The 12 Apostles Rejected Paul, part 2

This is part 2 of a response to the "Jesus' Words Only" web site. It relies upon information in part 1, so please read part 1 enough to know that the claims of the web site are, and why this response is being made.

The decorative base of a pole in the train station at Baltimore.

---

17. Augustine—the ‘father’ quoted most often by Luther and Calvin in support—likewise said the epistle known as Second Peter confirmed James’ critiques, and that Peter added a critique of Paul’s epistles as “hard to understand.” Augustine then explains Apostle Peter says that due to that flaw, many “ignorant and unstable” fell from Christ into lawless lives. Augustine said this carelessness was due to adopting “faith alone” from reading Paul’s verses that support such a view. Augustine points out that Paul contradicts faith alone in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal 5:19-21. There Augustine quotes Paul teaching believers they will “not inherit the kingdom” if guilty of various sins which Paul enumerates. So Augustine concludes:

“Apostolic Epistles of Second Peter, John, James and Jude direct their aim chiefly against it” i.e., faith alone doctrine from Paul’s “difficult to understand” words so as to maintain with vehemence that faith without works profits not.” (Augustine, Faith and Works at 57.)

This is from the Seventeen Short Treatises of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Within that book is a treatise called “Of Faith and Works”. This is what Doug is speaking of. On page 57, §21, is this: (The portion Doug cited is underlined. His additions are in square brackets. I assume the italics are the editor's, to indicate Scripture.)

When therefore the Apostle says, that he judges that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law; this is not his object, that, after the delivery and profession of faith, works of righteousness be despised, but that each man may know that he can be justified through faith, although the works of the law have not gone before. For they follow after one who is justified, not go before one who shall be justified. On which subject there is no need to discuss more fully in my present work, especially since I have very lately put forth a long work on this question, entitled ‘Of the Letter and Spirit.’ Whereas therefore this opinion had at that time arisen, other Apostolic Epistles of Peter, John, James, and Jude, direct their aim chiefly against it, [i.e., faith alone doctrine from Paul’s “difficult to understand” words] so as with vehemence to maintain that faith without works profiteth not: in like manner as Paul himself hath laid down, that not any faith whatsoever whereby God is believed in, but that whose works proceed of love, is saving, and truly according to the Gospel; And faith, he says, which worketh through love. Whence that faith which seems to some to be sufficient unto salvation, he so asserts to be of no avail, as that he says, If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. But where faithful love worketh, there without doubt is a good life, for love is the fulness of the law.

The language is laborious, but Augustine’s point is not that the other writers direct their aim against Paul, but against “it”: the view that people are secure in their salvation regardless of how they live. Augustine says this belief “ought to be cast from the hearts of religious persons” and then proceeds to show how all the apostles, including Paul, taught against it.

Doug’s insertion of “i.e., faith alone doctrine from Paul’s ‘difficult to understand’ words”, without notification that these are not Augustine's words is troubling. He uses quote marks up to the “i.e”, a sign that this is the end of source material, but then uses quote marks within his added text, and does not use quote marks for the cited material beginning with “so as”. His free use of quote marks means there is no way to tell source material from his additions. Inserting “i.e., faith alone doctrine from Paul’s ‘difficult to understand’ words”, after Augustine's "it" reverses the meaning since "it" does not refer to Paul's doctrine. Stopping the quote exactly before Augustine says "in like manner as Paul himself hath laid down" is blatantly dishonest.

This is not a quote: it’s a distortion. Augustine says the opposite of what Doug insinuates.

Other parts of Doug’s argument in point 17:

Augustine—the ‘father’ quoted most often by Luther and Calvin in support

To say that Augustine was “quoted most often by Luther and Calvin in support” is bewildering. Is he saying Luther and Calvin agree are also anti-Paul? Calvin is as pro-Paul as anyone could get.

likewise said the epistle known as Second Peter confirmed James’ critiques

Without a quote or a reference from Augustine to help us out, it is impossible to respond to such a general statement.

and that Peter added a critique of Paul’s epistles as “hard to understand.”

In §21 Augustine does say people did not understand “certain rather obscure sentences of the Apostle Paul”, but he does not blame Paul, and he does not say these people are justifiably confused. In §22 Augustine says these people pervert the Scriptures. This is not a criticism of Paul: it is a criticism of Paul’s critics.

Is Christ to blame for the religious leaders’ misunderstanding? He tells them flatly: the reason you don’t understand is that you don’t know God. Augustine likewise never blames Paul. He says it is the fault of the people who want to twist Scripture.

Augustine then explains Apostle Peter says that due to that flaw, many “ignorant and unstable” fell from Christ into lawless lives.

In §22 Augustine includes Peter statement about Paul's writings that "the unlearned and unstable pervert, in like manner as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, unto their own destruction." Neither Peter nor Augustine call it a flaw. Augustine says that those who do not pervert the Scriptures "live a good life". He does not say that Paul greased their slope into lawlessness. Augustine did not defend them and he did not blame Paul.

Augustine said this carelessness was due to adopting “faith alone” from reading Paul’s verses that support such a view.

Apparently Doug is using "carelessness" as a synonym for "fell from Christ into lawless lives". Augustine unequivocally accepts Paul’s writings as Scripture. He does not blame Paul. He does not say the people who perverted Paul's teachings were helpless.

Doug is apparently saying these lambs could have been returned to the fold were it not for Paul's teachings being so difficult to understand. It is a novel idea. It had not crossed my mind that misunderstanding Scripture was anyone's fault but mine.

But, neither Peter nor Augustine used Doug's words: that these people "fell from Christ into lawless lives." There is nothing in Peter's words to insinuate that they were in Christ already or that they fell from Christ because of Paul. Peter says they pervert Scripture. There is diminished capacity defense in Scripture.

