THE CASE OF SAUL OR PAUL
ByBRANDON P. HAWKINS
First published in the United Kingdom by
Britains Biblical Background
Republished in Adobe Acrobat format in New Zealand in 2002 by
The Historic Research Group
THE CASE OF SAUL OR PAUL
ByBRANDON P. HAWKINS
There is today much controversy within the Israel-Identity movement concerning this man"Saul"
or"Paul". Conflicting reports are coming to us from scholarly sources expounding both pro and
anti points of view. - Were Paul's writings inspired or conspired? This is the point of study and
only the acid test of Scripture will reveal the justice of God, for His words are perfect and do not
contradict themselves. Do Paul's words, then, conflict with themselves or with writings of any
others in the Bible, including those words spoken by our Master - Jesus, the Anointed (One)?
Before examining the evidence we must be impartial, gathering our conclusions fromthe inspired
text of God- that is from the Hebrew and Greek texts in which God caused our Bible to be written,
andnot from man-made translations of these texts.
INDEX OF INDICTMENTS
SECTION ONE ...............IS SAUL GUILTY OF MURDER?................................................ 2
SECTION TWO ...............SAUL'S CONVERSION - IS THIS STORY TRUE OR FALSE?.. 4
SECTION THREE ..........APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN SAUL'S
SECTION FOUR .............NUMERICAL SIGNIFICANCE................................................... 8
SECTION FIVE ...............IS PAUL THE TWELFTH APOSTLE?........................................ 10
SECTION SIX .................PAUL AND THE LAW................................................................ 12
SECTION SEVEN ...........PAUL AND UNCLEAN MEATS................................................. 14
SECTION EIGHT ...........PAUL'S RACIAL BACKGROUND............................................. 16
SECTION NINE ..............PAUL AND IDOL SACRIFICES................................................. 18
SECTION TEN ................PAUL'S COMMUNION CONTRADICTION.............................. 20
SECTION ELEVEN ........IS PAUL A PHARISEE?.............................................................. 21
SECTION TWELVE .......PAUL AND DEAD BELIEVERS................................................. 22
SECTION THIRTEEN ....PAUL TO THE GENTILES......................................................... 24
SECTION FOURTEEN ...PAUL THE UNIVERSALIST....................................................... 27
Section One: IS SAUL GUILTY OF MURDER?
In the Book entitled'The Acts of the Apostles' as written by Luke, we see the event in story form in
which an ardent Jew named Saul is apparently converted to become an Apostle of Jesus, the
Messiah. Before this apparent conversion, Saul of Tarsus not only consented to the death of
Stephen, a Disciple and a zealous Hellenist (i.e. Grecian Jew), who was stoned to death, but Saul
also went hunting out other followers of Jesus and had them bound for trial by the authorities.
Thus, because of Saul's consent, he is guilty of murder, and therefore...... in accord with Mosaic
Law, should be put to death. The Lord would hardly select a murderer to be a chosen vessel.
In defence of this man let us commence by looking at his background. Saul was born in Tarsus, the
main city of Cilicia in Asia Minor. This city was noted for both literature and philosophy, which
were regarded equal with that of Athens and Alexandria. His father, being a Pharisee, brought him
up in the faith of Jewry. While being educated by Gamaliel, one of the foremost Rabbis, he gained
knowledge inSyro-Chaldaic, (referred to as 'Hebrew' in the New Testament), although his natural
tongue was Greek. This tuition required him to reside in Jerusalem which added to his already
eager high regard for Judaism and led him to follow his Elders zealously while still a young man,
and to side with them against Christianity.
Saul had much to be proud of in the eyes of society, especially with his impeccable genealogy as a
Benjamite. He was zealous for his temple and wanted to administer justice according to God's Law,
which plainly states inLeviticus 24:14-16 that blasphemy against God was punishable by stoning
the offender to death. The same death penalty was also mandatory for the leader or prophet that
undertook to turn people away from following the Lord God(Deuteronomy 13:5). Hence even in
the'Law of God', Stephen would have been guilty IF, and only IF, Jesus were not the Son of God.
