Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Luke Even Tells Us What Were The Charges of Heresy Against Paul
Returning to the specifics of the trial at Ephesus, Luke gives us another important tid-bit. From this morsel, we can deduce what was the charge against Paul at the Ephesus church. In Acts chapter 21, Luke tells us that Jews from Asia at Jerusalem were saying Paul spoke against the continuing validity of the Law and against the Jewish people's position within the New Covenant. In Acts 21:28, "Jews from 21:28, he would be contradicting God's promise of a New Covenant in (Jer. 31:31). This promise specifically insisted it was not to replace the Mosaic Law. Nor was the New Covenant intended to forsake national Israel as God's covenant-partner.
"I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah... I will put the Torah on their hearts." (Jer. 31:31-34)
21,(Jer. 31:31-34) (ASV) reads: "Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah [i.e. Yahweh], that 1 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:...This is the covenant that 1 will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my Law Torah in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and 1 will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah [i.e.,
99
Rather, in the book of Jeremiah, God made a point of promising a "New Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah" based on intensifying internal knowledge of the Law of Moses. God would accompany this by revealing Himself more personally and offering forgiveness and mercy. Thus, the Covenant of Mercy (which this New Covenant represents) was marked by making the knowledge of the terms of the Law more readily known and practiced.*" As God similarly said in Isaiah, when His Servant (Messiah) comes, God "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable." ((Isa. 42:21) KJV.)
This Jeremiah prophecy also specifically said God did not mean by a new covenant to imply he was exchanging an old partner for a new one. Immediately after the promise of the "New Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah," God declares how impossible it would be for Him to forsake the "seed of Israel.... " Jeremiah chapter 31 reads:
(35) Thus saith Jehovah, who giveth the sun for a light by day,
and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by
night, who stirreth up the sea, so that the waves thereof roar;
Jehovah of hosts is his name:
(36) If these ordinances depart from before me, saith Jehovah, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
(37) Thus saith Jehovah: If heaven above can be measured, and the
foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also
cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith
Jehovah. (Jer. 31:35-37) ASV
Dr. Renald Showers, in a prominent feature article on John Ankerberg's website, says this is too clear to ignore. "[I]t is evident that God intended to establish the New Covenant with the literal people of Israel."
- As one Jewish commentator explains Jer. 31:31 et seq, it "implies no rejection of the Covenant of the Torah (aka 'the Law') but rather that the Law shall be 'inscribed in hearts' of the Jewish people, i.e. , they will not have to study the Law, as before, but all of its details will be known 'by heart' and practiced by every Jew...." (A Primer: Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus (2003) (available online.) Indeed, how could "inscribed in their hearts" mean what Paulunists claim it means instead-the Law was abrogated entirely?
23.See Dr. Renald Showers, The New Covenant, i.e ., Israel's father, Isaac) (Gal. 4:28), then Paul was guilty of the charge brought by the Asian Jews in Acts 21:28. The fact we know Paul taught both things charged by the "Asian Jews" heightens the probability he was convicted at Ephesus of such charges. Let's review the case.
Could A Law Eternal for AH Generations Be Abrogated in 33 A.D.?
To prove the likelihood that Paul could be found guilty at Ephesus, let's recreate the prosecutor's probable case.
This promise of a New Covenant toward the seed of Israel in (Jer. 31:35-37) is itself based upon the promise of God that "these ordinances" of the Law shall be "everlasting for all generations ." (Ex. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15.)
Thus, for at least as long as humans have offspring, i.e., generations, the Law remains valid. We kn i.e ., when human generations cease), but that had not yet happened in 33 A.D. Thus, if the charges against Paul proved he said the Jewish people were released in 33 A.D. from their covenant obligation to keep the Law, Paul's Jewish-Christian opponents would have had a valid case against him.
In fact, we know Paul taught Jews were released from the Law in 33 A.D. Paul even insisted it was only because of stubbornness they continue to follow the Law. ((Rom. 7:1) et seq.; Rom. 10:21. See "Romans Chapter Seven Says the Jews Are Released From the Law" on page 80 et seq.; Luther, Commentary on (Gal. 2:4-5).)
If Paul's letters did not prove these charges at Ephesus, we might doubt he was convicted there. However, because his actual writings prove the charges as true, there is a heightened probability that Paul was indeed convicted at Ephesus.