The 12 Apostles Rejected Paul, part 4

This is part 4 of a response to the "Jesus' Words Only" web site. It relies up you having read part 1, at least far enough to know that the claims of the web site are, and why this response is being made.

Inside the USS Torsk, a submarine in the collection of Historic Ships in Baltimore.

23. The early church commentators and Second Peter spoke of Paul’s “wisdom,” not his inspiration. See 2 Peter 3:15-18 (Paul speaks with “wisdom” in words “dysnoetas” = “nonsensical” “difficult to understand.”) See also Polycarp’s Epistle 3:2 (“Neither am I ... able to follow the wisdom of Paul...” (Lightfoot). Notice in both examples that each says this wisdom was “nonsensical,” impossible “to follow” or “difficult to understand.” Hardly a commendation!

Who are “the early church commentators”? There is no way to test such a statement. Other parts of Doug's argument:

Peter spoke of Paul’s “wisdom,” not his inspiration.

For anyone to think that the authors of Scripture sat in silence, waiting for the Holy Spirit to come upon them so they could write the next book of Scripture, under inspiration, is straight out of Sunday School. There is no occurrence of the word “inspiration” in Scripture except in 2 Timothy 3. Doug, in his rush to paint Paul as a fraud, forgets that there is no hint in Scripture, anywhere, except in Paul’s letter to Timothy, that Scripture is inspired. And, since there was no New Testament yet, Paul is not talking about himself or Peter or John or anyone else: he’s talking about the Scriptures they had: the Jewish Scriptures.

But even then, nowhere are we told that Moses or David or Isaiah or Ezra sat down to write Scripture. God used them and they wrote what happened. Sometimes God gave them explicit words to deliver to the people, most often as a warning, but there is no insinuation that these people expected that what they wrote would be collected and called Scripture.

God honed Moses into the man he wanted through years of learning, working, fighting, and hardship. Then it was written down; then it became Scripture. (It's possible he wrote things that God did not preserve.) The same with David, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel… God took people, put them into difficult circumstances, tested and proved them, brought them to the point where they understood him and could be trusted, and then they were ready: because they knew him. He used these instructed-taught-proved-reproved-corrected-trained-tested-faithful-devoted-hardworking-broken people to write what he wanted, or write what he had told them to say, so we can know him as they did.

That last part cannot be understated. God brought people close to him through hardship and years of work and despair, then they wrote so we would know how to do what they had done. They had obeyed. They had found God. For them to end their lives with a whimper, with no word recorded of how their journey to God can pave the way for us, would be a travesty. He used people who he instructed to instruct us. He used people he tests to show us it is both normal and possible. He used people who worked to show us how to work. Not once did he entrust his sacred things to people who had not paid the price. They wrote what they lived. Nothing was speculation or supposition.

That all scripture is inspired by God is not a matter of the Holy Spirit superintending the authors so they wrote letter-by-letter what God wanted. The Holy Spirit had been superintending their hearts and minds for years and decades prior to their writing, making them people whom God trusted. Yes, we can say that God made sure they wrote truth, but he had given them that truth years before and carved it into their beings at great cost. These truths were not just ideas; they were life. It is how they survived in hardships that would have turned the most courageous warrior around.

Never was it an academic exercise. Never was there a time when someone sat down to write, finished, read it over and said “wow! I didn’t know that!” They knew. Writing was the last step. They were writing in ink what they knew in blood. Directed by God, certainly, but with the lightest touch. This was the easy part.

Doug, in his fantasy world of carefree speculation, creates theories of vapor. He has never done it and doesn’t know how to do it, so stumbles around in the dark, knocking over the furniture and breaking things. He invents simple explanations and is pleased with himself. He lives blissfully in his made-up world, mocking what he doesn’t understand.

Doug says Paul can’t be trusted and then uses Paul’s explanation of the inspiration of Scripture to tell us why Paul can’t be trusted. Back up. Before Paul said all scripture is inspired by God, he said "all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." A couple verses before that he said,

You have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, and my suffering the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured!

God would not have let Paul write one word unless he first had been qualified by God. The qualifications were conduct, life, faith, patience, love, steadfastness, persecutions, and suffering. What God wants from us is to copy Paul's conduct, life, faith, patience, love, steadfastness, persecutions, and suffering. There is no evidence God wants us to copy Doug.

Doug has earned no right to pit himself against any of God's qualified people. It is chilling to consider that is in store for him.

2 Peter 3:15-18 (Paul speaks with “wisdom” in words “dysnoetas” = “nonsensical” “difficult to understand.”)

2 Peter 3.15-18

Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Doug has no basis for claiming that δυσνόητος means nonsensical. It means “hard to understand”. “Hard to understand” refers to both the material and the reader. It usually means that the material is above the reader’s level because the reader is not trained. The material might be good or bad, but regardless, the reason the reader is not able to evaluate it is because he is not equipped.