This was the only Mosaic Law, which the Pharisees could use to persecute the out-called
(Greek-'ekklesia'), but by using it, the Pharisees were plainly denying acceptance of Jesus as the
Messiah, and at the same time His power of redemption. They were also proving their hypocrisy by
not heeding the abundant signs and prophecies stated throughout the Scriptures, which they
professed to know intimately. Any one of those signs if studied without prejudice would have
proved His authenticity. Let us not forget though that those other Apostles had not only met the
Messiah personally, but had also received the benefit of His tuition concerning the Divine Plan.
If one were to accuse Saul of following his tutors like a sheep without questioning their judgement,
then one would have a strong case. But how many of us, under those same circumstances and in
that same environment - considering Saul's age - would stop to question such authority? I wonder?
DID SAUL CONSENT TO STEPHEN'S DEATH?
The Greek word here used for'consent' is 'suneudukeo' which literally means 'to think well with'.
Other renderings of this word are translated as'content', 'please' and 'allow' - thus all are showing
an agreeable state of mind.NO VERBAL CONSENT was given by Saul. If this had been meant,
then the Greek wording used would have been'ek sumphonou' meaning literally 'with a voice'
(i.e. by verbal consent)I Corinthians 7:5.
I am fully aware that the A.V. reads inActs 26:10 (Paul speaking) ...
".. and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief
priests; and when they were put to death gave my voice against them."
The Greek word here for'voice' is 'psephos' meaning 'a smooth stone' or 'pebble'. These pebbles
were used for voting. A white pebble showed one's approval, and a black pebble showed one's
condemnation. This means that it was anon-vocal act to illustrate the individual's view.
The Revised Version renders its translation'vote' instead of 'voice' in this passage. With only silent
agreement supporting Stephen's martyrdom, given in this manner, how could anyone accuse Saul
of being the actual murderer? Knowing especially that Saul was not a member of the Sanhedrin, it
follows that hisvote would NOT carry much weight anyway in the final verdict.
Were the suggestion for the reinstatement of the death penalty to be proposed today, I am sure that
we would all be in an'agreeable state of mind' regarding its enactment in our judicial system. But
if a case should arise, where fresh evidence comes to light after the execution of a supposed
murderer - proving his innocence - are the jury then to be labelled'murderers' themselves because
they agreed with the sentence of the judicial system, or made such a decision on the evidence
presented at the time? We would have to call the case'unfortunate' to say the least, and try to
ensure that such an incident did not recur. However, no individual could be charged with murder,
nor could such an accusation be made against anyone who bound a suspected criminal for trial in
our courts. Under these conditions, the Law of God would not classify Saul as a murderer. This
means that a charge of Murder against Saul can not stand.
Now the'accused' is not entirely without blame, as Paul himself testifies in many passages. He also
says of himself,
"For I am the least of the apostles and am not fit to be called an Apostle because I persecuted
the out-called of God"(I Corinthians 15:9)
His regret is visible also in the changing of his Hebrew name - from'Saul' meaning 'an asked one',
to'Paul' meaning 'a little one' - once again a permanent acknowledgement of his now humble
As for Saul's eligibility for appointment as an Apostle, our Lord Jesus will accept all those who
truly repent, or more correctly,'change their mind' (Greek - 'metanoeo'). The only 'unforgiveable'
sin, in fact, is"blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" which is not the crime in question here. No,
Saul was eligible, and his pre-conversion reputation made him a fine example to express the
all-redeeming power that Jesus had now gained for His brethren.
Section Two: SAUL'S CONVERSION
(IS THIS STORY TRUE OR FALSE?)
A leading witness for the Prosecution states that Paul says,"Prove all things". He then quotes our
Lord acknowledging the validity of witnesses(John 8:3-11), and asks for Paul's witnesses to this
event whilst on the road to Damascus. Secondly, he suggests that Luke wroteThe Acts by
second-hand reports and was not an eye-witness. And thirdly, Paul repeats this story twice with
differing accounts, thus showing conflict within his own reports.
The first point stating the necessity for witnesses is invalid. The quote fromDeuteronomy 19:15
"..at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be
is only of concern when a legal matter requires witnesses to enforce the death penalty of the Law,
which our Lord endorses in the passage quoted by the'Prosecution' (above) i.e. John 8:3-11.
The passage concerns the stoning of the woman caught in the act of adultery. However, Saul did
have witnesses at the time of this event - but more about that later.
Divine revelations are often given without witnesses - such as in the case of Moses and the burning
bush; and even in the giving of the Divine Law to Moses, certainly no witnesses were present
besides God and Moses.
