Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 7

So what about the Corinthian epistles? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

119 Ministries dives right in so let’s see what they have to say.

The first passage we’ll look at is 1 Corinthians 7:19, in which Paul says, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” As we covered in Chapter 3, Paul cannot mean circumcision itself has no value. Why? Because in the very same verse, Paul also says that “keeping the commandments of God” is what matters. Paul cannot say that circumcision is nothing and, in the same breath, affirm the importance of keeping God’s commandments, which include circumcision.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 97). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So Paul cannot mean circumcision doesn’t matter, so let’s find a way to say that circumcision matters. Except, well, that’s what Paul says. If they want to say the commandments of God include circumcision, then they also include offering sacrifices. Do you get to pick and choose which ones you obey? If no, then start offering sacrifices. If yes, then you are guilty of what you condemn in evangelicals.

They then go to 1 Cor. 9:19-22. I will be quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

For although I am a free man, not bound to do anyone’s bidding, I have made myself a slave to all in order to win as many people as possible. 20 That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. 21 With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah — although I myself am not outside the framework of God’s Torah but within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah. 22 With the “weak” I became “weak,” in order to win the “weak.” With all kinds of people I have become all kinds of things, so that in all kinds of circumstances I might save at least some of them.

To which they say:

But wouldn’t it be deceitful and hypocritical of Paul to hold to and exemplify the validity of the Torah to Jews but teach the opposite to Gentiles? Indeed, it would.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 100). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is the kind of interpretation I see from new atheists. This is not hypocrisy. It’s more along the lines of “When in Rome.” If I had Mormons visiting me, I would not start having a cup of tea around them. If you want to engage with Muslims, it’s best to not do so over a ham sandwich. If you want to reach Hindus, inviting them out for a burger is not a good idea. You could be fine with any of these, but you don’t violate the taboos of your audience. Everyone in the ancient world would have understood this. 119 Ministries do not.

We’ll next look at 2 Cor. 3 where they quote a Dr. Colin Kruse saying:

It is important to recognize that Paul does not imply that the law itself was fading away. The law as the expression of the will of God for human conduct is still valid. In fact, Paul says the purpose of God in bringing in the New Covenant of the Spirit was precisely that the righteous demands of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:4).3

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 105). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But if we are to move from one degree of glory to the next, then 119 Ministries is doing the opposite of what Paul desires. He wants us to move from the glory of the old covenant to that of the New. 119 Ministries is wishing to stay with the old covenant.

So next time we’ll look at Ephesians and Colossians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 6

What about Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians should be where many of the ideas of keeping the law for salvation come to die. Unfortunately, 119 Ministries is convinced otherwise. So what do they have to say? To start, let’s look at how they view the idea that the message of keeping the law was a gospel of men.

However, this is a flawed interpretation. Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9). He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12). Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men. This is a crucial point! Obviously, the Law of God didn’t come from men; it came from God. And if the false doctrine being pushed on the Galatians was a manmade doctrine, then the false doctrine in Galatians was not the doctrine that believers ought to obey God’s Law!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 78). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the Law did come from God, and Paul acknowledges that, but throughout the book he treats the Law as a stepping stone. Going back to the Law when you have faith in Christ is going backwards. That makes that version a gospel of men. If one wanted to observe the Law not for salvation reasons but for traditional reasons, I doubt Paul would have a complaint. His choice not to is for the freedom he has in Christ.

What about Paul challenging Peter in Galatians 2?

Nothing in this passage suggests Peter was breaking God’s dietary laws—that would be reading something into the text that isn’t there. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to rebuke Peter if all he was doing was attempting to get the Gentiles to take on obedience to God’s Law since, again, Paul himself taught observance of God’s Law to his Gentile readers. When Paul accuses Peter of forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews, he wasn’t accusing Peter of forcing them to keep God’s Law; he was rebuking Peter for appearing to side with the Circumcision Party in his refusal of table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter’s actions gave the impression that he agreed with the Circumcision Party that the Gentiles could not be included as part of God’s people unless they ritually converted.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 80-81). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

It is not known what was being ate, but Peter living like a Gentile could very well have been eating food that would be considered unclean to the Jewish community. When he backs away from that, then he is creating a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have never been obligated to live like Jews (i.e. Following the Law.) and Peter’s actions would be convincing them that they needed to.

It can also be asked that what difference does 119 Ministries see between ritual conversion and following the Law?