Is Doug saying that these people attempted to understand but fell from Christ because of their inability to see the truth through Paul's glass darkly? Or that they tried to understand the Gospel and couldn't and therefore were lost? Or that they wanted to obey but didn't because Paul said obedience wasn't necessary, and therefore were turned away by Christ to suffer a fate they would have avoided were it not for Paul? It's difficult to make a direct reply when there is imprecision in the accusation.

Regardless, Christ is not helpless. To think that someone who wants to come to him would be rejected because of bad teaching is weird. There has been a lot of bad teaching in the church. Fortunately, it is not the pastor who determines our destiny; it is Christ. Doug has Christ throwing up his hands and saying, "Hey, what could I have done?!" Doug aims at Paul and hits Christ. Not good.

Augustine points out that Paul contradicts faith alone in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal 5:19-21. There Augustine quotes Paul teaching believers they will “not inherit the kingdom” if guilty of various sins which Paul enumerates.

1 Cor 6.9-10:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5.19-21says basically the same thing: People who do bad things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Although we are still on point 17 and Doug has been discussing the helpless state of the people who attempt to understand Paul's writings, apparently he is now saying Augustine finds a problem with "faith alone". Augustine's treatise "Of Faith and Works" discusses the problem of people living in sin after being baptized. It is true that Augustine has painted himself into a corner by holding that baptism is a sacrament, but it is this, not Paul, that he is wrestling with. From §1 through the end of the treatise he labors to explain how a person that has been baptized is to be regarded if they afterwards live in sin. Humorously, in §49 Augustine considers dancing "a milder offense" than adultery.

In examining how the church should regard people who sin after being baptized Augustine looks at everything from Noah to Christ to the writings of Peter and Paul. Significantly, he considers it all Scripture. He is not finding a problem with Paul; he is only trying to reconcile the different teachings of Scripture to give the church some guidance on the matter.

In §27 Augustine says, "I had rather on this subject hear persons speak who are better than myself." He admits the difficulty of finding an answer to this conundrum of sin following baptism, but he faults himself, not Paul. The dilemma, of course, is that Augustine accepts as axiomatic that baptism saves (especially §25) and now is struggling to make that work. In §37 he asks whether the 3000 who were baptized in one day by the Apostles all renounced their sin and all continued in the church. The issue is not faith alone, but baptism alone.

His solution, so you know, is to make very certain of the person before baptism, because after that things get tricky. He says "it then more especially appertains to the care of the watchman, when all who are seeking the Sacrament of the faithful, listen to all that is said to them more intently and anxiously," (§49) because once the person is baptized Augustine is not certain it can be undone.

Regardless of Augustine's quandary, it is not Paul he is discussing, but baptism. Yes, he says Paul is difficult to understand, but he also finds it difficult to understand how 3000 were baptized without any of them being asked if they had renounced their sin, since even Noah stood at the door to make sure no unclean animals broke in (§49). (Interestingly, Augustine does not ask whether the animals that passed through the Sea with Moses were clean, or how God baptized every person and then rejected all but two.)

The answer is this: In 1 Cor 4.3-5 Paul tells the church at Corinth that he cares nothing what they think of him. The important thing is what God thinks of them. He is the only one who knows the heart and so he is the only judge. People will argue and take sides. The matter is not settled by the most persuasive argument or the loudest person or the number of people on one side or the other. There is no "side" except God's. God, and only God, knows.

Augustine puts himself in the fog by believing that baptism saves. There is no way out if you hold onto that. Things get murkier the more he struggles, as they should: confusion is God's ways of telling us something is wrong. You need to let go of that gumball so you can get your hand out of the jar.

The point is not that God must accept baptism, but that he will, if he does. He will also accept someone without baptism, if he wants to. He is not obligated to do step two because someone does step one. Filling out the employment form does not make you an employee. Filling out the adoption form does not get you the baby. Filling out the citizenship form does not make you a citizen. And being baptized does not make you a child of God. God makes you a child of God, or not, for whatever reason he wants to, or not. Being baptized may settle the matter if you're Catholic or Baptist, but not for God. Repenting does not force his hand. Praying does not force his hand. Doing good does not force his hand. (I suspect he is helpless to the cry of a newborn baby, but persuaded by our rules? Not at all.)

God makes rules for how we must act. We study them and turn them into rules for how he must act! If you're looking for the source of that clunking sound, there's your problem! We distill his word into a statement of faith and insist everyone think inside that rectangle. How could there not be confusion and contradiction when we reduce the God of the universe to a matching set of hard-cover commentaries?

Yes, without filling out the employment form, you can't get the job. Without filling out the adoption form, you don’t get the baby. Without filling out the citizenship form, you won’t become a citizen. We must do the thing God requires, but he doesn't have to do the thing we require! His requirements are so small as to be considered nothing. To think that regretting our sin (which costs us nothing), believing he exists (which is nothing), and being baptized (which is less than nothing) obligates him to give us heaven (which is everything) is ridiculous. He will do what he does. Full stop.

To be clear, I am not saying there is a form we fill out. I am saying that in our experience we know it is ridiculous to expect to get what we want just by filling out a form. Telling an employer he must hire you or being outraged with the adoption agency that you submitted the form and got no baby is absurd. It's a step we take, then the action passes to someone else. God is not the result to our cause. To think God would not consider our words and intentions is unreal. It does not happen on earth; it does not happen in heaven. He is not confused or conflicted. He is never painted into a corner by something he has said, and certainly not by anything we have said.