As for the second suggestion that Luke wroteThe Acts using 'second- hand' reports, this is not
entirely true. Luke accompanied Paul on some journeys and would have gathered eye-witness
reports of other events. Luke was the first historian of the'early Christian' movement and a
historian cannot be in every place and at every occasion about which he writes. Luke collected
information from reliable sources in cases when he was not personally present, but he was often in
the company of Paul on his travels.Acts 16:10 is such an example where the change from the third
person'they' in verse 8 becomes the first person 'we' in verse 10. This indicates that Luke had
joined Paul here, which happens in other passages as well.
Does this mean then that Luke's account ofThe Acts cannot be trusted? Not at all. Moses was not
an eye-witness toGenesis, but he wrote it; must we also doubt his account?
If we suppose that this report ofThe Acts cannot be taken as truth, then what of the rest of Luke's
writings including his Gospel? Let us assume for a moment that this report was false, it would not
only reflect on the character of Luke, but also of Ananias whom Jesus sent in order that Paul should
receive his sight back. Not to mention Peter, who vouches for the authenticity of Paul's conversion
inII Peter 3:14-16. Here are three unimpeachable witnesses. If one is a liar, then they all must be
collaborators to support that lie within the Scriptures - God's Own Book.
The third point concerns Paul's differing accounts of the same event. As we are trying to assess the
stability of Paul's character, then it should be noted thatNOT ONE of these accounts was written by
Paul, himself. In fact, all three accounts of this story are given by Luke inThe Acts. Once again, do
we conclude that Luke's testimony is here also in conspiracy with Paul ... in God's written word?
Each account(Acts 9:3 & following, 22:6 & following, 26:13 & following) throws more light on
the event than the previous one, but none conflict except for an apparent contradiction, which
arises not from any fault on Paul's part, but from the inability of our translators to translate the text
correctly as will be shown in Section Three.
Remember, God isPERFECT. And The Bible is His word - from Genesis to Revelation (as written
in the original Hebrew and Greek texts). This is His testimony ofguidance for the belief and
instructionof His people. How could any of His witnesses be unreliable? Whether the chosen
writers were eye-witnesses to the events recorded by them or not, the inspiration of the Spirit
would ensure that the accounts rendered werePERFECT and acceptable in His sight as Luke
himself states categorically inLuke 1:3, which reads from the Greek text ...
"...having been acquainted from above in all things exactly... "
Providing that the translation into Englishfaithfully reads what God caused to be written in the
original languages, thenall that Luke wrote must be classed along with the rest of Scripture.
Section Three: APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN SAUL'S CONVERSION STORY
We are told inActs 9:7 that the men journeying with Paul, at the time of the event stood
speechless,hearing the voice yet beholding no one. Yet in Acts 22:9 we read Paul saying ...
"And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of Him that
spake to me."
It is true that in most Bibles, thereappears to be a contradiction between what Paul said in Acts
9:7and what he said in Acts 22:9. But first, let us remember who it was who wrote the Book of
Actsand if Luke did not notice any contradiction between these verses, then it is quite possible that
there is NO contradiction, whatever, in the Greek text which the author wrote down, and that,
once again, the fault lies with the way in which it has been translated into English.
First let us look at this verb'to hear' and then notice the way in which it is used throughout the
New Testament. The Lexicons tell us that it is used in 3 distinct ways
2.to hear with understanding, or to understand by hearing
3.to hear and obey or to hear (which includes hearing and understanding) and obey.
And the lexicons also list several passages of Scripture, which illustrate the use of this verb in these
differing shades of meaning even though the English translation may not reveal the true meaning
Such an example isJohn 8:43 in the A.V., where Jesus said to the Pharisees ...
"Why do ye not 'understand' (get to know) My speech (teaching)? Because ye cannot hear
Now it is obvious that if Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees then -
a) they were not deaf, and
b) they must have been able to hear Him.
But it is equally obvious that since theycould hear Jesus, then what Jesus was saying was that the
reason they did not'get to know' His teaching was because they could not comprehend or
understand what He taught. Therefore the verb'to hear' in the second sentence of verse 43 would
have made better sense if it had been translated as in (2) above,'cannot understand'.