They later on look at Paul talking about the reason for adding the Law and quote James Dunn. (Credit where credit is due. At least he’s a legitimate scholar they would normally disagree with.)

Now In the case of 3.19a the issue centres on the meaning of χάριν [charin]. Here we need to recall that the word is the accusative form of χάρις [charis], ‘grace, favour’, and that its usual meaning as attested elsewhere in usage of the time is ‘for the sake of, on behalf of, on account of.’ This suggests a much more immediately gracious objective for the law than simply ‘to make conscious of transgressions,’ and certainly than ‘to provoke transgressions.’ It suggests, in fact, the purpose of the law as it was generally recognized within the (OT) scriptures and the Judaism of Paul’s time: that is, as a means of dealing with transgressions. In other words, what was probably in mind here was the whole sacrificial cult at whose centre was the provision of means for covering sin and removing guilt, means of atonement. [Emphasis added]2

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 87). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

What this has to do with the price of tea in China is unknown. If they agree with Dunn, then we have to ask why do they not offer up sacrifices? 119 Ministries wants to accuse Christians of not following the Law, but if they believe it should be followed and is eternal and doesn’t change, then why are they not offering up sacrifices?

The next point to look at is in Galatians 5 when it is said that if you allow yourself to be circumcised, you must follow the whole law.

If circumcision itself caused someone to fall away from Messiah, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3? The traditional interpretation just doesn’t fit when considering all the evidence.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 94). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why? Because Timothy was Jewish and if they were witnessing to Jews and the Jews thought Timothy wasn’t circumcised, that would mean that they would likely tune out anything Paul said. Let’s suppose hypothetically that that isn’t correct seeing as it is never spelled out. If it is at least plausible, then we already have an answer. Of course, I think it is correct. The point is that there are ways to interpret this that do fit considering the evidence and considering 119 Ministries doesn’t counter such a simple one, how much research are they doing?

So next time, we’ll look at 1 and 2 Corinthians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Case Against The Sexual Revolution

Was it all a bad idea? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A long-time friend of mine said he wanted to see me write book reviews of books I enjoyed. (And not just enjoyed laughing at how bad they are.) Fair enough. You all need to know about good books as well. Thus, I am pausing the current book review to do one entry on a book I highly encourage you all to read, The Case Against The Sexual Revolution.

As of my writing this blog, the book is fairly new being published in 2022. I had checked to see if transgenderism was a big thing when she wrote the book. Apparently, it was and still is.

So much in my copy of this book is highlighted and I am going to let some fellow students borrow it, both of them with an interest in this area. Let’s start this by listing her chapter titles.

Sex must be taken seriously.
Men and women are different.
Some desires are bad.
Loveless sex is not empowering.
Consent is not enough.
Violence is not love.
People are not products.
Marriage is good.
Conclusion: Listen to your mother.

I found it interesting that for someone like myself, all of those seem like common sense statements.

I have seen leftists argue against each of these in one way or another.

Let’s start with that first one. How many times have we heard something like “It’s no big deal. It’s just sex.” Anytime someone says, “It’s just sex”, they are not taking it seriously. She starts this off with comparing Marilyn Monroe who underneath it all did not like being treated like an object, with Hugh Hefner who lived his life treating women like objects. In speaking of the idea of sexual freedom, Perry says “Why do so many women desire a kind of sexual freedom that obviously serves male interests?” (p. 8) She later says that women have switched one form of female submission for another, but called the latter liberation. (20)

Having a chapter about men and women being different can be seen as heresy by many on the left today. That being said, the transgender movement has taken on a sort of quasi-religious touch to it. If the body is all there is, then it makes no sense to say you are in the wrong body. There has to be some aspect of the person that is not material in the viewpoint in order to make that aspect align with the body by the mutilation of the body.

In this chapter, Perry has several statistics on how men and women are physically and psychologically different. She says that for many this is common sense, but alas, common sense is not that common today. Men and women approach sex and behave sexually in very different ways and it’s a mistake to think that those ways should be the same for both sexes.

Some desires are bad points to some cases of people such as pedophiles. In many ways, what they desire is spoken of openly and no one seems to blink at all about it. We have an idea that if we strongly desire something, that something is good. Nope. Not at all. We think it is good, no doubt, but that does not mean that it is.

The chapter on loveless sex looks at the hook-up culture today. “Hook-up culture is a terrible deal for women and yet has been presented by liberal feminism as a form of liberation. A truly feminist project would demand that, in the straight dating world, it should be men, not women, who adjust their sexual appetites.” (p. 79)

Once again, I marvel at how it is women think they are embracing this and sticking it to the patriarchy. If you are giving men free sex without requiring any commitment from them or responsibility, you are not hurting them, at least not in a way they think they are being hurt. You are teaching them to use you.