God sees the poor, the blind, the lame, the children, the prostitutes, the old women, the widows, the beggars and asks them, "I would like to take care of you. Can I do that?" If they say yes, the deal is done. He needs something done and asks some people, "I would like you to do this for me. Will you do that?" If they say yes, the deal is done. There is no rule. There is no song, no prayer, no penance, no pastor, no priest, no professor, no expert, no sacrament, no denomination, no dogma that obligates God to do anything!

For a billion people there are a billion ways he acts because each person is a person and he is a person. Being a child of God is a personal thing: there is nothing mechanical about it. He acts as he wants. The one way he doesn't act is how we say he must.

God made promises to Abraham that he will keep, for Abraham's sake. He made promises to Jesus that he will keep, for Jesus' sake. The extent and details of those promises are between him and Abraham, and between him and Christ. For anyone to interfere, question, or insist is a very wrong approach. It will not turn out well.

18. As Augustine confessed in the last quote, in 75 AD, Jude, the third bishop of Jerusalem, and thus a subsequent successor to James’ office, as well as another brother of Jesus, writes his epistle in disdain for Paul. In Jude, George Reber in The Christ of Paul (1876) Ch. 16, defending Paul, says: “The epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul....”

Why? Because in Jude 4 and 11, we read an obvious indictment of none other than Paul for following a different Jesus:

“(4) For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (11) Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

We assume that "As Augustine confessed in the last quote" refers to the treatise “Of Faith and Works”, §21, which we have already answered. Doug stops the quote precisely before Augustine says that Paul is in agreement with Peter, John, James, and Jude. It is not a quote; it is a misquote.

Looking at the individual parts of point 18:

in 75 AD, Jude, the third bishop of Jerusalem, and thus a subsequent successor to James’ office, as well as another brother of Jesus, writes his epistle

Jude was not the successor to James. The bishop of Jerusalem in 75 AD was Simeon of Jerusalem, son of Clopas. The third bishop of Jerusalem was Justus I.

Judah Kyriakos (or Judas of Jerusalem), was a great-grandson of Jude, brother of Jesus. He was the fifteenth Bishop of Jerusalem. Doug is probably confusing Jude with his great-grandson.

Yes, Jude was another brother of Jesus, but this is not necessarily a praiseworthy credential. During Jesus' life his brothers were not just unbelievers, but hostile to him. In Acts 1, when the eleven decided to replace Judas, they cast lots and chose Matthias. Acts 1.14 says his brothers were there, in the group, but no one thought of James or Jude as an obvious replacement, nor did the lot fall on either of them. If God wanted them, this would have been the time.

James and Jude had 40 days between the resurrection and ascension to clear things up with Jesus, but there is no mention of them in any of the post-resurrection appearances. They first appear in Acts 1.14, the day of the ascension, praying. James says that anyone who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it commits sin (4.17). We can allow that he matured over the years, but still: he wasn't a boy, he was a man. He should have apologized to Jesus, in person, while he had the chance. Praying in Jerusalem while your brother is at mount Olivet, just a kilometer or two away, is a bizarre scene. Stop praying, get up, go find him, and do the right thing!

James and Jude made themselves famous by naming Jesus as their brother. I am all for second chances and I think it is a tragedy that redemption often happens last in the church, but there is no Scriptural evidence that James and Jude were appointed by Christ or God or the Spirit to be leaders in the church. That Peter (the rock upon which I will build my church, feed my lambs) gave James the headship of the church in Jerusalem is beyond understanding.

Regardless, Jude the brother of Jesus was never bishop of Jerusalem.

in disdain for Paul.

There is no proof of that. Jude's letter makes no mention of Paul. Since Jude remained in Jerusalem it is likely his letter is addressed to Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, not to Paul who never worked in Jerusalem. It is unlikely that Jude is upset about an intruder who is not in their church. Or Jerusalem. Or Israel. The more reasonable target of his hostility is someone who actually presented a threat to his readers.

Jude calls his readers "beloved" and speaks to them of Jewish Scriptures and Jewish history. The chance that he is speaking to Gentile Christians is slim. The friendliest words James used in his letter to the Gentile Christians (Acts 15.23-29) were "believers of Gentile origin", "greetings", and "farewell". Only Paul called the Gentiles "beloved".

It is possible that Jude is writing to Jewish Christians in Gentile areas, alerting them to the danger of corrupting Gentile beliefs. The fact that James followed Paul from church to church undoing his work would lend some credence to this possibility, but James was telling the Gentiles to follow the law, not the Jews. In Acts 21 James tells Paul that some Jews in Jerusalem were making the claim that Paul was teaching Jews to not be circumcised, but James gives Paul a plan for proving this is not true. It is likely James was duplicitous in this plan, but the important point is that Paul was not. He complied because (1) he did not teach Jews to forsake the law and (2) he himself followed the law (Acts 16.3; 1 Cor 9.19-21).

Jude is saying intruders are tempting Jews to sin. He cannot be talking about Paul because this is Scripture and it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit allowed the authors of Scripture to lie in their teachings. Jude had to have known the truth about Paul. To manufacture a crisis that did not exist would have been patently dishonest. The name of Paul is not mentioned in Jude's letter, nor in any of the references Doug cites. Either Jude is Scripture and this is not about Paul or Jude is not Scripture and the letter is fomenting a scandal predicated upon a lie. The answer is that Doug's additions are the problem: not Jude and not Paul.

If the situation Jude describes was happening in the Gentile areas, the easy solution would be for the Jews to worship separately. It's hardly like the Gentiles held the lease to the building and the Jews had to stay or lose their investment. The Jews were hardly helpless. The consistent record of Acts is that the Jews had the upper hand. The apostles made the decisions; the Gentiles followed. The apostles were the Pillars; the Gentiles were not. It is a strange hypothesis that the Jews would claim to be helpless.