“Nonsensical” is different. It means that the material cannot be understood, regardless of the ability of the reader. People have a right to mock things that are nonsensical. Peter squarely does not agree with that.

My son and his wife have PhDs in microbiology and are research scientists at Yale. When they talk about work it's not just difficult to understand; it's impossible. But nonsense? No. If I had studied for years as they did, I also could understand. They're right in what they say. I'm not wrong for not understanding--until I say they're wrong. Then I prove myself ignorant: not because I don't know what they're talking about, but because I claim that not knowing is all the proof I need to say they're wrong. Ignorance can be a simple matter of not knowing, but in this case it's stronger: they are so entrenched in their ignorance they actually regard it as the proof that what they don't understand is wrong.

Why Peter says that Paul’s writings are hard to understand is curious, but he follows it up with “which the ignorant and unstable twist”, so Peter is criticizing people who twist it, not the material, which is straight. Peter says, “as they do the other scriptures”. A reasonable interpretation is that Peter regards Paul’s writings as Scripture and that these people twist everything they read, so we need pay no attention to them, except to stay away.

Some explanations for why Peter considers Paul’s writings hard to understand:

Peter agrees that Paul’s writings are difficult to understand but doesn’t consider that a reason for people to dismiss them. Those that twist them will suffer for it. No one understands everything in Scripture. That is not a reason to dismiss or distort it.
Peter views Paul’s writings as difficult because he’s not educated while Paul was trained as a Pharisee. Looking back at the times when Christ was impatient with them for not understanding, Peter knows he does not catch on so easily, and maybe considers Paul to function at a higher level. He might wish for Paul to bring his writing down to a notch, but nevertheless regards those who distort Paul’s writings as ignorant and unstable. (However, if that is the case, Peter could ask Paul the next time he sees him, right? But maybe he’s done that, and the explanation is just as confusing as the letter.)
Peter is saying he understands Paul’s writings and disagrees with those who say they are too difficult. Their claim of "too difficult" is exposed as a lie when they distort what he is saying. People don't do that with things they don't understand unless they have a motive.
Peter is making an effort to take Paul in but can’t do it. “Our beloved brother” is a churchism. It’s not that Peter doesn’t think Paul is a true brother, but they're not on the same wavelength either, so “our beloved brother” is a pat on the back, distant, without true warmth. In 2 Peter 1.18, Peter confirms his prophetic message by saying, “We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven”, but in 3.5 he says “Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him”. Peter may be an uneducated fisherman and can’t compete with Paul the Pharisee scholar, but he was an “eyewitnesses of his majesty” and heard the “voice from heaven”, which trumps wisdom any day. Still, Peter says that those who distort Paul's teachings will pay the price. The rebellion of Korah cuts both ways.

Peter will not side completely with Paul, but he’s not going to side with the critics either. There are things he doesn’t understand, some things don’t fit, and one or two things he just can’t accept. But he nevertheless calls the critics ignorant and unstable. He refuses to be claimed by them.

Peter considers Silas a faithful brother and Mark is his son. He believes Paul is genuine, but they're not close, and there was that embarrassment at Antioch.

Possibly he regrets things he did and didn’t do. He knows he made mistakes. He doesn’t feel right that James is in charge, but he knows he doesn’t have the smarts and the political savvy to do it, so probably James is the better one to run things. He regrets causing problems for Paul, especially the arrest in Jerusalem. He shouldn’t have let James do that. He looks at the vast expanse of Paul’s field and knows there has to be something to it. If Paul is right, then he must not be criticized. But if Paul is right, does that mean he is wrong? That cannot be. It requires a lot of thought.

But the line he will not cross is to fight against the work of God. He doesn’t know what to do, so the easiest solution is to stay in his world and leave Paul to his. Whatever Paul is, at least he’s doing something. There are issues, but he won’t stand by while people mock him either.

Doug, unsurprisingly, is wrong. In his world, things are simple: he's right. He doesn’t have the intellect, education, experience, or time to make a reasoned reply, so he mocks. He fights with the arsenal he has.

He doesn’t look up a reference because it takes time and it might not say what he wants, so he snips and uses ellipses to make it say what he wants. He discards 99 quotes that say what he doesn’t want to hear, then happens across one that he agrees with and happily pops it in. Dropping a name or a date or a reference makes him sound well-read, but he's too lazy to look up a reference and too afraid to read contrary evidence. He congratulates himself on this thing he sees that no one else does. The result is this: a collection of misquotes, bad quotes, reverse quotes, dreadful concoctions, dead end streets, and juvenile conclusions.

Doug quotes from Peter but blows right past the phrase, “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”. How?