Now in the long run, I do think this hurts men seeing as they do avoid responsibility and fatherhood, but that is not the goal of the feminists. The feminists want to avoid responsibility and motherhood often as well. In an irony, feminists wanting to say they are superior are treating the common masculine approach as if it was the ideal.

Perry also says being desired is not the same as being held in high esteem. A man might want to sleep with a woman because he thinks she’s hot, but he will not want to have children with her. He’s just using her for his own sexual gratification.

The chapter on consent is not enough is a huge stab at the porn industry. Perry outright says on p. 113 that there is no good reason to use porn. Pornography has damaged the viewpoint of sex by men and women both. There are plenty of men who struggle with even being able to perform sexually due to porn use and younger and younger men are needing medications for ED.

In some of my apps, I am sure I see an ad about an app for dating where women tell you what they want, and the first lady talking looks like she’s being choked at the same time. Naturally, this brings to mind the subject of the chapter on violence, Fifty Shades of Grey. Perry is quite troubled with how many women loved this book and has said that if a man can remain aroused while beating you, stay away from him.

People are not products deals with the idea of “sex work.” Treating sex this way makes it just a commodity for trade and ultimately, it makes it be people for trade. Again, this benefits men. Men go to the women not for the idea that they love them, but for what they can get out of them.

Finally, marriage is good. This presents the problems the pill presented for society with the incredible line that “When motherhood became a biological choice for women, fatherhood became a social choice for men.” (p. 167) Men are enabled to shirk their responsibility in raising children and then ultimately, the state becomes the surrogate husband. Perry writes about what her grandmother said about the thesis of the whole book as well. “Women have been conned.” (p. 181)

She also writes about the problems of easy divorce. Making divorce easier was done, no doubt, with a lot of good intentions, but it has made everything worse. I fully agree with this speaking as a divorced man who struggles with fears of rejection and problems of trust still today.

Perry longs for there to be some technology that can enable men and women that encourages men to avoid short-term thinking, for women to be stable and protected, and for children to be raised. She then says such a technology exists. It is clunky sometimes and does fail at times, but it’s here. It’s called monogamous marriage. (p. 181)

This book is phenomenal. It is one that I think every thinker in this field should interact with. Perry is a refreshing voice in this world.

Oh. Did I mention she’s neither conservative nor a Christian? Must have slipped my mind.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 5

What about Romans?

Chapter four really doesn’t have much to comment on, so let’s move to five. In this one, 119 Ministries covers Romans.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Romans 2:12-13) Paul is saying here that, although we are saved by grace, the doers of God’s Law are considered righteous before God and will be justified.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 49). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

For some reason, they leave off the next three verses.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So what were the Gentiles doing that was written on their hearts? Following dietary restrictions? Observing Sabbath? Having the feasts? Practicing circumcision? Offering sacrifices to YHWH? Not wearing mixed fabrics?

Nope. Paul must be talking about another aspect of the law. He has that in mind in the next few verses.

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

These are the moral requirements. Not the requirements that would be considered cultic. (Not in the sense of a cult, but in the sense of pertaining to the ritual practices.)

I can’t imagine why 119 Ministries left this out.

They also say one of the first big debates was in Acts 15 asking if you had to be circumcised to be saved.

Then, they would be instructed in Moses’ teaching every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21). As the Gentiles listen to the Torah, and as the teachers instruct them, they will eventually want to get circumcised in obedience to the Law of God.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 51). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

First off, that’s not what Acts 15:21 says:

For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”

That’s from the Complete Jewish Bible. The early church by and large was not meeting in the synagogues but in the houses of the church members.

Second, no. Just no. There would not be a universe out there where the Greeks would hear the message and come to Jesus and then burst out with excitement, “Hey! I want to be circumcised now!”

Then Paul points to David as another example to show how God’s forgiveness is available for everyone who would put their faith in God (Romans 4:6-8). This forgiveness is for not only the Jews but also the Gentiles. Moreover, since Abraham was made righteous by his faith before he was circumcised, Gentiles likewise are made righteous before getting physically circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). The doctrine that some Jews were pushing in the first century—that Gentiles needed to get circumcised as a prerequisite to becoming part of God’s people—is false.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 54). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. Unfornuately, 119 Ministries misses the real point of this. They do say that just a few verses earlier Paul says we uphold the Law of God by faith. What Paul actually says is explained in Romans 4. He shows how it is that Abraham was justified. Not by the Law, but by faith. Therefore, if we want to uphold the Torah, we should see the Torah says that Abraham was justified by faith.

