jewish converts. When Paul recounted the events to the Galatians (Gal 2:9-10), he referred only to the remembrance of the poor rather than conveying the four points of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19-21). James Dunn notes the conciliatory role of James as depicted in Acts in the tension between Paul and those urging the Law of Moses upon Gentiles.

Scholars such as: Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue for some form of continuity of the Jewish Jerusalem church into the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and that the Ebionites regarded James as their leader.

Against this, scholars including Richard Bauckham distinguish the high Christology practiced by the Jerusalem Church under James with the low Christology later adopted by the Ebionites. Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus. Epiphanius relates that the Ebionites opposed the Apostle Paul, whom they saw as responsible that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised, nor otherwise follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.

As an alternative to the traditional view of Eusebius, that the Jerusalem church simply integrated with the Gentile church, other scholars, such as Bauckham, suggest immediate successors to the Jerusalem Church under James and the relatives of Jesus were the Nazoraeans, who accepted Paul, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot of the early 2nd century.

10. How do we know the Ebionites were the Jerusalem Church under the twelve? First, look how tight the connection is between Acts 21:21 where James tells Paul that he heard Paul was an “apostate,” and then after Paul’s deflects James’ concern by performing a Mosaic law vow, the Ebionites find Paul is an “apostate” against the Mosaic Law.

Given Paul’s epistles could not be hidden for long, James and the Apostles who followed Deut 13:1-10 would have in a reasonable time after Acts 21 have found out about Rom 7:1-7. This passage, beyond all doubt, makes Paul an apostate under Deut 13:1-10.

xxx

11. Second, “Ebionites was a designation at first...a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403 AD) testifies. This name meant ‘The Poor’ in Hebrew, from EBION, meaning ‘the poor.’ Thus, because the name Ebionites was used earliest to refer to all believers before the term “Christians” was first used at Antioch, it is logical to infer this was the earliest name of the church under the apostles.

xxx

12. Proof for this is even in the pages of the NT. Paul writes in Gal 2:10 that the Apostles asked Paul to “remember the poor at Jerusalem.” We can now deduce Paul meant the “Poor”—capital “P”—representing the EBION of Jerusalem. For it is unlikely the apostles singled out help monetarily for only the poor of Jerusalem when the poor are everywhere.

xxx

13. Proof that the Ebionites were the apostolic church was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars found a remnant writing for the community known as the Ebion at Jerusalem whose leader—the Zaddik—the “Just One” in Hebrew—was battling the “Spouter of Lies” over whether “works” were necessary for righteousness besides faith. They were arguing over Hab 2:4—Paul’s frequent proof text for faith alone.

James, the bishop of Jerusalem, was in fact known as James the Just. This fits the label Zaddik—a Hebrew word meaning Just One. The debate with Paul, who often deflects charges he is “lying,” was over the proof text Paul misused twice - Hab 2:4. It takes no stretch to deduce the Ebionites were the church of James and the twelve depicted in Acts 15.

As Professor Eisenman, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, persuasively argues about this Dead Sea Scroll document, that it has an uncanny parallel to Paul and the Just One - James the Just, as well as the name of the earliest Christians being the EBIONITES. See JWO ch. 12.

Hence, we can confidently say that the Ebionites were the same as the Jamesian apostolic church at Jerusalem.

xxx

15. This means that the Dead Sea Scroll document at issue, known as the Damascus Document, is further proof of the apostolic rejection of Paul. In fact, Paul says James, the bishop of Jerusalem, was an “apostle.” (Gal. 1:19.)

xxx

16. In line with the Apostolic decision to exclude Paul, in 62 AD the Epistle of James the Just appears. Who was this James? He was the first bishop of Jerusalem, Jesus’ brother. As noted above, Paul called James in 57 AD an “apostle.” (Gal. 1:19, “Other apostles of the Lord, I saw none except James, the brother of the Lord.”)

xxx

In his epistle, James expressly refutes salvation by faith alone, without works. See James 2:14-24. “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” Luther said put the ‘dunce cap on me’ if you can reconcile this with Paul, viz., Rom 4:3-5 or Eph 2:8-9. In F.F. Powell’s Robbing Peter to Pay Paul at 67, Powell aptly says: “James obviously believes that Paul is adding an erroneous tenet to the gospel.”

xxx