The problem Jude addresses is Jews being swayed by intruders who pervert the grace of God, deny Christ, and cause divisions. Jude does not mention Paul, the law, circumcision, the Sabbath, or kosher food. He tells the people to keep themselves in the love of God, not the law of God. He tells them to look to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for their hope, not the law.

Doug makes the Balaam's error of Jude the same as Rev 2.14. He uses that to insert eating meat sacrificed to idols as one of the problems, but Jude doesn't say that. Maybe it's a fine point, but we need to understand what Jude is saying and not load up the letter with cross references that might or might not be the same thing. There's too much noise. Doug is bringing in things from other sources to say something Jude is not saying. The book of Revelation will come later: maybe 20 or 30 years. Significantly, it comes after the destruction of Jerusalem and Jude comes before. That is a huge difference! It changes everything. For Doug to say Jude and Rev 2 speak of the same "error of Balaam" disregards the fact that the Jewish world had been turned upside down and inside out. Jerusalem was a wasteland. Tens or hundreds of thousands were killed, the Temple was flattened to the ground, and Titus paraded the most holy temple treasures, things that had never been seen by anyone but the high priest, through the streets of Rome. The world of Jude was nothing like the world of Rev 2.

There is no reason to think Jude is writing to people at Pergamum (almost certainly he was not), that the problem in Pergamum was so widespread that it touched other churches, that the problems in Jude's day were the same as a few decades later, or that Balaam's error was the same thing for both Jude and John. We cannot understand Jude if we load it with things happening to other people in other places and in other times.

Since Jude says the error of Balaam was loving money, we cannot say it was food sacrificed to idols, just because that is Doug's charge against Paul.

There is no evidence in Acts or the writings of Paul or James or John about the monstrous things Jude warns about. If these things were running rampant, why does no one else mention it? Yes, 2 Peter 2 is a virtual copy of Jude, but this weakens Doug's argument; it doesn't strengthen it.

First, it is highly irregular that two letters would have virtually the same words. Since Peter says nothing like this in his first letter, it seems reasonable that at that time he was not aware of any such problem. This makes the problem spoken of by Jude tightly limited in time or in scope.

Second, in 2 Peter the false prophets are spoken of as a future threat. It is only in v 12 that Peter starts directing his attention to a current situation, though it is not completely clear. By v 21 Peter is more obviously talking about the present instead of the future, but by that time he has left Jude's language for warnings of his own.

Third, in 2 Peter 2.15-16 Balaam is not condemned for leading the Israelites into idolatry or sexuality, but for taking Balak's money after the second visit by Balak's messengers. Since Peter says the problem is greed, and Jude also says the error of Balaam is greed, the problem is greed. Doug's assertion that Jude is talking about food sacrificed to idols carries no weight.

Fourth, it is highly unlikely that Peter wrote against Paul. He could not go on a tirade against Paul in chapter 2, then speak warmly of him in chapter 3. Peter could not condemn the false prophets and then commend the letters of "our beloved brother Paul". Never. Could not happen. If Jude are 2 Peter 2 speak of the same threat, then neither of them are about Paul.

George Reber in The Christ of Paul (1876) Ch. 16, defending Paul, says: “The epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul....”

The full sentence from page 235 of Reber's The Christ of Paul, from which Doug takes his quote, is this:

The epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul, from the hand of one who assumed the name of an apostle.

Doug expects us to know that the bold and italic embellishments are his, not Reber’s, but it would be nice to be told this. Nevertheless, the true problem with the quote is that Doug leaves off the most important part: Reber says the letter was not written by Jude! Reber does say someone wrote the letter as "a bolt hurled at the head of Paul", but he specifically says it was not Jude. On page 226 Reber says:

The epistle of James, and the first of Peter, if we except certain parts of the latter, have strong claims to be treated as the works of the writers whose names they bear; while the second of Peter, the first, second, and third of John, and the one ascribed to Jude, carry on their face unmistakable marks of forgery.

Reber is discussing the letter of Jude because he wants us to know it's fake, not because it is a legitimate bolt being hurled at the head of Paul. The important phrase here is "nothing but", not "a bolt". Reber says it is "nothing but" hate mail (ie: lacking any value) and says that such writings, especially when they are forgeries, should not be in Scripture.

Why? Because in Jude 4 and 11, we read an obvious indictment of none other than Paul for following a different Jesus:

“(4) For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (11) Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

To link Reber with the “why” is unfair since Reber says nothing of the sort.

The quote of Jude 4 and 11 (RSV) does not answer the “why”. A person can take the view that Jude is speaking against Paul, but there is no mention of Paul in the letter. Jude does not make “an obvious indictment" of anyone. Doug makes the "obvious indictment", not Jude.

Making the words bold and italics does not make your shouting more persuasive.

Claiming that Paul “secretly gained” admission is nonsense. Paul worked in the open and regularly informed the leaders in Jerusalem what he was doing and teaching. James didn't like it, but Paul did nothing in secret. (James did though.)

To liken Paul with Cain and Balaam and Korah is silly. James didn't like Paul so it is believable that Jude didn't either, but we have no proof of that. Doug's additions and distortions are not proof.

Paul had disagreements with John Mark, Barnabas, James, Peter, John, the church at Corinth, the church at Galatia, the church at Thessalonica, and countless people in Antioch, Ephesus, and Jerusalem. At what time in the history of Israel and the Church were there not disagreements? Paul does not walk in the way of Cain just because Jude might not have liked him. For all we know, Jude liked Paul and disliked James. Maybe he liked them both or disliked them both. We have no way to know any of this.