Without the Law, we would not have a clear definition of sin.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 54). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But this is false entirely. The Old Testament can condemn the Gentiles for their wicked actions even though they do not have the Law. They know right from wrong still. Cain knew it was wrong to kill his brother. Sodom and Gomorrah knew what they were doing was wrong. Joseph’s brothers knew it was wrong to sell him into slavery. It’s not as if Moses came down from the mountain and some Israelites said, “What? Murder is wrong?! We had no idea!”

Next, they bring up Romans 6.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

And say:

Traditionally, Paul’s statement that believers are not “under the law” has been understood to mean that we are free to disregard God’s Law. However, there is a problem with this interpretation—namely, Paul affirms the ongoing authority of the Law throughout Romans. He says we uphold the Law by faith (3:31). The Law is “holy and righteous and good” (7:12), “spiritual” (7:14), and Paul “delights” in it (7:22) and “serves” it (7:25). He says that believers fulfill the Law’s righteous requirements when we walk according to the Spirit (8:4), and that it’s the carnal mind of man, not the spiritual mind, that rebels against the Law (8:7). Therefore, “not under law” simply can’t mean, “freedom to disregard the Law of God.”

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 56). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

I will hold off the interpretation of chapter 7 for when we get there, but we have already seen chapter 3 is just a wrong interpretation. So what of 7?

They start it off saying:

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 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. (Romans 7:2-3) How does it make sense for Paul to say that believers are now free from obeying God’s Law when his entire analogy here is predicated on the validity of the Torah’s laws concerning marriage?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 59). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Because that’s the language his Jewish opponents would understand? Just a guess.

So looking back, Paul says the law is spiritual and righteous and good. Indeed. It comes from God. How could it not be? However, part of the problem with chapter 7 is something that 119 Ministries never brings up. Who is speaking here?

Of course, Paul is writing the letter, but is he giving an autobiographical account? If so, then when was Paul alive apart from the Law? That’s what he says in verse 9.

This is what the Complete Jewish Bible says:

I was once alive outside the framework of Torah. But when the commandment really encountered me, sin sprang to life

Paul was raised a Jew all his life. He was never apart from it. If you go back to chapter 5, Paul references Adam. That is a figure that makes sense here. When he was given the commandment of God, sin sprang to life and took advantage of it. Ben Witherington in What’s in the Word? also says that the early Jews thought the sin in the garden was that of coveting.

Romans 8 then is the victorious life of the Christian.

So in the end, 119 Ministries does not understand Romans.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Chapter 3

What makes Paul hard to understand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

No Christian should say Paul is easy to understand. Our own Scripture in 2 Peter says that Paul writes many things that are hard to understand. It would be foolish to think we can do so easily. (Kind of like internet atheists do thinking they can just read the Bible and not bother studying it and know everything about it.)

119 Ministries at least agrees that Paul is hard to understand, but they think different things are hard to understand.

For instance, many Christians believe Paul taught that God’s Law has changed. However, it is impossible to come to that conclusion if you’ve read what the Old Testament says about the Law: “I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips” (Psalm 89:34). Surely God himself cannot be wrong, so that means the traditional understanding of Paul must be revisited. Many also believe that Paul called the Law of God bondage (Galatians 5:1). But the front of the book says that the Law of God brings liberty (Psalm 119:44-45).

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 29). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But as we say in an earlier post, the Law has changed. Note also that the Psalm never says the Law is unchanged. It says the covenant is, and yet even in Jeremiah and Hebrews we see talk of a new covenant. There is some degree of change going on.

As for Psalm 119, why should this be a problem? There is always freedom in following the path of God. Yet at the same time, when God gives the new path in Christ, one is to follow that path and not the old.