If this alternative meaning of the verb'to hear' is applied to Acts 9:7 and 22:9, it will be found that
the apparent'contradiction' disappears. It will be noted from Acts 26:14 that "the voice" spoke to
Paul in Hebrew, and those who were with Paul may not have been familiar with this tongue since
the local languages were Aramaic and Greek at that time.
Then inActs 22:9 we are told that the men with Paul did NOT (Greek - emphatic NOT) 'hear' the
voice, but inActs 9:7 we are told that they DID 'hear' the voice. Thus it should be obvious that -
like the Pharisees ofJohn 8:43 - they 'heard' the voice but did NOT understand what was said.
Acts 22:9would have made better sense in English had it been given its second meaning (2) of
'to understand'instead of 'to hear'. This verse should have been translated as follows:
"Now the (ones) who were with me indeed saw the light but did not understand the voice of the
One speaking to me".
It should be noted very carefully that the ability tounderstand what is heard can be distinctly
implied, or as firmly negated, in Greek, simply by changing the Greek form in which the word
'voice'is written, and/or the syntax of the sentence. Furthermore, this ability to 'understand' can be
negated or cancelled without in any degree cancelling the hearing of the'voice' or the sound that is
heard. It is the failure of almost all of the translators of our Bibles to note the different forms of the
word'voice' in Acts 9:7 and 22:9, and the syntax of the sentences. This has led to failure to
translate the verb correctly, bringing about what appears to be a contradiction in English, but which
is not the case on the parts of either Paul who spoke the words, nor Luke who recorded them.
Both men knew their Greek grammar better then the translators of our popular Bibles.
InActs 9:7 the form of the word 'voice' definitely negates any ability to understand what the voice
said (as is also the case inJohn 5:25 where all the dead will likewise fail to understand what the
voice will say except"the ones hearing -AND understanding"). Therefore verse 7 should have been
translated from the Greek text ...
"The men who were travelling with him stood speechless (with fright), hearing indeed the voice
but neither understanding (it) nor seeing anyone (speaking)".
InActs 22:7 the form of the word 'voice' would appear to negate the understanding by Paul. But
this is not so here, because the context records a conversation ensuing. It is apparent in this case
that the form of the'voice' is governed by a preposition which, in Greek idiom, need not be spoken
or written. Paul"heard (from) a voice saying... ". This idiom occurs in many other passages - for
exampleJohn 9:31, "God does not hear (from) sinners".
InActs 22:9 the form of the word 'voice' most definitely implies both hearing and
understanding, but only one of these faculties is negated by the Greek emphatic 'NOT'.
Now the men with Paul werenot deaf, so obviously they heard the voice, which undoubtedly was
both thunderous and terrifying enough to render them speechless. Therefore it could only be their
understandingof what the voice said was negated, because nothing could have prevented them
from hearing the voice itself.This agrees PERFECTLY with Acts 9:7.
Rev. W. K. Lowther-Clarke notes in his'Concise Bible Commentary'
"That Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin may be taken for granted. He was a leader
among the Greek speaking Jews at Jerusalem who accepted Pharisaism in its strict form."
In view of this and the foregoing, the most likely explanation for the lack of understanding by those
accompanying Paul would be because of a lingual ability that did not extend to the'Hebrew' that
our Lord spoke to Paul. There isNO contradiction here whatsoever, and the eminent scholars
W. E. Vine and Cremer both attest this view on grammatical grounds.
Section Four: NUMERICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The"numerics" are very telling in our case against Paul. If one would care to count the Books of
the Bible, includingPaul's Epistles, we have a total of 66 Books. This number indicates extreme
evil, however if we take out Paul's13 Epistles the 53 Books remaining are much more acceptable.
Please note - Paul has13 Epistles, the number of "rebellion".
Once again the Prosecution have not done their homework before making such a bland statement.
We do have66 Books in our Bible but perhaps not in God's Bible. Here is a note from F.W.
Grant's'Numeric Bible' ...
"The Bible as a whole has 63 Books, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles being really only one
each: our present division of them having been adopted from the Septuagint" (a translation of
the Old Testament from the Hebrew into the Greek.) "And (this number) 63 equals 7 x 3 x 3.
Here we have, then, the symbol of perfection, and that of Divine manifestation intensified,
-'God glorified in His perfectly accomplished work'. It is, as God's testimony to man, divided
into two parts, perfectly distinct - the Old Testament and the New. (Testament and Covenant
are the same word in the original).