Continuing with point 18:

Jude says these persons secretly gained admission among Christians, and perverted grace/favor as taught by Jesus, rendering it licentious. This term means “unrestrained by law/lawless.”

These wolves in sheep’s clothing thereby denied the authority of the Lord Jesus. How? First, because Jesus endorsed the Law in Matt 5:17-19.

Giving a definition for licentious does not convince, especially as an antonym for "law". The Gentiles were not licentious just because they did not have the law. There are a lot of ways to be licentious without breaking the Jewish law, and there are a lot of ways to break the Jewish law without being licentious. The Venn overlap on this is microscopic.

Jude 4 (RSV) says this:

For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

To be precise, Jude 4 says that ungodly persons "pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness": he does not say “as taught by Jesus”. This may seem too fine a point, but Doug makes it important by listing four times Jesus used the word charis, to prove that Jesus taught a merited grace. Our examination of that follows shortly, but Jude does not say Jesus taught a merited grace. Doug says he did, which is not the same thing.

The characterization of these people as these “wolves in sheep’s clothing” is not in Jude's letter. Nor is “denied the authority of the Lord”. Jude says these people "deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," which means Jesus is denied. Jude says these people reject authority (v 8) but does not say it is Jesus' authority. The more plausible interpretation of the text is that they reject human authority.

We forge on. Matt 5:17-19 says:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

We extend the text to v 20, because it is important to the argument:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

It may be a bit pointless to explain this passage when the argument leading up to it is flawed, but here we go.

Doug’s argument seems to be that Jesus endorsed the law, so when these intruders render his teachings as lawless, they contradict Jesus’ statement that the law continues in force by his insistence that he did not come to abolish the law.

As a beginning point, if we agree that Jesus endorsed the law, it must also be agreed that he endorsed the law for those who had the law, not for those who didn’t. At no time in Jesus' ministry, or in his post-resurrection appearance, did he hint that Jewish law would be imposed upon the world. He told his disciples, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” He did not tell them to make the whole world Jewish.

Imagine the scene in Matt 5 if Jesus had said that unless the righteousness of the Gentiles exceeds that of the Pharisees they will not see the kingdom of God. The people would have been stunned: Of course they will not see the kingdom of God! Of course their righteousness could never exceed that of the Pharisees! But imagine if Jesus had said what any Gentile who does the commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom. The people would have gone insane!

Jesus was talking to Jews, about their law. He was not talking to Gentiles about the Jewish law. Nothing could have been more obvious. Jesus was in Israel, talking to Israelites, about them.

God gave the law to Israel, not Japan or Australia or America or Europe. The point of Matt 5.17-20 is that God would judge them for it. Israel, and no one else, would be held accountable to the last jot and tittle of their law. Jesus is God's personal, in-the-flesh message to his people of this very thing: this is your last chance! If you don't listen to him I will destroy you and give my vineyard to people who will do what I say.

If Jude is railing against what Paul is teaching in the Gentile areas, then Jude is wrong, not Paul. The Old Testament never taught that the law applied to Gentiles. Jesus never taught that the law applied to Gentiles. The Old Testament says the Jews will be judged by the law God gave them. Jesus said the Jews will be judged by the law God gave them. Paul said the Jews will be judged by the law God gave them. There is no other way to see this.

Jesus specifically said he came to the people of Israel, not to the Gentiles. That might seem harsh to the Gentiles, but it's not: it's harsh to the Jews. They were about to be destroyed. They had the law, they claimed to see, and now this was God's last Word on the matter.

It is impossible to make Christ say what Doug wants.

The “righteousness” of the scribes and Pharisees was their righteousness, not God's. It was a simple to exceed it: act like a Samaritan. They knew the greatest commandment but they refused to do it and they taught others they didn’t have to do it either. Jesus said yes: you do have to do it, and once you do (Jew or Samaritan or Gentile), then you have leapfrogged the Pharisees.

Jesus did not tell the people that believing in him would exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees. He never told them to believe in him as Lord and Savior; he never told them he was their Messiah. When Peter made the confession he sternly warned them to tell no one. How could faith be an issue when he concealed who he was? Jesus told them to go and do likewise. There can be no conflict between faith and works when faith is not part of the discussion.

Doug's accusation is that Paul, by teaching faith-only, subverted this and the people of God fell into licentiousness and lawlessness. Nonsense. The people of God fell into licentiousness and lawlessness before the law, under the law, because of the law, in spite of the law... there was no time that the law prevented them from falling into licentiousness and lawlessness. Doug cites Matt 5 as if those were "the good old days" when everyone was poor in spirit and pure in heart, and if it weren't for Paul they would still be sitting on that mount smiling at one another. Jesus gathered them to tell them they were far, far away from God. He told the people they would be thrown out and trampled under foot. He told them they would be least in the kingdom. He called them adulterers, liars, and haters. And that's just chapter 5.

Nothing Paul said was the cause of their licentiousness and lawlessness. They had a thousand-year head start on that. He was trying to save them, not hurt them.

And because this view of grace was contrary to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 16:32-34 and 17:8-9 about a merited grace (“charis” used 4x by Jesus). Jesus four times says “charis” (grace) is earned by exceptional good behavior beyond what sinners do. (Grace does not necessarily save you in Jesus’ view, but means when God’s favor/grace is upon you.)

There is no Luke 16:32-34. He means Luke 6:32-34. These are the four passages:

Luke 6:32 If you love those who love you, what credit (charis | χάρις) is it to you? For even

sinners love those who love them.

Luke 6:33 If you do good to those who love you, what credit (charis | χάρις) is that to you?

Even sinners do the same.

Luke 6:34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit (charis | χάρις) is

that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners that they may receive in return.

Luke 17:9 Does he express thanks (charin | χάριν) to the servant because he did the things

that were commanded?

