Parent: JesusWordsOnly
The Duty to Distinguish False Prophets Is How to Show We Love God
In (Matt. 22:37-38), we read:
(37) Jesus said to him, '"You shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
(38) This is the first and great commandment."
Jesus is not only quoting (Deut. 6:5), as most commentaries mention. Instead, Jesus is also quoting (Deut. 13:3). In that verse, God explains why He allows prophets with true signs and wonders to appear who yet are false prophets. It is our duty to recognize their doctrines as false because they seduce us from following God's Law. (Cf. (Isa. 8:20).) God explains how this is a supreme test of the command Jesus says is the most important.
[Y]ou shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or to that dreamer of dreams: for Yahweh your God proves you, to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 13:3, ASV.)
Thus, obedience to the command to love God with your whole heart and mind is associated with distinguishing true prophets from false prophets. God says He tests your love by allowing persons to come with true "signs and wonders" who you should identify as false due to their doctrine. You must disregard their signs and wonders "that come true" because their doctrine teaches you to not follow the Law. It is a privilege and a supreme duty to make this assessment.
Even a man of God, and true prophet, should be recognized as having become a false prophet when he gives you pennission to do what God has previously prohibited. This is the lesson the Young Prophet from Judah learned bitterly when he was deceived by the Old Prophet in (1Kgs. 13).
In a revelation-based faith, such as Judaism and Christianity, it is no wonder that God puts such a high value on making such an assessment. Distinguishing true from false prophecy is integral to His plan to reveal Himself through writings of prophets. If we fail to honor God's plan by obeying His command to distinguish true from false prophets, we are demonstrating a failure to love God with our whole mind, heart and soul.
Therefore, if you refuse to apply God's word to test Paul's validity, God says you do not love God with your whole heart, mind and soul. On the other hand, if you do test Paul's doctrines by God's revealed word, you are showing your supreme allegiance to God Himself, and not to any human hand that purports to speak in His name.
The conclusion follows that this is a duty from which we cannot shrink. We must make a finding no matter how unpleasant and contrary to human supposition.
The Question of Paul's Apostleship
The result concerning Paul's supposed apostleship is unavoidable from all the evidence adduced in prior chapters. Paul was a false apostle. His evidence in support is totally self-serving. Jesus said even for Himself, a self-interested statement as the sole proof He was Son of God would mean Jesus' claim was "not true." John 5:31 ("If I bear witness of Myself, my witness is not true.") 1 Tertullian in 207 A.D., speaking on behalf of apostolic Christianity, made the same point about Paul. He said the proof that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ was based solely on Paul's self-serving statements. Tertullian wrote in Against Marcion:
I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with
uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in
the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace.... [[Let's]]
put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He
[i.e., Paul] himself says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and
that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus
Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself : but his
claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person
writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the
signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for
himself both claimant and witness. (See Tertullian, Against
Marcion (207 A.D.) quoted at 418-19 supra.)
Tertullian's critical analysis is what thereafter thwarted the movement of Marcion. Why was it crucial to defeat Marcion? Because Marcion was claiming Paul's Gospel was the only true gospel. He claimed the Gospel Message presented in Matthew and John were legalistic, and no longer applied. In response, universal Christianity as it existed prior to the rise of Roman Catholicism vigorously combatted Marcionism. It saw as horrifying heresy any notion that Paul had superiority over the message from Jesus carried by Matthew and John.
-
For further discussion, see page 219.
-
See "Tertullian (207 A.D.) Says Paul Is Inferior" on page 408 et seq.
When the church was forced to address this crucial issue about Paul, the verdict was clear: the evidence for Paul's apostleship did not meet a Biblical standard. We have no choice but to concur. Other than Paul's own assertions, there is no proof anywhere in the New Testament writings that Paul was appointed an apostle of Jesus Christ. None in the Gospels, none in Acts, and none in any valid apostle-epistle. This is why the doctrine of the early church on salvation ignored Paul, and preached Jesus' doctrine alone.
The Question of Being The Prophesied Ravening Wolf
Nor can we ignore God in the Prophecy of the Benjamite Ravening Wolf in Genesis warned us of the ravening wolf to come from the tribe of Benjamin. 4 He would come in the latter days - in the same epoch as Messiah. In Ezekiel, we leam the characteristics of ravening wolves. They would destroy the Law, cause people to no longer keep the true Sabbath, and cause the cessation of distinguishing the clean from unclean. Paul fit all these characteristics. The Benjamite Ravening Wolf Prophecy further said this Benjamite would divide his spoil. Paul did this as well, claiming the right to exclusively preach to the Gentiles. ((Gal. 2:9).) Paul claimed in that verse the twelve apostles agreed to narrow their mission field to be exclusively the Jewish people. (Any notion the twelve consented to exclude themselves from a Gentile ministry, as Paul claimed, is ridiculous.) 5
-
See page 425 et seq.
