Paul's Words Are Often Construed To Unwittingly Support A Blasphemy

Blasphemy is an insult of God, especially denying the goodness of God. Or to attribute the good God does to Satan. (Rives, DCMS:323-24.)

Paul says "many things difficult to understand" (Second Peter 3:14-17), and thus if what Paul says also sounds blasphemous, we were already warned. While we should try to find ways this is not true out of simple politeness, many mainstream Christian leaders take the blasphemous interpretation and promote it. They are completely insensitive that what they are doing is uttering and endorsing a blasphemy. Unaware of the definition of blasphemy, many Christians unwittingly utter blasphemies in reliance upon Paul's "difficult to understand words."

Thus, in reliance upon Paul, many Calvinists (in reliance upon Calvin who relied upon Paul) say God directs evil -- unaware this is pure blasphemy. They likewise affirm God's Law incites us to sin (in reliance on Paul's words), and makes us do what we don't want to do. But it is blasphemy to say God's law arouses sin - a major insult on God's Word.

Incidentally, I assume Paul did not mean to promote blasphemy, but the fact his words easily are read to support blasphemy underscores the dangerousness of treating Paul as inspired.

Paul, You Have No Excuse for This Statement

There is one exception where I do believe Paul inexcusably and clearly uttered a blasphemy -- albeit thoughtlessly. This is when Paul said "God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by  human hands." (Acts 17:24.)

Paul's point was to tell the Greeks that their gods in their temples were mere idols. However, Paul's words cannot be so limited. By the explicitness of Paul's words, as explained below, Paul thereby thoughtlessly said Jews also worshiped an idol at the Temple of Jerusalem where God's Shekinah presence was said in the Bible to reside. For if God does not reside in temples made of human hands, as Paul says in Acts 17:24 to prove to Greeks their gods are mere idols, then the God worshiped at the Temple of Jerusalem also could only be a false god. Hence, Paul's words would constitute a blasphemy as it insults (thoughtlessly, of course) the God of the Bible as a false god.

One should remember Justin Martyr, who lived 100-165 AD, was a great Christian evangelist, and explained that many professed Christ but yet blasphemed God, just as Paul recklessly had done in this passage. As one scholar introduces this quote, we read:

Justin brands Marcion and the Gnostics as heretics, [but] it is not because they deny Christ: they do not. They ... confess the crucified Jesus as their Lord and Christ, [and yet they...] blaspheme the Creator of the Universe, ... the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. The very identification mark of heresy is thus the blasphemia creatoris.... (Oskar Skarsaune, “Heresy and the Pastoral Epistles,” Themelios 20.1 (October 1994): 9-14 at 10-11.)

Should we perhaps not be surprised that Justin Martyr is also regarded by some scholars as clearly having rejected Paul as on par with Jesus' words? (See our link.) Thus when Justin wrote about blasphemy by those who claimed to be Christians, Justin may very well have been thinking of Paul, just as we must ask ourselves if we truly love God.

Now we will review the various blasphemies which many have promoted as proper and necessary to believe based upon Paul's words.

Example #1: 'The Law from God Causes Sin'

In many places, Paul says lust/concupescience is stirred up by the Law (Romans 7:5; 1 Cor. 15:56) and without the Law stirring his lust, Paul would not have known to covet/lust. (Romans 7:7.)

Paul says that "by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20). He reiterates this later in the same epistle. In Romans 7:7, Paul says:  "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." Thus, in Paul's view, Adam and Eve would have never committed the sin of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had God not issued a command not to eat from it. The command supposedly enticed them to think about doing so, and they would never have done so but for God's command to not do so. Hence, God's commands are entirely to blame, as Paul depicts the situation, for sin.

Paul's point is crystal clear elsewhere in Romans. He emphasizes in Romans 7:13 that the good law 'works me up to sin and death' by the mere fact of making prohibitions (Romans 7:7)--sowing the seed for sin: "But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; --that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful."