Jesus is not saying there is credit; he is asking why any reasonable person would think God is impressed if Jews are no better than a Gentile. It's sarcasm. This is not a promise that grace "is earned by exceptional good behavior." Jesus is shaming them for thinking God rewards people for being human. In Luke 6.35 (exactly where Doug cuts off his citation) Jesus says that if you don't act like this and don't expect something in return, then you will be called children of the Most High.

Incidentally, translators never once render “charis” as anything but “credit” or “thanks” in these Lucan passages, obscuring our ability to discern Jesus’ message on grace.

This is one of those "come on man!" moments. We want to smile but end up sighing. Fine, let's translate it as grace:

Luke 6:32 If you love those who love you, what grace is it to you? For even sinners love those

who love them.

Luke 6:33 If you do good to those who love you, what grace is that to you? Even sinners do

the same.

Luke 6:34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what grace is that to you?

Even sinners lend to sinners that they may receive in return.

Luke 17:9 Does he express grace to the servant because he did the things that were

commanded?

Does this sound less sarcastic? Is Jesus shaming them less? The English translation obscures nothing. Jesus is not teaching about grace; he is telling the people of God how pathetic their understanding of God is.

Next, Jude compares this false teacher and his followers to Cain who resented the grace/favor that a superior offering by Abel earned in God’s eyes. Paul taught that earning grace this way leads to human boasting (Eph. 2:8-9) rather than God’s pleasure. Grace had to be unmerited to avoid human boasting. However, this too disowns the authority of the true Jesus as Lord and Master who speaks contrarily. It also directly contradicts Gen 4:1-9.

There are a few problems in Doug's argument:

— Jude never mentions Abel.

— Scripture does not say Abel earned God's favor.

— Jude says nothing of Eph 2.8-9.

— If "disowns the authority of the true Jesus" refers to Matt 5, we have already addressed that.

— Gen 4.1-9 is the murder of Abel. The "way of Cain" is Gen 4.16-24.

Jude 11 says:

Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

The thought in Jude, apparently, is that Cain, Balaam, and Korah are examples of rebellious men who incurred God's punishment. Fair enough, but the proper reference for Cain is not Gen 4.1-9. It is in 4.8-15 that Cain commits murder and his punishment given, and it is in 16-24 that he leaves and sets up a new life for himself. Possibly this is putting too fine a point on it, but it deserves mentioning that the majority of Doug's passage does not pertain to his argument.

The "way of Cain" is the road away from God. Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and made a life for himself in another land. If offering something to God for which he has no regard is the "way of Cain" then Israel is guilty of that many times over (1 Sam 15.19-23, Isa 1.11-17, Jer 7.21-23, Amos 5.21-24). If killing your brother is the "way of Cain" then Israel is guilty of that as well: Jesus being the prime example. But he was only the last in the long list of God's prophets they murdered.

The "way of Cain" is a terrible thing. Rather than make things right, he went away from the presence of the Lord and set up a new city, so he would not be bothered by any more offerings and such things.

We don't know how Adam and Eve regarded their expulsion from the Garden, but they were punished in much the same way Cain was punished. Nevertheless, unlike Cain, they stayed in the presence of the Lord:

Gen 3.17-19:

cursed is the ground because of you;

in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread

Gen 4.11-12:

you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength;

Possibly Adam and Eve knew that their sin resulted in the first death (the animals who gave their skins for clothes) and therefore only death was a fit reminder of the gravity of their sin. That's speculation, but I bring it up only because of Doug's insistence that Abel earned God's favor. Certainly he did not. We don't know if Abel understood the need for blood, but if he came to the Lord with an offering that he thought earned him something, then God would have had no regard for his offering either. Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were outside the Garden, toiling the ground instead of being cared for by God. Every hack at the hard earth was a reminder that they had lost paradise. It was right over there, past that angel with the flaming sword. And they were here, laboring and sweating.

It is bewildering to follow Doug's argument that Abel's offering was done to earn the Lord's favor. Such a thing is pure pagan idolatry: earning the favor of the gods with an offering. What is he thinking?! Never would God have looked with favor on Abel if Abel had thought his offering would earn him something. Can God be bought with a sheep? Would Cain have been accepted if he brought gold instead of grain and vegetables? Surely God would have regarded Cain's gold over Abel's sheep if it were a matter of currying God's favor!

Doug is derailed. At best. More probably he is on another train entirely. This is horrifying.

So, what is the connection with Eph 2.8-9? Hard to say. Jude didn't say anything about it, and Doug saying that those who are saved by grace follow the way of Cain is outlandish. We're done with that.

Next, Jude said this person and his followers teach Balaam’s error: eating meat sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:14)

Rev 2.14

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication.

Jude does not say Balaam's error is eating meat sacrificed to idols, nor does Peter in 2 Pet 2.15. John says it, but that is decades later and to different people (probably).

2 Peter 2.15 and Jude 11 are in agreement that Balaam's error was the love of money. 2 Peter 2.15-16 mentions Balaam being rebuked by his donkey, which is in Num 22.22-35. The Lord's anger was kindled against Balaam but it is unclear what cause that anger since God had told Balaam to go with the men. Possibly it was annoyance at being asked a second time when God had already given the answer. It is also possible that the anger is a preventative: a warning to Balaam to get the message exactly right because the angel was already ready to kill him on the road (verses 33-35). Regardless, there is nothing in Num 22 about idolatry or fornication.

It is in Num 31.14-16 that we see the first problem with Balaam:

Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord."

Going back to Num 25.1-4, we see what Moses was angry about:

While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel. The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the Lord, in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.”