24. This is because Paul many times makes clear he does not generally write under inspiration. The exceptions are few where Paul says something was given by revelation, a trance, vision, etc.

The authors of Scripture would periodically, under inspiration, sit down to add another book to the Bible? Such a simple view of things.

What does writing under inspiration mean? Does Paul ever say he is writing under inspiration? Is there a claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Jude knew they were writing under inspiration?

25. Luther and many pro-Paul scholars admit Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians reflects (1) Paul’s putting down the leading apostles, intending us to understand they are “false apostles” who teach “another Jesus” than Paul, and (2) the apostles refused to give him a commendation in writing as Paul had hoped. See Eisenman on Paul (detailing proofs that Paul did not receive apostolic letters of recommendation, based upon 2 Cor. 10:9-18; 2 and 1 Cor. 9:1-2, when read together with 2 Cor. 11:13-15 and 2 Cor. 3:1.)

xxx

Paul thus himself impliedly admits the 12 rejected supporting Paul’s authority in the true church which Paul hoped to receive by a written commendation. Paul had a corresponding disdain, implying the 12 were false apostles.

xxx

This conflict boiled over in Paul writing that he did not need anyone else’s commendation for he “commends” himself “in every way,” by “great endurance,...hard work,” and “through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report, genuine, yet regarded as impostors.” (2 Cor. 6:3-6.) Hence, the refusal by the 12 to commend Paul was because they regarded Paul as an impostor apostle.

2 Cor 6.1-12

As we work together with him, we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain. 2 For he says,

“At an acceptable time I have listened to you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you.”

See, now is the acceptable time; see, now is the day of salvation! 3 We are putting no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, 4 but as servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, 7 truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet are well known; as dying, and see—we are alive; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

11 We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians; our heart is wide open to you. 12 There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. 13 In return—I speak as to children—open wide your hearts also.

Doug says that Paul commends himself in 2 Cor 6, in the face of charges by others that he is an impostor. There are many problems:

1. Paul saying “we are treated as impostors” is in v 8, not v 6. A small point, but why can Doug not look up even something as simple as a verse number?

2. Paul says he is treated as an imposter, and then immediately says he is true. He is responding to a false charge, not admitting it. He goes on to list a number of other injustices he suffered for them:

as unknown and yet are well known

as dying and see—we are alive

as punished and yet not killed

as sorrowful yet always rejoicing

as poor yet making many rich

as having nothing yet possessing everything.

To slice out one phrase and twist it to say something it does not, and could not, is pure meanness. Doug had no right to not finish what Paul was saying. Why not also accuse him of dying, being poor, and having nothing?

3. Nowhere is there a mention of the Twelve. That is an insertion by Doug, for no reason and without any proof.

4. The word “commends” in v 4 does not mean self-congratulating or self-promoting. It means proving, showing, demonstrating. This is seen in other translations:

KJV But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses

ISV In every way we demonstrate that we are God's servants by tremendous endurance in the midst of difficulties, hardships, and calamities

Jubilee 2000 But in all things showing ourselves as the ministers of God in much patience, in tribulations, in necessities, in distresses

Young’s but in everything recommending ourselves as God's ministrants; in much patience, in tribulations, in necessities, in distresses

Douay-Rheims But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses

1599 Geneva But in all things we approve ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses.

Wycliffe but in all things give we us selves [but in all things give we ourselves] as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in anguishes

Paul is saying that he has demonstrated the genuineness of his ministry through undisputable proofs:

Through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute.

If someone says these mean nothing, then what will convince? What impostor would endure years of abuse and hardship? Certainly an impostor would give up once he saw there was no profit in it. What possible explanation could there be for Paul’s hardships and suffering except that he is a true servant of God and a true father to them? Nothing else makes any sense. No impostor would do this.

The same word is used in 2 Peter 3.5 (earth was formed: γῆ συνίστημι) and Luke 9.32 (standing with him: συνίστημι αὐτός). The translation of συνίστημι must, as always, fit the context. There is no simple, single meaning. But, what we can say with confidence is that it does not mean Paul was promoting himself to counteract criticism by the Twelve that he was an impostor. That is an impossible reading of the text.

5. Paul is not defending himself against the Twelve. He is pleading with the Corinthians to not stray from the truth. He is saying he has done everything possible to bring them to Christ and build them up. He has given his body for them. He has showed his love for them in undeniable ways. He now says, because of all this, that if they abandon the grace of God, it is on their heads, not his. It is impossible for anyone to do more.

Doug’s argument that 2 Cor. 6:3-6 shows “the refusal by the 12 to commend Paul was because they regarded Paul as an impostor apostle” is a fabrication.