John Locke in 1823 is troubled, but tries to put a good face on this. First, Locke mentions that the way Paul is interpreted some view Paul as saying

that the law excited men to sin, by forbidding it. A strange imputation on the law of God, such as, if it be true, must make the Jews more defiled,....

Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 313.

But that is what Paul says, Mr. Locke. While Locke then says Paul surely could not mean this,  Locke himself ends up explaining it the very same way.

First, Locke takes on Romans 7:5: "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

Locke explains Romans 7:5 (while 7:7 looms out there as even worse), and confesses its meaning -- blasphemous as it is without Locke admitting it. Locke says Paul means:

nevertheless sin, persisting in its design to destroy me, took the opportunity of my being under the law, to stir up concupiscence in me; for without the law, which annexes death to transgression, sin is as good as dead, is not able to have its will on me, and bring death upon me. Conformable hereto, St. Paul says, 1 Cor. xv. 56, "the strength of sin is the law i.e. it is the law, that gives sin the strength and power to kill men. (Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 316.)

What Paul does in Romans 7:5 and 7:7 is speak of the "sinful passions through the Law." Without it, Paul says we would have not been stirred to sin at all! This is very much like Paul said elsewhere in 1 Cor. 15:56 that the Law given Moses made sin to be wrought in our members. Tischendorf comments on Romans 7:5 that Paul in that verse means "the sinful passions...[are] coming into active exercise through the law" just as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:56 about the Mosaic Law. (Tischendorf, at 57.)

Again, this underscores that Paul's words in Romans 7:5, 7:7 and 1 Cor. 15:56 can reasonably be read to support blasphemy. Locke with all his might did not want to see it. Yet, when Locke got around to summarizing Romans 7:5, Locke could not sugar-coat Paul's words enough to hide it there.

Thus, many Christians unguarded to see the danger in Paul's "difficult to understand words" fall from "their steadfastness in Christ" by applying Paul to such blasphemous points about God and His Law. Here is an example of how someone has applied Paul to logical and blasphemous ends.

I know what is sin. The Ten Commandments were not given so it could help us become sinless. We are by nature sinful. The Scripture also says that the law was given so sin could increase. The law helps us to sin more; it stirs up our sinful nature to commit evil deeds. Why? So we would seek God's grace. (Takanot and Ma'asim of the Rabbis-YouTube, comment by Paulgem123.)

Many Christians unguarded to Paul's proximity to blasphemy actually say "religion" based upon the 10 Commandments is evil. So Robert Hamerton-Kelly writes:

Religion is a curse (Gal. 3:13)....The nub of Paul’s argument is that the Law of Moses, which is religion, cursed God’s messiah (Gal. 3:13, quoting Deuteronomy 21:23), and thus showed that religion is hostile to God....The truth is...the ethnically restrictive Law of Moses is merely one among many temporary religious phenomena in the history of the fulfillment of that promise. Now the promise of God beyond religion has come true and all the distinctions made by Judaism ...are passé.... You do not need Moses!

Hamerton-Kelly correctly perceives that Paul derogates the Law given Moses to an evil curse without any blessings, designed as a temporary phenomenon. However, this is blasphemy -- an insult on God and His Law. As explained in the Conclusion to Jesus' Words on Salvation, the Law given Moses was a "light" to attract Gentiles to its wisdom; was "eternal for all generations," and was the means of justification by obedience, whereby atonement provided the payment-condition for God's forgiveness, but not the mechanism -- which always relied upon individual repentance and obedience. See "Conclusion" to JWOS.

#2: Paul Implies The God of Jerusalem Is A False Idol

As briefly touched on above, at least one time Paul inexcusably (but thoughtlessly) uttered a blasphemy. This time none of his words are 'hard to understand.' This is when Paul said "God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth anddoes not live in temples built by hands." (Acts 17:24).

If Paul is correct, then who did the Jews worship at the Temple of Jerusalem where God's Shekinah presence was said in the Bible to reside? It could not be a true God for Paul says the true God does not live in such temples. This was Paul's affirmation to prove to Greeks that their gods whom they believed lived in temples were nothing but false idols.