Num 31 says that the Moabite women, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord at Peor. Num 25 tells us why Moses was angry: the people (presumably the men) were having sexual relations with women of Moab, which led to the Israelites joining their idol worship, which joined them to Baal.

Rev 2.14 says Balaam “taught” Balak how he could use the women to entice the Israelites to sin. Nevertheless, that's not what Peter was talking about, and Peter is the better parallel with Jude since they are in the same era (and use virtually the same wording). We have to say that Jude is talking about taking payment (since both he and Peter say so), not idolatry or fornication (even though Doug says so).

—something Paul endorses multiple times unless you are around a “weak” brother who thinks it is wrong. You refrain only if such a “weak” minded brother might see you exercising the right to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and violates his “weak” conscience. See 1 Cor. 10:28-29; 1 Cor. 8:4-12.

In Acts 15.19-21, James (speaking for the others at the Jerusalem Council), says that the Jews are offended by things polluted by idols and by meat not prepared according to kosher rules, and so he insists that the Gentiles not be involved in such things to not upset the Jews:

Therefore 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. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”

Jesus cleansed the Temple because the Jewish leaders had imposed themselves between the people and God. People could be assured of a clean sacrifice only if it was purchased from them, and no one could give regular money: it had to be clean money from them. The simple act of worship (bring your first and best) was blocked: no one could bring their own offering to the Lord.

Jesus attacked them in the Temple because they had turned worship into a business (John 2.16) and made the Temple a den of thieves (Matt 21.13).

The point: The Jews could hardly complain that the Gentiles posed a risk to their pure worship. They had been polluting the altar for hundreds of years (Mal 1.7-14). They had turned worship into a for-profit business and they barred Gentiles from their rightful place in the Temple.

For them to now ask the Gentiles to be mindful of their sensibilities is laughable. It would be difficult for the Gentiles to make more of a mess of it than they had.

Nevertheless, on to Doug's point:

Paul agreed to the decision of the Jerusalem Council. We could ask whether the Council’s decision was a good one (it wasn’t), but regardless, Paul agreed to it and kept to it.

Paul never told the Corinthians they could eat meat sacrificed to idols. Doug characterizes 1 Cor 10:28-29 as an under-handed policy Paul espoused:

But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I mean the other’s conscience, not your own.

Paul is not saying it is allowed to be involved in idolatry. In 1 Cor 10.6-11 Paul warns them that if they do what the Israelites did, they will suffer the same fate. In v 14 he says, "Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols." In v 21 he says it strongly and unmistakably:

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Paul is saying that if someone invites you to their house for a meal (a meal! not a pagan worship service), go. While you are at the house and people are enjoying one another, take from them whatever they are offering to eat of drink. But, if someone mentions that the food has been offered in sacrifice, now you have the obligation to decline the food, because you know.

It's reasonable advice. If someone invites you to a pagan ceremony, you say no. Every time. It is not a gray issue. But if someone invites you to a family affair, go. Have fun.

The problem of course is that Paul is working in Gentile areas. A Jew would rarely be seen in the home of a Gentile, and more rare still, eating there, so this is not about Jewish dietary laws. It's about Gentile people associating with Gentile people. Paul rightly says there is no reason to worry about Jewish sensibilities here. The fact that they would not set foot in the house is not your problem, and God is not requiring you to first ask if the person is a believer before socializing with them. It is okay to be a Gentile.

The issue arises, and only arises, when someone makes it known that the food has been offered in sacrifice. Now you know, and now you must decline. Even if your conscience is strong enough to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, the conscience of almost everyone else cannot, so don't do it. Paul says you must decline even for the person who offered you the food: they need to know that once they told you where it came from you had to decline.

The advice is reasonable and completely Christian. The only recourse would be to eat only with Jews (would not happen so often) or other believers. Jesus ate with sinners; Christians can too.

1 Cor 8.4-12 says:

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. “Food will not bring us close to God.” We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

Some of Paul’s words in 1 Cor are not his. He is replying to a letter the Corinthians sent and uses their words to organize his reply so he answers each point in order. For instance, “no idol in the world really exists,” and “there is no God but one” are from their letter, which Paul repeats, then refutes.

The Corinthians were arguing it was permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols because the idol does not change meat: it’s just meat. Paul replies that the issue is not knowledge, but love. He says that anyone who thinks knowledge is the most important thing, and disregards people because knowledge is the standard, not ignorance, then those people do not know the main thing: they do not know God.

Paul does not directly refute their claim that "no idol in the world really exists" because it's not the issue. In v 2 he gives the answer that applies to all their claims of superior knowledge: the person who claims to know something does not know nearly as much as he thinks he does. Any claim to superior knowledge is proof of ignorance, both because our knowledge is so low as to be comical, and because the person who loves God (v 3) is known by God, and being known by God is infinitely better than knowing about meat. Being known by God is to be placed under his wing (Ex 33.17; Jer 1.5; John 10.27; Gal 4.9); to not be known by God means you are lost (Matt 7.23; 25.12).

In v 12, Paul says strength makes you responsible for the weak person. If your strength harms someone weak, then they have sinned: a sin so great that Paul says it is better to never eat meat again.

There is nothing underhanded in Paul's advice. He is talking to Gentiles about how they are to live in a Gentile world. His rule is simple: live your life without worrying about food, but as soon as you know, then you're responsible for what you know.

It's a rule that we all understand. If you don't know you're sick and go to work, it's not your fault. But if you do know and make everyone sick, you deserve to be fired. If you have an accident because your brakes fail, it's an accident. But if you knew they were no good and drove anyway, now you're responsible for everything and everyone you hit. If you bought shoes and later learned they were made with slave labor, don't buy that brand again: now you know.