-
See "Who is the Benjamite Wolf in Prophecy?" on page 347 et seq
-
See page 350 et seq. This division in Paul's exclusive favor is dubious at best. At the Jerusalem Council in (Acts 15:0), Peter stood up and spoke. Paul was at his feet. Peter declared He, not Paul, was the Apostle to the Gentiles by God's decree: "God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15:7 ASV.) Also, in the post-council era with Paul alive the Apostle Thomas was preaching the gospel in India. This is supported by Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, and Jerome. ("St. Thomas The Apostle," Catholic Encyclopedia.) At Mylapore, not far from Madras, "tradition has it that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life [in 72 A.D. which] is locally very strong." Id. If what Paul is saying were true, didn't Thomas transgress the Jewish-Gentile pact with Paul? But why would the twelve leave to one person (Paul) this important mission to reach the Gentiles? It begs all credulity to believe Paul.
Thus, even the early church writer and Roman church leader Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.) observed around 205 A.D. that the Benjamite "ravening wolf' prophecy of Genesis "thoroughly fits Paul." 6
Jesus likewise warned of the "ravening wolf' that was coming who would be a false prophet. (Matt. 7:15.) The false prophet would have "signs and wonders," and come in Jesus' name, tell us the "time is at hand," teach eating meat sacrificed to idols was permissible, but be a worker of anomia. Anomia in Greek literally means negation of Nomos - the sole and specific Greek word used to refer to the Law of Moses. This ravening wolf false prophet would work the negation of the Law just as the Benjamite Ravening Wolf of the Genesis prophecy would work.
It takes enormous defiance of Jesus to ignore who is the subject of Jesus' warnings. Paul declared all the Law abolished. 9 As to Sabbath specifically, even as Luther said: "Paul [Col. 2:16]...abolish[ed] the sabbath...." 10 Paul also abolished all distinction of clean versus unclean. ((1Tim. 4:4), 'no food is to be rejected if prayed over and God is thanked'; (Rom. 4:2).) n Paul also said the "day is at hand ' in precisely the words Jesus warned a false prophet would use, while "coming in My name." (Luke 21:8; Romans 13:12.) 12
-
See page 351.
-
Matt. 7:15-23, viz., v. 22; 24:11, 24; (Mark 13:22-23). See page 59 et seq. See also, Luke 21:8 ('time is at hand') discussed at page
-
See, Rev. 2: 20 (false claimant to prophecy teaches us to eat meat sacrificed to idols.)
-
See "Why Anomia Means Negator of Mosaic Law" on page 60 et seq.
-
See Chapter Five.
-
See page 76 et seq. Paul never even endorses a one-in-seven principle. Even so, God condemns keeping a mandated festival on a day different than God's appointed time. Jeroboam kept feast of tabernacles on a "day of his [own] choosing (invention)." (1Kgs. 12:33).
All Paul fit Jesus' depiction of a false prophet in (Rev. 2:20) who teaches it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. ( E.g., Corinthians 8:4-13, (1Cor. 10:19-29).) 13
Finally, Paul twice unwittingly pointed at himself Jesus' warning about the "signs and wonders" prophet who would seek to "seduce the elect." 14 For Paul said twice that "signs and wonders" prove his validity. ((Rom. 15:19) "in the power of signs and wonders... I preached the gospel"; (2Cor. 12:12) "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works.")
Consequently, the coincidence of descriptions between the Benjamite Ravening Wolf of Genesis and the false prophet 'ravening wolf' Jesus described is too powerful to ignore. Their identical convergence on Paul is also too uncanny to deny.
Seduction From the Law As Key Biblical Test
Moreover, Jesus also left a trail of clear doctrine by which to test Paul's doctrine on the Law of Moses. Even if we balk at seeing Paul as the ravening wolf, Jesus made it impossible for us to deny there is a blatant contradiction by Paul of what Jesus (and Prophets of Old) taught on what would be the Law even in the era of the New Testament.
-
Jesus, by contrast, merely implied that if one ate unclean food, this did not make you a sinner. Jesus did not abrogate the distinction. Rather, it follows from Jesus' statement that the law of unclean food was a health rule, which we should have known anyway from the words clean and unclean. Thus, Jesus did not abrogate these rules. He just put them on a different level than other commands. See Footnote 10, page 359.
-
See "Another Prophecy Aimed At Paul?" on page 366.
-
See "Paul Contradicts Jesus About Idol Meat" on page 117 et seq.
-
(Matt. 7:22) (miracles and prophecy); 24: 24 ("false prophets [have] signs and wonders." Jesus warns again of false prophets in (Mark 13:22). He says they "shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if possible, even the elect." For further discussion, see page 59.
First, Jesus told us that anyone who teaches us not to follow the "least command (in the Law of Moses)" would be "least in the kingdom of heaven," but whoever told us to follow the "commandments (from the Law of Moses) would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven!' (Matt. 5:19.) God had told us likewise beforehand that the "New Covenant" was based on "inscribing the Law (Torah) on our hearts...." ((Jer. 31:31-33).) 15 When His Servant (Messiah) comes, God "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable." ((Isa. 42:21) ASV/KJV.)
