There are a lot of Messianics that wish to reject the Apostle Paul as a false emissary. Have they thought this through? If Paul is rejected, then we have to toss out Peter, because Peter was a character witness for Paul. Mark probably wrote his gospel under the oversight of Peter, so we would have to toss Mark too, because if Peter cannot be trusted then neither can someone who considered Peter an authority. Also we would have to dismiss Luke, because Luke saw nothing wrong with Paul, and wrote of him. If Luke saw nothing wrong with Paul, then clearly Luke cannot be trusted either. Likewise James (Jacob) saw nothing wrong with Paul, because he sided with Paul at the Jerusalem council in not requiring the non-Jews to be circumcised for salvation. The Apostle John did not speak up or contradict the council, nor did he write any rebukes in his letters or gospel against Paul, though he lived in an area where there were many non-Jews, and wrote his last books long after Paul wrote his. John does take time to issue rebukes to apostates. Surely if the Apostle Paul was really an apostate, then John would have mentioned it, since Paul would have then been the greatest apostate. But if Paul was an apostate, and John did not mention it, then clearly John is an unrealiable compromiser unwilling to rebuke a great evil. Likewise, Matthew wrote his gospel well after Paul had most of his career, and certainly after Galatians was written, but Matthew does not make a rebuke at Paul either, which would be required if Paul was a great apostate trying to create another religion. So if Paul is to be rejected, then then everything from Matthew to Revelation would have to be rejected also. It is alleged that Paul rejected the Torah, and this is the supposed justification for rejecting Paul. But this is the same allegation made by most of the Church, that Paul rejected Torah. Could it be that the Messianics rejecting Paul could be basing their rejection on the arguments and evidence of the Church? But wait a minute! In their view should the arguments and evidence of the Church be reliable? It seems not. So then where are they getting their arguments for rejecting Paul? From Church antinomians, from agnostics, from higher critics, and from so called scholars who reject the Torah also. I mean the documentary hypothesis, a view held by many of the dead sea scroll scholars, who just love to invent factions and divisions in the Church and the New Testament where none are justified. Clearly the case is that Paul is not an apostate or false emissary. Paul is simply misinterpreted and mistranslated just like Peter claimed he was. It is a given that the anti-Torah Church will manufacture arguments that Paul rejected Torah. Really they are lies. A very simple observation shows that Paul is mistranslated. The Greek word for law is nomos. This word also means a NORM, CUSTOM, and even TRADITION. When Paul said we are not under NOMOS, he translates, that we are not under the legal norm. What is the legal norm? The legal norm is that all sinners should die eternally for their own sin. The legal exception is that Messiah Yeshua died for our sin in our place. So we are under the legal exception, and not the legal norm. And this truth is the good news of Messiah! The Pharisee wing of the Messianic movement, of course, does not what to accept the simple truth that NOMOS = a norm. Though it be in the dictionary this simple correction to a simple lie. And I think the reason they cannot accept this is that the correction requires acceptance of a correct understanding of the good news of Messiah. That is the real reason they hate Paul. Paul let the non-Jew start with the basics of repenting of mortal sins, and with that faithfulness and the faithfulness of Messiah to die for our sins, he said that the non-Jew was accepted into the kingdom. I feel sad for those messianics caught up in this, because they have latched onto Torah, but have forgotten the good news, or are forgetting it. I find them attacking Paul with a cult like zeal rather than doing the hard work of figuring out what he really said. I think they avoid thinking straight because it causes them too much cognitive dissoance. They have found their comfort zone in parroting the outward matters of the Torah, and the good news has gone by the wayside. If you are one of these left-wing, right-wing Messiancs, then ask your self if this describes your thinking or that of your teachers. Do they have any sympathy for the non Jew that does not keep Torah to the status quo (nomos) they have defined? As Messiah said: whoever shows no mercy, none will be shown.
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 05:29:50 +0000