But staying home because you might get sick, refusing to drive because you might have an accident, and never buying shoes because they might be made with slave labor is silly. Live. The world is a dirty place. When you get dirty, try to not put your foot there again. But you can't live as a recluse.

Regardless, Paul's point is that knowledge doesn't free you from responsibility; it makes you responsible. He wants the Corinthians to live in their world, as free people, without concern. But once they know, then they are obliged to do the right thing.

Finally, Jude compares this teacher and his followers with Korah’s rebellion against Moses. Num 16:1-11. Paul’s overthrow of Moses’ rule and exclusion of the Law applying to Gentiles, is in Rom 7:1-7, and many other places.

We can walk away from this argument because we have already shown there is no chance Jude is talking about Paul, but we will take a look anyway.

Korah and his group confronted Moses and were punished for their rebellion by God who sent fire to consume all 250 of them (16.35). The 250 censers of Korah's group were hammered out as a covering for the altar, as a reminder that only Aaron's descendants could approach the Lord to offer incense.

Why Jude mentions Korah is unclear. It is the only reference to Korah in the New Testament. (The reference to angels kept in eternal chains and Michael the archangel contending for the body of Moses are also unique to Jude.) The letter is a bit murky. People rarely cite it to support a theological position.

The significance of Korah's rebellion is that God chose Moses and punished those who spoke against that choice. Korah was not the only one: Miriam spoke against Moses and was punished with leprosy (Num 12). If Korah is to be a byword for rebellion, then it must be that he continued in it, even though he was given an opportunities to back off, for Miriam was restored.

Jude says these people "perish in Korah’s rebellion". That insinuates that going the way of Cain and abandoning themselves to Balaam's error is punished by fire from the Lord. That explanation is uncertain, but its also not important because Paul is not the target of Jude's letter, nor was he consumed by fire. It's the accusation of Doug, which is nothing.

Rom 7.1-7:

Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during that person’s lifetime? Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.

In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

At the outset Paul says he is speaking to those who know the law. It is unusual for him to speak to Jews directly, but he does so in his letter to the Romans. In chapters 2, 3, and 4 he expressly is talking to the Jews in Rome, and the inference in chapters 5 and 6 is that he is also talking to Jews because he speaks of Jewish things, but does not name them directly.

At the start Paul, wanting to make sure that his readers are still with him, says that he is talking to the Jews, in case they were wondering.

Doug's language is not so clear, but apparently he is saying that Paul said the Jews should not follow the law of Moses, and also said the law was not applied to the Gentiles, as Doug thinks it should. The second part of his argument can be dispatched easily: The law was never supposed to be applied to the Gentiles. No one ever said it should be: not God, not Jesus, not the apostles, and not Jude. This is not a debatable point. Nothing in Scripture agrees with Doug on this.

On the first part: Yes, Paul does say that the law has limits. Everyone agrees that the law is nullified by death. A woman whose husband has died is no longer bound to the marriage vows of the first husband and is as free to marry again as if she were never married at all.

Paul argues, to the Jews—the Christian Jews—that if they believe that Christ died, and they believe that his death meant something, and if they believe he was raised from the dead, and if they believe his resurrection means something, and if they believe in the Spirit, and if they believe the Spirit means something, then they cannot believe that nothing has changed!

Other people died. Some were raised from the dead. Enoch and Elijah were taken by God without seeing death. The Spirit was given by God from time to time. All of these mean something, but they don't mean the same thing. None of them are acclaimed by you as Jesus Christ our Lord!

It is impossible for a Jew to call Jesus Messiah and Lord without instilling gravity to those words. For a Jew to say "Jesus the Messiah" or "Jesus is Lord" is to declare himself a traitor. The Jewish leaders killed people for saying that. So Paul is asking: you have made yourself hated in Israel. You can't go back without a mob forming. You say you have the Spirit. How can you claim all these things and still say nothing needs to change? It makes no sense!

Nowhere in Rom 7.1-7 does Paul tell the Jews to abandon Moses. He only asks the question, to those who know the law, whether they know the law. If they do, they know that what he is saying makes sense. Read the passage that Doug cites. Paul never says he is overthrowing the law of Moses, for three reasons: he doesn't say it, he has no authority over the believers in Rome to make them do what he says, and he does not tell Jews in other areas to overthrow the law of Moses either. He certainly does tell Gentile Christians to pay no attention to the Judaizers, but this is not that. He is talking to Jewish Christians, and he is not saying what Doug says he is saying.

What is important about his letter to the believers in Rome is that it is the only time he makes an extended discussion of Jewish things with Jewish Christians. People somethings are confused by his language in Romans in comparison to his other letters, but that is the primary difference: this is his only letter primarily address to Jewish Christians: of course he would speak of different things.

Another point, not as important maybe, is that he does not address his letter to the church in Rome. That probably means there was no church there. When he does get to Rome and writes to the church in Philippi, he does not mention a church in Rome or a leadership of elders or deacons: only individuals and households. It may be that the group of believers in Rome was almost all Jewish. At the close of his letter Paul explains why he has not yet been to Rome: his ministry is to the Gentiles (15.16-22).

Nevertheless, Paul does not demand of them. He appeals to their good sense (ch 7) and to their devotion to God and to Christ (12). He uses strong language when it comes to hypocrisy (2) and sin (6) but he says he would deliver himself to hell if it would save his people (9).

Doug is wrong. Paul tells no one to abandon Moses. He explains and expresses his deepest desires for them, but he is no dictator. Jesus likewise explained and expressed his deepest desires for his people. It is how it's done in the world of God, where love is more important than knowledge.

Reber is correct. The epistle of the third bishop of Jerusalem--Jude--is a “bolt hurled at the head of Paul.”

Saying it again makes it doubly wrong.