Part I: In the Old Testament we have the Creator-God, Sovereign and Almighty, and here, 36
Books (3 x l2) exhibit Him in Holy and manifest government.
Part II: In the New Testament, we have God speaking in the Son, also Son of Man, the Saviour;
and its 27 Books (3 x 3 x 3) show us how He has graciously manifested Himself..."
E. W. Bullinger D.D. has a different view as is noted in his book entitled'Number in Scripture'.
On page 25 he says...
"In the Hebrew MSS. Ezra and Nehemiah are always reckoned as one Book, with the one
name, Ezra. Each of the double Books is reckoned as one Book (e.g. I & II Samuel, I & II
Kings, and I & II Chronicles), and all the Minor Prophets are also reckoned as one Book. This
makes 24 Books in all. This is 8 x 3 both factors stamping the number with the seal of Divine
Dr. Bullinger says of the New Testament ...
"The New Testament contains 27 separate Books (3 x 3 x 3). Of these 27 books, 21 (3 x 7) are
However, Ivan Panin in his article'The Books of the Bible' puts forward perhaps the most
convincing argument, even though it differs from both the other scholars.
"Now the first fact in Bible numerics to be noticed here is that the number of Books in the Bible
is 66, or 6 ELEVENS (Feature 1); of these the anonymous Books are 22 in number, or 2
ELEVENS; and the non-anonymous Books are 44 in number, or 4 ELEVENS (Feature 2). And
of these 44 non-anonymous Books 22, or 2 ELEVENS, belong to writers of more than one Book
(Feature3). The Books without Epistles are 33 in number, or 3 ELEVENS; the Epistles and
Epistolary Books are also 33 (Feature 4).
That is to say - the whole number of Bible Books being a MULTIPLE OF ELEVEN, it is
divided between Books naming their authors and Books not naming them, between Books
belonging to only one author and Books belonging to more than one, between Books with
letters and Books without by - ELEVENS."
Should lvan Panin be correct in his conclusions, then the Prosecution would also be correct in
claiming the present66 Books of the Bible to be confirmed. If, in their view, this number of Books
is intolerable, then why should Paul's contribution be penalised alone? After all, whatever
calculation differences divide these scholars, the disagreements lie only in the Books of theOld
In factall three agree on the conclusion of 27 Books in the New Testament, and more important
still, the necessity for theEpistle to the Hebrews to have also been written by Paul. This would
make Paul responsible for14 Epistles - a fact not credited to him by the Prosecution.
Paul's14 (7 x 2) Epistles are vouched for by lvan Panin using numerical proofs in his article
"The Books of the Bible"section 12 & 13. Panin also gives further convincing evidence in his
'Numeric New Testament', (see 'Notes' section).
Dr. Bullinger states in his'Number in Scripture' book, under the title 'Evidence as to Authorship'
"This (numeric) law, affecting the occurrence of important words, may be used in evidence as
to authorship. For example, if we take certain words in Paul's Epistles alone, we do not find
the law operating unless we include the Epistle to the Hebrews. If we add the occurrences in
Hebrews to those in the other Pauline Epistles, the harmony is at once restored."
Dr. Bullinger then continues to give over 3 pages of the'numerics' of words that do not harmonise
unless theHebrews Epistle is attributed to Paul. He also states in his 'Companion Bible',
"The arguments in favour of the Pauline authorship are much more weighty than those in
favour of all other candidates put together".
'Dake's Annotated Bible'makes several observations supporting Paul's authorship. Here are just a
"The thoughts and reasonings are Paul's. Any difference in style is due to his writing to Jews as
a Jew and not to gentile churches as in other Epistles (but as one who studied at the feet of
Gamaliel). Furthermore, the translation of the Book (from Syro-Chaldaic 'Hebrew' as Paul
wrote it) into the Greek was carried out by Luke which may account for some change in style.
The Book of 'Hebrews' is ascribed to Paul by over 100 ancient writers in both Greek and Latin,
from 70 to 730 A.D. Paul was the only New Testament writer who wrote from prison and
expected release-Hebrews 13:19, 23 with Philemon 1:7-8, 13, 26, 2:23, 24. No other writer of
Epistles mentions Timothy. Paul refers to him 20 times and calls him 'brother'-
II Corinthians 1:1, Colossians 1: 1, I Thessalonians 3:2 and Hebrews 13:23."