26. Finally, the Ebionites by the early 200s preserved their opinions about Paul by writing the Clementine Homolies and Recognitions of Clement. These works contend Peter realized that Paul—apparently revised after 325 AD by Catholic historical writers to be named as “Simon Magus” rather than Paul—followed a different Christ, was the enemy who teaches against the Law, and invites Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as not eaten in front of a Christian who thinks it is wrong.

The word is Homilies, not Homolies.

It is not completely accurate to say there were Catholic historical writers in 325 AD.

There were many writings in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries that were evaluated and determined to not be trustworthy. Using them against Scripture is not a wise tactic. Just because they are early does not make them sacred. They are not Scripture and have no authority over Scripture.

Simon Magus is found in The Clementine Homilies, Homily I, chapters XV and following. Paul is not mentioned of course, Doug's claim being that Catholic historical writers changed the text. Fair enough. But continuing Recognitions of Clement, Book I, in chapter XXXII, Clement says Abraham was an astrologer, in XXXII he says that Abraham [sic] had two sons named Ishmael and Heliesdros, and then Isaac, in XXXVIII he says the Israelites in the times of the judges "remained in a somewhat peaceful condition"—all rather unexpected changes to the Scriptures.

In Recognitions of Clement, Book II, chapter VII Clement describes Simon Magus:

This Simon's father was Antonius, and his mother Rachel. By nation he is a Samaritan, from a village of the Gettones; by profession a magician yet exceedingly well trained in the Greek literature; desirous of glory, and boasting above all the human race, so that he wishes himself to be believed to be an exalted power, which is above God the Creator, and to be thought to be the Christ, and to be called the Standing One. And he uses this name as implying that he can never be dissolved, asserting that his flesh is so compacted by the power of his divinity, that it can endure to eternity. Hence, therefore, he is called the Standing One, as though he cannot fall by any corruption.

Apparently the Catholic historical writers didn't just change the name: they invented a biography and backstory as well. The account continues in chapter VIII, where Simon finds a way to replace one of the disciples of John the Baptist, in chapter IX he says Simon was able to render himself invisible, dig through mountains, pass through rocks as if they are clay, throw himself from a mountain and land unhurt, make prison doors open themselves, animate statues, throw himself into fire and not be hurt, change himself into a sheep or goat, and fly. Peter believed he could do those things (chapter LX).

In chapter XI Clement says Simon rose to the head of the disciples of John the Baptist and the thirty obeyed him. In The Clementine Homilies, Homily II, chapter XXVIII, Clement says that Aquila and his brother Nicetas knew Simon from childhood.

There are strong reasons the writings of Clement were not included in the Canon. They are fanciful, even fantastic at times, and conflict with Scripture. It is not credible to use them as an authority against Scripture.

Following is a list of noncanonical early writings, taken from Bible Hub:

http://biblehub.com/library/unknown/

Acts and Martyrdom of St Matthew the Apostle

Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Andrew

Acts of Andrew and Matthias

Acts of Paul and Thecla

Acts of Peter and Andrew

Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian

Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus

Acts of the Holy Apostle Thomas

Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

Consummation of Thomas the Apostle

Epistle of Peter to James

Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Apostle Bartholomew

Recognitions of Clement

Revelation of Esdras

Revelation of John

Revelation of Moses

Revelation of Paul

The Acts of Barnabus

The Acts of Philip

The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Sedrach

The Apocalypse of the Virgin

The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior

The Avenging of the Savior

The Clementine Homilies

The Death of Pilate who Condemned Jesus

The Decretals

The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate

The Gospel of Nicodemus

The Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary

The Gospel of Thomas

The History of Joseph the Carpenter

The Letter of Pontius Pilate Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ

The Martyrdom of Justin Chariton Charites

The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea

The Narrative of Zosimus

The Passing of Mary

The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs

The Protevangelium of James

The Report of Pilate Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ

The Second Epistle of Clement

The Testament of Abraham

The Vision of Paul

The fact that they are not Scripture does not mean there is no truth in them, but it does mean there is error and therefore they cannot be trusted. Using them to disprove Scripture is a very bad idea. Some of these writings talk against Paul, but some speak approvingly of him. Selecting the ones you like and passing over without comment those you don't like is not honest.

From “Ebionites”, Wikipedia:

Clementine literature

The collection of New Testament apocrypha known as the Clementine literature included three works known in antiquity as the Circuits of Peter, the Acts of the Apostles and a work usually titled the Ascents of James. They are specifically referenced by Epiphanius in his polemic against the Ebionites. The first-named books are substantially contained in the Homilies of Clement under the title of Clement's Compendium of Peter's itinerary sermons, and in the Recognitions attributed to Clement. They form an early Christian didactic fiction to express Jewish Christian views, i.e. the primacy of James the brother of Jesus, their connection with the episcopal see of Rome, and their antagonism to Simon Magus, as well as gnostic doctrines.