119 Ministries also goes on to talk about the tension that is often presented in Paul:

Are you feeling the tension between the traditional interpretation of Paul and what he actually lived and taught? There’s more: Paul says that he serves the Law of God (Romans 7:25). Why serve a Law that is supposedly ended or made void? Paul called the Law “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). He said he “delights” in the law of God (Romans 7:22). He taught that the Holy Spirit leads to obedience to God’s Law while the carnal nature of man is opposed to God’s Law (Romans 8:3-8). And this is only in Romans!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 31). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yet Romans 7 is a notoriously difficult passage to deal with and 119 Ministries gives no indication that they understand that. My contention is that Romans 7 is not Paul being autobiographical. We see no hint of him struggling in Philippians 3 to follow the law and no one doubts that is autobiographical. Also, Paul says that once he was alive apart from the Law, but when could an orthodox Jew like Paul say he was ever not only apart from the law, but apart from it and alive?

No. A better understanding is that this is speaking as Adam, who was referred to back in Romans 5. In this, once the law came to life for him, he was filled with a desire for coveting, which was seen as the sin in the garden, desiring wisdom for oneself apart from God. Had he kept the law, it would have meant life for him.

As for the verses from Romans 8, here they are in the Complete Jewish Bible.

For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.

Notice that Paul says the Torah could not by itself bring righteousness. The idea in these passages goes along with the Law written on the heart in Romans 2. Because of the Spirit, we can keep the Law of God in the sense that we were meant to. Again, this is something 119 Ministries never addresses. Are we meant to offer sacrifices, for instance?

Unfortunately, 119 Ministries doesn’t really look at the best resources and ironically, in a chapter about misunderstanding Paul, demonstrate that they do indeed misunderstand Paul.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Pauline Paradox Chapter 2

Who was Paul? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, 119 Ministries seeks to introduce us to Paul. In looking at Acts 15, they say:

As scholar J.K. McKee explains: The yoke being placed upon these non-Jewish Believers in the Messiah was a legalistic perversion of the Torah which demanded that if you do not observe it and convert to Judaism (perhaps according to the particular sect represented) you cannot be saved. It is a yoke that keeps people out of God’s intention, rather than one that welcomes them in.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 19). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Like me, McKee does not have a PhD yet, so while I can respect his educational prowess, I hesitate to use the word scholar yet. No. I would not describe myself as a scholar either. I remain consistent. That being said, I do agree that the Council decided to not make everyone follow Judaism to receive salvation, but I go further saying that they never have to follow Torah at all.

The Jerusalem Council passe down four requirements for the Gentiles. That means no necessity to follow the Law. Right?

Right?

No, according to James, the Gentile believers were to be welcomed every Sabbath at the synagogue, where they would learn the rest of the commandments (Acts 15:21). So, rather than abolishing the Law for Gentiles, the Jerusalem council actually reinforced Yeshua’s teaching that the Law is perpetually relevant and is to be taught to “all nations”—just not as a means to salvation.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 20). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

The believers were to be welcomed in the Synagogue every Sabbath? Is that what it says?

Let’s go to the Complete Jewish Bible.

Ya‘akov broke the silence to reply. “Brothers,” he said, “hear what I have to say. Shim‘on has told in detail what God did when he first began to show his concern for taking from among the Goyim a people to bear his name. And the words of the Prophets are in complete harmony with this for it is written,

‘“After this, I will return;
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David.
I will rebuild its ruins,
I will restore it,
so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
that is, all the Goyim who have been called by my name,”
says Adonai, who is doing these things.’

All this has been known for ages.

“Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim who are turning to God. Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”

All the text says is that Moses has been read every Sabbath. It says nothing about the believers worshipping on the Sabbath. Not so fast, says 119 Ministries!

After the Jerusalem council, we see that Paul continued to teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Acts 16:13). In fact, Scripture says this was his “custom” (Acts 17:2). He did it “every Sabbath” (Acts 18:4).

That clinches it, does it not? Paul was in the synagogue every Sabbath.

Sad that one has to explain this so frequently.

If you went to a Middle Eastern country and you wanted to speak to Muslims, you would go to your local mosque on Friday. Why? Not because you specifically observe Friday, but because Muslims do. IF 119 Ministries wanted to speak to evangelical Christians at churches about this, they would find them at church on Sunday. Why does Paul visit the synagogues on Sabbath?

Because his intended audience goes to synagogue on the Sabbath!

By contrast, look in Acts 20 again at the Complete Jewish Bible.

On Motza’ei-Shabbat, when we were gathered to break bread, Sha’ul addressed them.

That phrase refers to the ending of the Sabbath, on Saturday night. If the new Christians worshipped on the Sabbath, why did Paul start this service on the night of the Sabbath towards the ending of it? We know this marked the start since he went on to preach so much that someone fell asleep and Paul had to revive him when he fell from a window.