As James West in the Gospel and the Greek Philosophers correctly exposes, Paul's teachings about the Temple opposed that of the apostles (not to mention our Lord Jesus who spoke of it as "my Father's house" in Luke 2:41-52). On this verse in Acts 17:24, West correctly comments:

But like the Stoic philosophers, the writer of Acts has “Paul” agreeing with them that “God” does not dwell in temples as the superstitious pagans believed. It is notable that Paul, in his own words, admitted his opinion that the Jews worshipped an “idol” in the Temple at Jerusalem (even as the author of Acts portrayed the Jewish Christians as pious temple devotees; cf. Acts 2:46, 21:20–26; 1 Cor. 10:18–19).

Thus, Paul unwisely and thoughtlessly made a statement, which if true, allowed one to think the 12 apostles and James who still worshiped at the Temple were worshipping something that could not be the true God. Paul instead says God supposedly does not live in temples made of human hands. And Paul was saying God does not live in such temples even though our Lord warned that Daniel's prophecy of a sacriligious prescence would soon defile the Holiness of the Temple (which Holiness stemmed from the Shekinah-presence of God dwelling at the Jerusalem Temple).

Am I Being Unfair to Paul?

I don't think so.

Put yourself back in the year 45 A.D. Imagine you are standing outside a pagan temple where the pagans claimed God supposedly lived inside. If you were Jewish, one reason you could offer to prove that a pagan's religion is false would have to be because the true God lives in the Temple at Jerusalem. That had to be in the mind of a truly Jewish person as a very valid difference. But if you said that the pagan god is false because God does not at all live in temples made of human hands, you just invalidated the entire Jewish faith. Something like this could not inadvertently escape Paul's lips.

It is like someone claiming to be a Christian but who then speaks of "my Buddhist faith." Even if he later claims such words inadvertently came out of his mouth, it does not wash.

While obviously Paul was not addressing the issue of the temple at Jerusalem per se, this is no excuse. Paul's words were thoughtless and reckless. Words have meaning. Paul's words in particular equally invalidated the true God of the Bible just as much as he invalidated the false gods whom Paul was trying to undermine with this teaching. Because Paul's words, if valid, equally apply to the God at the Temple at Jerusalem, Paul made out our True God to be a false god. Thereby, Paul clearly blasphemed God. The fact it was thoughtless and reckless does not excuse it.

Did The Shekinah Presence Depart Prior to 70 AD?

Some Paulinist with whom I spoke defended Paul's statement by claiming God's Shekinah presence left in 33 AD, and this is what the renting of the veil represented. Then supposedly Paul meant God "NO LONGER" lives in temples made of human hands. (That was not Paul's statement; instead, this is a gloss to try to save Paul. Instead, Paul made a clear categorical statement that applied as much to the Temple at Jerusalem as well as any other temple AT ANY TIME PERIOD.)

However, there is nothing in the renting that implies God departed the Temple in 33 AD.

Moreover, there are numerous historical sources from both Roman and Jewish writers that the Shekinah Presence was in the Temple until shortly before it was invaded by the Roman soldiers in 70 AD. See our "Miscellaneous Note" on "The Shekinah Presence Departed in 70 AD From the Temple" at the end of our article about "Trophimus."

Example #3: The So-Called Sovereignty of God Doctrine

Calvin contended that Paul in Romans 11:8, 32 says God causes the lost to be lost by hardening them in unbelief. (Rives, DCMS: 451.) Satan supposedly acts on orders from God to cause the lost to be lost. (Calvin, Institutes, Ch. XVIII, Book 1, No. 1.) The main criticism of this is that it means that God makes evil happen -- unbelief and a lost condition. Attributing evil to God is a quintessential example of blasphemy. As a result, many Swiss protestant pastors who were friends of Calvin personally told Calvin that he committed blasphemy by this doctrine. (Rives, DCMS: 433; 436) And the Lutheran party of Germany of the 16th Century were likewise adamant that Calvin taught a blasphemy in this doctrine. (Rives, DCMS: 446 et seq.)

