Parent: JesusWordsOnly
How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority
Finally, to prove Paul upheld the Law, Messianics cite to Luke's quoting Paul in a tribunal (Acts 24:14). Paul tells Felix that he "retains all my belief in all points of the Law." If Paul truly made this statement, it has no weight. It cannot overcome Paul's view on the Law's nullification. Those antiLaw views are absolutely clear-cut, repeated in numerous letters with long picturesque explanations.
Rather, the quote of Paul in Acts 24:14 brings up the question of Paul's honesty, not his consistency with the Law. If Luke is telling the truth, then Paul perjured himself before Felix. To prevent the casual Christian from seeing this, Acts 24:14 is usually translated as vaguely as possible.
However, pro-Paul Greek commentaries know Paul's meaning. They try to defend Paul's apparent lack of ethics. They insist Paul was not out to trick Governor Felix. For example, Robertson in Word Pictures makes it clear that Paul deflects the charge that he heretically seeks to subvert the Law by asserting he believes in all of it:
Paul has not stretched the truth at all....He reasserts his faith
in all the Law....A curious heretic surely!
Robertson realizes that Paul disproves to Felix any heresy of seeking to turn people from further obedience to the Law by affirming "his faith in all the Law....," as Robertson rephrases it. Yet, Paul's statement (if Luke is recording accurately) was a preposterous falsehood. He did not believe in "all" points of the Law at all. Robertson pretends this is not stretching the truth "at all." The reality is there is absolutely no truth in Paul's statement. Paul did not retain his "belief in all points of the Law," as he claimed to Felix.
This account of Luke represents Paul making such an outrageous falsehood that a growing segment of Paulunists (such as John Knox) believe Luke was out to embarrass Paul in Acts ? 6
If we must believe Luke is a malicious liar in order to dismiss that Acts 24:14 proves Paul is guilty of perjury, then this also undercuts the reliability of all of the Book of Acts. If so, then where does Paul's authority come from any more?
- John Knox recently suggested Luke-Acts was written to bring Paul down and thereby counteract Marcion. (Knox, Marcion, supra, at 11439.) If so, then it was Paul's own friend Luke who saw problems with Paul and presented them in a fair neutral manner. On their friendship, see 2Cor. 8:18; (Col. 4:14); 2Tim. 4:11.
How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority
Luke alone in Acts preserves the accounts of Paul's vision of Jesus. That is the sole source for what most agree is Paul's only authority to be a teacher within the church. The visionexperience nowhere appears in Paul s letters. If Luke is a liar in Acts 24:14, why should we trust him in any of the three vision accounts which alone provide some authority for Paul to be a 'witness' of Jesus?
As a result, the Paulunists are caught in a dilemma. If Paul actually said this in Acts 24:14, he is a liar. If Paul did not say this, then Luke is a liar. But then Paul's sole source of confirmation is destroyed. Either way, Paul loses any validity.
Escapes from this dilemma have been offered, but when analyzed they are unavailing. If Paul made this statement, he clearly was lying to Felix.
- The literal Greek means: "I worship the God of our Fathers, continuing to believe [present participle active] in all things which are according [kata] to the Law and in the prophets." The ASV follows this translation. Some Paulunists emphasize the word according in the verse. They argue Paul means to reject anything that is no longer in agreement with the Law. Thus, Paul is read to mean that he only affirms agreement with the part of the Law with which he can still agree. (Given O. Blakely, A Commentary on Paul s Defense Before Felix at http://wotruth.com/pauldef.htm). This argument fails because Paul believes in nothing from the Law except that it was pregnant with its own abolition. Paul was still being deceptive. Paul was in effect saying, he believes still in everything in the Law that is valid today, but since this is nothing, the statement is empty patronizing. Blakely commends Paul for his shrewd way of saying this. Paul made it appear he was affirming all the Law was valid when instead Paul meant to affirm its entirely fulfilled nature, and hence its defunct nature. Whether a shrewd way of expressing this or not, the literal words are still a falsehood in how Felix would understand the statement in a court of Law.
Thus, Acts 24:14 cannot be cited to prove the truth of what Paul asserted. Instead, it raises an unsolvable dilemma. Either Luke is lying or Paul is lying. This means Acts 24:14 proves the impossibility of accepting Paul's legitimacy whichever way you answer the dilemma. If Luke is lying here, it undermines all of Acts, upon which Paul's authority as a witness rests. If Paul is lying (and Luke is telling the story truthfully), then Paul is disqualified ipso facto because he is committing perjury. (Acts 24:14) proves to be a passage that unravels Paul's authority any way you try to resolve it.
Bless the Messianics. They cited (Acts 24:14) to insist Paul was upholding Torah. What they did is bring to everyone's attention a verse whose very existence destroys viewing Paul as a legitimate teacher.