The writers also talk about how Paul took a vow that fits the description of a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18. What of it? Paul never condemns following Jewish Law. He condemns the idea that Gentiles have to follow it. Much like the circumcision of Timothy, this could be an act done to not offend the Jews he wanted to reach.

They then quote a later part of the passage:

When they asked him to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent, but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus. (Acts 18:20-21, NKJV)

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 20-21). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

I decided to look this up when I read it and strangest thing, I couldn’t find a reference to the feast in most translations. Fortunately, as a seminary student, plenty of professors come by who know this and the head of our textual research department came by just then. He looked it up and did say it was a textual variant, which one needs to ask why 119 Ministries did not mention this.

Not only that, look at what the Complete Jewish Bible says:

20 When they asked him to stay with them longer, he declined; 21 however, in his farewell he said, “God willing, I will come back to you.” Then he set sail from Ephesus.

No feast mentioned.

Strange.

When Paul comes before the high priest, 119 Ministries explains it saying:

The high priest, Ananias, ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul reacted by calling out Ananias as a hypocrite: Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” (Acts 23:3) Interestingly, Paul appeals to the Law of God, which says only someone found guilty can be beaten (Deuteronomy 25:1-2), as his basis for calling Ananias a hypocrite. If the accusations that Paul taught against the Law were true, why would he appeal to the Law?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 23-24). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Followed by:

Notice that Paul did not try to justify his evil speech against Ananias, the high priest. Rather, he agreed with the Law of God and acknowledged his mistake. It wouldn’t make sense for him to appeal to the Law of God in his acknowledgment of his error if he believed the Law had been done away with.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 24). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why indeed? How about this?

Paul shames the high priest for violating the law in doing this. He takes the authority that he knows the high priest holds and points out his violation of it. In making an apology for it, Paul in essence says “I am being more faithful than you are even though you are the one who claims to be under the Law.” Paul would have certainly recognized the high priest after all!

So far then, 119 Ministries has presented nothing strong backing their case.

We’ll continue next time asking why Paul is so confusing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 1

How do we start this one? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Give credit where credit is due. This book starts with an excellent opening.

Fact: every pastor, theologian, and Bible teacher on the planet holds on to doctrinal error to some degree. An honest teacher will readily admit the possibility they are in error on some things. It’s foolish to think that we, or anyone else, has everything figured out or has all of the answers.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 7). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. We all do. I would like to think everything I teach here is correct, but I am sure it isn’t. While I would like to always be right, I would hate it if you think I am always right and don’t need to check up on what I say. Something I have learned in the PhD program here is the importance of teachability. My professors would agree with my natural intellect, but I think they also admire that I am willing to go to them for advice despite that. There is always something to learn.

Salvation is received by faith in Yeshua (Ephesians 2:8). We are not saved by anything we do. Our works cannot and never will have any causal relationship with our status as saved sons and daughters of God. However, though no causal relationship exists, works and salvation do correlate. The Bible is very clear on this (James 2:14-26). Works do not save us, but a true saving faith will produce works. We strive to be honest, give to the poor, etc., because of our salvation, not for our salvation. The same holds true for every commandment of God. Keeping God’s commandments is evidence that we have faith in God—that we believe his Word and follow it. Again, obedience to God’s commandments is the evidence of our saving faith, not the cause of it. It is correlational, not causal.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 7-8). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is again an excellent point. I would hope that 119 Ministries would not see what they teach as an essential. For instance, if you do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday or if you are a man, get circumcised if you are not, then you are not a Christian. I am of the persuasion that if you are a Christian and want to follow the Law, suppose for instance being a Messianic Jew and having a deep respect for the tradition, then have at it. As soon as you make it necessary for salvation, we have a problem.

Everyone that has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them should always be in the process of learning. Everyone is both a teacher and a student in some capacity. The only thing we can do—and certainly should do—is to test others and ourselves to the Word of God. We should love being corrected. Correction humbles us and helps us to know our Father in greater depth. Those are both wonderful things.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 9). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Again, another great statement. This is also why I ask people what was the last book they read they disagreed with. If you just read what you agree with and stay in your echo chamber, you will not do much learning.

Not too much further along, they quote Mark 7 in saying:

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Interesting in a book about the Law and what Jesus taught about it, they left out the following verses:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

But that being said, their point is that the Pharisees were very wrong in their doctrine and that nullifying what Moses wrote is a very bad thing. Of course, I presented some questions about this in yesterday’s post. This assumes that when Jesus rises from the dead, the Mosaic covenant is still in play. I contend that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD shows that that covenant has been replaced with a new one where the sign of the covenant is not the Law, but faith in Christ.