Later Calvinists deflected criticism of Calvin's doctrine by placing it under the innocuous label of the "Sovereignty of God" doctrine. They defended the broader notion that God directs even evil by relying principally upon two other verses from Paul.

Ephesians 1:11 says “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will....”

Calvin-defenders say this means God “brings about” all things. “Everything is brought about by God.” See The Sovereignty of God Over Evil by Matt Berman in PDF (5/21/08). They extend Paul to say God causes all evil things to happen.

In Romans 11:36 we likewise read: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” This same Calvinist voice rationalizes: “Thus, all things have their source in God’s eternal decrees, all things are brought to pass by God’s almighty power.” Id.

Berman, the writer of that piece, knows that the question necessarily will arise: how can God not thereby be the author of sin? Here is his answer, and you can plainly see a mind caught in a logical dilemma but who refuses to confess the error of the premise. He says: “[God] is behind good in a way that renders Him fully deserving of all of the credit for it, but He is behind evil in such a way that He deserves none of the blame for it.” Id. How so? “God is the ultimate cause of sin, but He is not the positive cause of sin.” Id. “He does not produce sin in people’s hearts, but directs it by means of negative causation.”Id.

Such is the gobbledy-gook that you end up with when you claim God is "behind evil."

The key question is this: is God leaving people alone or is God directing them to sin? Following Calvin (who in turn relied upon Paul), this author says the latter is true - God supposedly directs sin: “I am not saying that God simply leaves a person to their own sinful nature, and that is all there is to it. God also directs the degree of evil in a person's heart by hardening it by means of negative causation.” Id.

Besides Paul as proof, this author, like Calvin, cites 1 Kings 22:19-23 because it says God was “sending a deceiving spirit to ‘entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead.’” But Micaiah who uttered this was a false, not true prophet. Why? Because when so speaking his words violate the Law -- Numbers 23:19 which says "God is not a man that He should lie." See S. Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus (2008) at 454.) A true prophet who contradicts the Law is, the Law says, then a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-5.)

Example of Contemporary Presbyterian Adherence to View That God Lies

This is a contemporary problem, and not one long in the dust. In reliance on Calvin citing 1 Kings 22 in support of his reading of Paul that God ordains evil, we still hear this doctrine in the PCA. Similar to what I heard with astonishment in the Presbyterian Church of America church which I attended for 10 plus years beginning in 1987, Robbins recounts in 2005 the following:

[At the] 2005 Christian Worldview Student Conference sponsored by the Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Hampton, Virginia...Steve Schlissel, who has been preaching...for years, emphatically claimed that his God lies, too. His exact words were:

"God freely chose to lie to Ahab [in 1 Kings 22] by an appointed surrogate. He did not wince, did not squeal, did not seek to shift responsibility. In fact, he boasted about it to Ahab and Ahab's colleagues.... Someone says, 'God lies.' Yes, He does."

Of the many PCA Elders who were present at this conference of several hundred students, apparently only one, Calvin Beisner of Knox Seminary, objected to Schlissel's [claim].

Schlissel said that God lies, and God is responsible for his lies: "Consider the facts. God solicited the plan [to deceive Ahab], God had his choice of plans, God approved THIS specific plan, and authorized it, and commissioned the lying spirit. According to the Word of God, presiding judges are responsible for their decisions and commanding generals are directly responsible for their instructions." (T. Robbins, "Steve Schlissel: God lies.")

Now consider that Paul to the contrary taught in Titus 1:2: "God...cannot lie." But we know that Paul was construed by Calvin due to the 'difficult to understand' words of Paul to say the contrary. Again, we can see the opportunity Paul provided in his Pharoah argument and predestination passages for controverting this, to support Calvin's view that God lies. Calvin found 1 Kings 22 to say God proves Paul's point that God directs evil rather than Calvin carefully dissecting the passage to see a false prophet, not God, was being recorded in 1 Kings 22.

What about Paul's Example of God Hardening Pharoah's heart?

God's hardening Pharaoah's heart in Genesis was to harden him to exert his lawful right as ruler to not let the Israelites go. "But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." Exodus 4:21. See also Ex. 7:3.