Jesus fulfilled this by condemning the Pharisees for teaching traditions that "make of none effect" express commands in the Law given Moses. (Matt. 15:16.) This included Jesus' faulting the Pharisees' notion that a special korban payment could excuse honoring your parents (by supporting them if they fell in poverty). (Matt. 15:16.) This included Jesus attacking the Pharisees' emphasizing the duty to tithe to the neglect of the weightier matters of the Law of Moses. Matt. 23:23. This also included Jesus faulting the Pharisees for teaching one did no wrong engaging in adulterous lust as long as one did not follow through and commit the act of adultery. (Matt. 5:2.) 16
Paul did not share any concern to correct the Pharisees' shallow doctrines on the Law. Paul never shared Jesus' concern that the Pharisees' traditions had made of none effect the express commands in the Law given to Moses.
To the contrary, Paul, like the Pharisees, came teaching his own tradition which did away with the Law given Moses. However, Paul went further than most Pharisees. He abrogated it down to the very last jot and tittle.
-
For further discussion, see page 233 et seq.
-
For discussion of this and the other faults of the Pharisees which Jesus was identifying, see page 24; page 11 et seq.
For Paul said the New Covenant " abolished ... the Law of commandments" (Eph. 2:15). Paul likewise said the Sabbath command was "but a shadow of things to come," and henceforth let no man judge you for failure to keep it, for Christ " blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way." (Col. 2:14-17.) Paul insisted that the Law given Moses was a "ministration of death engraven on stones" because the "letter of the law kills," which now has "been done away " and "is abolished henceforth, instead, in the Lord we have "liberty." ((2Cor. 3:6-17).) Paul defined this liberty quite clearly: "All things are lawful but not all things are necessarily expedient ." (1Cor. 6:12), ASV. "All things are lawful for me." (1Cor. 10:23). 17
Paul's regard for the Law reached a total low-point in Galatians with utterances which no doubt would shock our Lord. Paul says the Law given the mediator Moses was "ordained by angels." (Gal. 3:19 ASV KJV.) Anyone who wants to be in bondage to them desires to be in bondage to those who "are no gods" (Gal. 4:8) and is seeking to be "in bondage again" to "weak and beggarly elements (angels)." (Gal. 4:9). 18
-
For a full discussion on how Paul applied this principle to Sabbath and eating meat sacrificed to idols, see page 80 et seq.
-
See "Paul Says the Law Was Ordained through Angels" on page 85 ff.
Paul then goes so far as to say in the same letter that even if an "angel from heaven" should come with a gospel different than Paul, such "an angel from heaven" should be "cursed." (Gal. 1:8.) In Galatians, therefore, Paul put his words expressly above the same source he ascribed as the source of the Law given Moses: angels from heaven. Paul deliberately did so in order that we would accept his word as a superior authority to the Law of Moses. This was crucial because Paul was informing us that the Law of Moses was now abolished. Such a bold declaration only had validity if the Law "ordained by angels" was given by "angels of heaven" over whom Paul was asserting a superior authority - even a right to curse them. Only by this bold contrast and curse upon such an "angel from heaven" (Gal. 1:8) could we ever dare think a mere human could single-handedly abolish the Law given Moses. Paul's hubris had therefore reached as high as he could take it to justify his doctrine.
Paul did not limit this abolition to merely the commands in the Law applicable to Sojourners ( i.e ., Gentiles). Paul taught this truth of abrogation also applied to all the Law's commands directed at Israel (i.e., Jews/the twelve tribes). According to Paul, by the death of Christ, the Jews now experienced the death of the husband (God) who bound them to the covenant at Sinai. The legal effect of His death under the Law of Moses thereby released the wife (the Jews) to remarry a resurrected Jesus who no longer held out the Law of Moses as any sort of guidepost in the New Covenant. (Rom. 7:1-4).
In (Gal. 4:22) ff, Paul likewise said that the Jews of Jerusalem no longer correspond to sons of Israel, but instead to the son Ishmael of Hagar; and they continue in bondage (to the Law of Moses), and are thereby thrown out in the desert. 19 However, how could Paul be inspired by God in this when the same God said in (Jer. 31:31) ff that He could never base a New Covenant other than on the Law given Moses or enter into it with any other people than the seed of Israel? Eisenman is perhaps too kind when he says Paul's remarks in (Gal. 4:22-31) contain "a series of sometimes outrageous allusions.'
These are all hard questions with unpleasant answers. The answers call us to trust in Jesus' words above Paul's words.
19.See page 86 et seq.
-
For further discussion, see page 233 et seq.
-
Prof. Robert Eisenman, The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, The Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ (London: Watkins Publishing, 2006) at 587.