That being said, there is not too much disagreeable in this part of the book. We’ll see if that holds up as we go on through the book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Opening

Should we be following the Law today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am taking a brief hiatus from the look at God changing His mind to deal with this book.

The Pauline Paradox is a book that is put forward by 119 Ministries trying to argue that Christians should follow the Torah. I decided to get it because there are a number of people on the Jehovah’s Witnesses debate group on Facebook that have bought into this and go on and on about the Law of God. Rarely will you ever see these people say anything about Jesus.

This book is looking at the question that many Christians have when they hear about an organization like this? Isn’t Paul the grand teacher of the idea that we don’t follow the Law because we’re under grace? Indeed, this has been Christian teaching for hundreds of years. Even nowadays, much of New Testament scholarship has abandoned any idea that Paul invented Christianity. I will not be dealing with that latter claim here anyway, but I will contend that Paul is certainly right in line with His master Jesus.

Before looking at the book and what it talks about, I want to mention what it doesn’t talk about that is quite surprising.

That is the Law itself.

Oh, sure. We have a lot of talk about what Paul said about the Law and what Jesus said about the Law. That’s fine. We do not have much said about what the Law itself is. What is its purpose? How is it to be followed today?

You’ll see that Jesus said that until Heaven and Earth disappear, not one bit of the Law will pass away. Unfortunately, you won’t see a lot of sustained exegesis on that passage. Consider what Craig Blomberg by contrast says about Matthew 5:18.

Verse 18 reaffirms the absolute authority of all of the Scriptures down to the smallest components of individual words. They will endure for all time but with the important qualification “until everything is accomplished.” With the coming of Christ, many aspects of the law are brought to complete fruition (e.g., the need for sacrifices, on which see Hebrews). In other instances certain requirements of the law endure until Christ’s coming again (e.g., classically, love of neighbor and God). In short, Christian application of the Old Testament must always take into account both the continuities and the discontinuities with the New Testament. Given this hermeneutic, correct teaching and practice of all “these commandments” (v. 19, almost certainly referring back to the Old Testament law just mentioned) are crucial. Jesus will give six illustrations of such correct interpretation shortly (vv. 21–48).

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 104–105.

What actually happens is that Jesus in His interpretation is giving us a law that is even harder. Consider that the Law says “Do not murder.” Okay. Well, let me take a brief life-review here and think back…..yep! I’m good! Haven’t murdered anyone! That’s one of the big ten! Doing good!

“But I say to you, do not hate your brother.”

“Oh.”

All of a sudden, I realize I have done that and that that can still be a struggle.

“You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ”

Let’s see. I am divorced now, but I saved sex for marriage and I don’t do pornography and I have remained celibate while being divorced. Hey! Look at that! I’m doing good again!

“But I say to you, do not lust after a woman in your heart.”

“Okay. Not doing so good.”

Also, if we are to follow the Law, do we not have to offer sacrifices? That was a big part of the Law after all. Consider how Matthew 5 also says this:

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

What is the gift but a sacrifice? If the Law is still in full effect, should we not offer sacrifices?

In Exodus 12, the people were commanded to eat the Passover in their own homes. In Deut. 16, it was in the place God chose for them. In Lev. 17, meat was to be brought to the tabernacle. In Deut. 12, this is done away with because some people would live far away from the tabernacle and not get to eat meat at all.

Also, if Moses was the final word, then what about what came after? What about the Prophets? What about celebrations like Purim? Jesus is in the temple area during the Feast of Dedication which celebrates the Maccabean revolt which certainly did not show up in the Law.

What about something like slavery? Are we allowed to have slaves again? These are systems that had their place in the times of the Bible, but not so today. This is not to say that Orthodox Jews, for instance, can’t follow any of the Law, but certainly not all of it is possible.

So before we even begin looking at the very first chapter, I have questions. It is quite surprising that a book all about how Christians should follow the Law, really says very little about the Law.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Exodus 32

Did God need to be persuaded? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Exodus 32 is not a proud moment in Jewish history. It is the golden calf incident. In the midst of the event where Moses is on the mountain and Aaron has made the calf, we see God saying this to Moses:

7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Often times, when it comes to open theism, the idea is that God doesn’t know the future. However, the future is not the primary cause of discussion here. In this case, if we take this passage in a literalistic sense, God doesn’t know the past. Moses had a better memory than God did. God would have apparently forgot the covenant promise that He made.