Was this a sin?

All Pharoah had was Moses's authority to believe God required it. Since Pharaoh's magicians could duplicate all the signs and wonders which Moses demonstrated, Pharaoah was not convinced that God had spoken. No authority yet existed in Moses's words. As a result, there was no sin in which God was hardening Pharaoh's heart. God merely hardened the ruler to hold onto his sovereign rights.

But Calvinists disagree, and cite Paul's use of this example in Romans 9 to blasphemously claim "God himself actually arranged for Pharaoh to sin." ChristianAnswers.net. But this is not true, for the reason just explained.

Incidentally, there is another alternative to the one I suggest. Some scholars point out that the idiom in Hebrew is consistent with permission, and not ordaining the hardening. See Kyle Butt, M.A., and Dave Miller, Ph.D., "Who Hardened Pharoaoh's Heart?" Apologetics Press (accessed 7/31/2010.) But this will not suffice to answer Calvinism because these two scholars -- Butt and Miller -- do not address that Paul saw it as compulsion, and that was the basis of Paul's argument in favor of predestination. If Paul is inspired, Butt and Miller's explanation does not work.

Regardless, as you can see, the Sovereignty of God Over Evil doctrine blasphemes God by attributing to God the causation of all evil and hardening people in sin.

Hence, even if Paul's words did not mean what these Calvinists claim, their reading that Paul teaches God causes evil is plausible. This underscores the danger of Paul -- his difficult-to-comprehend words have caused many Christians to blaspheme God. (Contrast that nothing Jesus ever said ever remotely can be misconstrued to support a blasphemy on God's character for goodness.)

Incidentally, in Jesus' Words Only (2007) at 412 et seq., we discuss how the early church 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. universally regarded predestination doctrine as blasphemy although none mention Paul's words. They simply ignore him as the source, and excoriate the notion.

The modern era has been poisoned by this doctrine, which has repelled people from embracing Christianity because it is now popularly combined with such a horrible blasphemy:

Since Calvinism has largely dominated the Protestant landscape for the last five centuries, most skeptics have dismissed Christianity as absurd, and have turned away in utter disgust in order to embrace atheism. The smug Calvinist declares, “So be it! You have the problem!” (Kyle Butt, M.A., and Dave Miller, Ph.D., "Who Hardened Pharoaoh's Heart?" Apologetics Press (accessed 7/31/2010.)

Conclusion

Paul's words are easily and commonly construed to support the following blasphemies:

1. The Law of God stirs and causes sin;

2. God causes morally evil behavior; and

3. God does not live in temples made of human hands, implying that the God in the Temple at Jerusalem at that time was as invalid a god as a pagan god.

One does not have to agree Paul actually blasphemed to reject Paul as an inspired voice. The fact Paul's words perilously lead many to blaspheme -- unaware what is the definition of blasphemy (an insult on God's goodness, including equating Him to a pagan god), should put us all on guard whether to trust Paul as inspired. That's enough wisdom to take away from this topic.

However, I would not dispute with anyone who claims they see that Paul indeed blasphemed. I think, sadly, it is unquestionable. It is sad because Paul I believe was a devout person (although misguided to trust the 'blinding light' he met on the Road to Damascus. For more on that, see our link). But blasphemy does not require any maliscious intent to commit. Jesus told this to the Pharisees whom He accused of blasphemy by attributing His miracles to Satan. The Pharisees were not malisciously insulting God; instead they were simply wrong in their statement but it had the unwitting affect of insulting the Holy Spirit. Thus mere words that have the affect of insulting God's goodness / or equating Him to a pagan idol, whether spoken malisciously or unwittingly, are blasphemy. Hence, if one agrees Paul blasphemed, not only is Paul clearly not inspired, but also his writings are extremely dangerous poison sitting inside our modern bound New Testament. This is a further clear ground to support considering whether it is imperative to now issue future New Testaments without the writings of Paul or footnote clear warnings about his false and potentially blasphemous statements.