So is that what happened?

Tertullian says about this in Against Marcion that

But (you say) God was even then mean enough in His very fierceness, when, in His wrath against the people for their consecration of the calf, He makes this request of His servant Moses: “Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation.” Accordingly, you maintain that Moses is better than his God, as the deprecator, nay the averter, of His anger. “For,” said he, “Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them.” Pitiable are ye also, as well as the people, since you know not Christ, prefigured in the person of Moses as the deprecator of the Father, and the offerer of His own life for the salvation of the people. It is enough, however, that the nation was at the instant really given to Moses. That which he, as a servant, was able to ask of the Lord, the Lord required of Himself. For this purpose did He say to His servant, “Let me alone, that I may consume them,” in order that by his entreaty, and by offering himself, he might hinder (the threatened judgment), and that you might by such an instance learn how much privilege is vouchsafed with God to a faithful man and a prophet.

It’s worth pointing out that the idea that God was willing to do this was a Marcionite position. Tertullian says this was done to illustrate something about the person of Christ. Just as Moses interceded, so Jesus would intercede for His people.

Looking over other citations, this seems to be the main position of the church fathers. Moses does this to show his role as an intercessor. God gives him the opportunity to do this.

From a philosophical perspective, what we have here is a God who is not the God of all truth. He doesn’t know all truth. He is not omniscient. He needs to be reminded. This is no longer God. This is Superman. He’s just a much bigger form of us.

I conclude then that if we take this text in a literalistic sense, then we have a lesser deity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Is The World Geared Towards Extroverts?

What are the struggles of being an introvert? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I work at the post office in New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. It is the only job I have had in New Orleans. I am a good employee there, but my boss understands there are also times of difficulty in how I interact with people. People can come in and start speaking to us and I don’t really say anything.

Am I wanting to be rude? Not at all. I’m more of a mind my own business type of person. I don’t engage unless I think there’s a real reason to engage. Note that there could be even times I want to engage and struggle to do so, such as when a beautiful lady comes in.

Of course, there’s also being on the spectrum, but I think what I say works for introverts.

We recently hired someone new at the Post Office who got surprised that when I walk in, I don’t greet anyone. I explained, “I have worked here ever since the new boss came along and never once have I greeted when I came in.” Am I rude? No. That’s just not me. Does she know I’m a friend to her? Absolutely. She’s taking a writing class now and so I look over everything she writes. I want it to be the best that it can be, and I try to give my own tips on writing.

There is a thrift shop across the street that I go to sometimes. I notice that when I go in and the bell on the door rings, the people there can shout “Welcome to the thrift store!”

Every time I inwardly hope that they won’t.

When I go shopping at Five Below, I use the self check-out and then I see a question at the end on it saying “Were you greeted today?” I know what they’re wanting to do in asking that, but I always wish I could say, “No. It was great. Please repeat that next time.”

When I go to church, there are two doors to enter. If I can, I look to see which one someone is coming out of to greet me and then I turn and go to the other door. I know they mean well, but it’s just awkward for me.

I also don’t really understand it when people think it’s okay to come up and touch me. A light pat on the back or anything is uncomfortable. When people ask me “How are you?” I just freeze or shrug or say nothing really. It’s a question I don’t care about. I just think “Fake, fake, fake.”

Being introverted is hard when the world seems geared towards extroverts.

Now consider also there are introverts who aren’t Christians. If you want to reach them and you use the methods I have just described, odds are, you won’t. To get to know people like us, it can take work, but it will be worth it. We need to know you really care. You aren’t just friendly just because we’re another face. I suspect extroverts look at other people and see a potential new friend. Those of us who are introverts see a potential new threat.

Also, if you find something we have in common, that can work great. Believe it or not, we love talking about our interests. We despise small talk. It’s a fake show to us and we want to get down to the subject matter. I have a pair of friends who are husband and wife and they’re both on the spectrum. When we reach out to each other, we immediately jump into what we need to talk about and that’s it.

I can’t stop someone from being extroverted. It’s not wrong, but it is different from those of us who are not. Just as there are some things we do that bother extroverts, there are things you do that are hard for us to understand and accept. It is possible for extroverts and introverts to be friends, but please understand we will always be the quiet ones in the relationship, and that’s okay.

When you do evangelism, remember that also. Don’t write someone off immediately because they don’t want to talk. Pray with them and try to understand them slowly. Once they open up, it could be a great chance to get them to the gospel.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)