Theoldest papyri manuscript ever found was discovered in 1931. It is known as the 'Chester
Beatty Papyri'and regards Paul as being the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
However the most conclusive evidence comes directly from Scripture itself, where Peter declares
theproof that 'Paul wrote Hebrews'. He makes this statement in II Peter 3:15
"... even as our beloved Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written
unto you ".
But who is the'you' to whom Peter is referring? Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision,
therefore hisEpistles are all addressed to Jews, dispersed in neighbouring lands. So in Peter's
Epistle to thecircumcised, he says that Paul, (the Apostle to the uncircumcised) has written to the
circumcised!As Paul says in I Corinthians 9:20 ...
"To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to win Jews..."
The onlyEpistle, which Paul could have written to include the Jews, was 'Hebrews'. No other
could be considered.
Section Five: IS PAUL THE TWELFTH APOSTLE?
InActs, from verse 15, there is a clear account of Peter organising the election of Matthias from the
brethren, to be the Apostle to replace Judas lscariot. This was decided firstly by giving prayer and
then by a drawing of lots. Therefore the twelve Apostles were thus established. If Paul then became
an Apostle, it would make the total number of Apostles13. Not only is this an undesirable number
for God's administration, but it is quite out of step withRevelation, and Matthew 19:28 which
states thattwelve Apostles only are seated in judgement over the twelve tribes of Israel.
The Prosecution is quite correct as regards the election of Matthias, but at no time does Paul claim
to be one of the Twelve. He claims to be an apostle to the out-called ones, the Saints of Israel.
It appears fromJohn 15:27 and Acts 1:21, 22 that to have been a witness to Jesus' life throughout
His ministry, even to His resurrection, was vital.Paul witnessed neither. But that is not all. There
are other main points to be found - for exampleActs 1:26 states that the drawing of lots favoured
" ... and he was reckoned along with the eleven Apostles. "
The following verse states thatALL the Apostles were sitting together in a house, and there they
wereALL filled with Holy Spirit. This account is Scriptural and proves Matthias to have been
Another proof is inActs 6, where in verse 2 we read that the 'twelve' summoned the body of
disciples, and verse 6 clarifies these twelve as being the Apostles. The twelve Apostles here are
choosing Stephen for a mission. It was only after Stephen's death that Paul was even converted -
once again, proof thatMatthias was the twelfth Apostle who replaced Judas. But was Paul also an
This is the question that the Prosecution has failed to look at closely enough. Neither Barnabas nor
Paul were of the Twelve, however they entered lconium together inActs 14:1 and verse 4 states
that the multitude of the city were divided between the Jews and the Apostles. A more direct
reference can be found inActs 14:14. It reads ...
"Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their clothes".
Romans 16:7extends the title to 'Andronicus' and 'Junias'. In II Corinthians 8:23 (R.V. margin)
the Greek text speaks of two unnamed brethren that are called'Apostles' (representatives) of the
churches or gatherings(Greek. 'ekklesias'). In Philippians 2:25 (R.V. margin) and the Greek text,
Epaphrodites is referred to as"your apostle" (your representative). It is used in I Thessalonians 2:6
of Paul, Silas and Timothy, to define their relationship as'Apostles of an Anointed (One)'.
The word is also used of the Lord Jesus Himself to describe His relation to God -Hebrews 3:1,
(see John 17:3), because 'apostle' means 'one sent as a representative' of whoever appoints him.
A'disciple', on the other hand, is a 'follower'. There are even 'false apostles' referred to in
II Corinthians 11:13.
By these examples it is quite plain that there are many more apostles than just the original Twelve,
the latter of whom will sit in judgement over the twelve tribes of Israel. Please note that it is not
only thePauline Epistles that give reference of apostleship to others who are not of the Twelve.
We agree that Paul would make the13th Apostle, but Jesus appointed him to be His representative
to the out-called ones of Israel, those dispersed stragglers, living among the heathen, and like them,
without God's Law and not even circumcised. These dispersed Israelites were considered to be so
unclean that official Israel would not converse with them. The Samaritan woman claimed this in
John 4and likewise Peter also, on meeting Cornelius after Jesus' death, when he learnt that these
'low' Israelites became acceptable.
As Paul himself says inI Corinthians 15:9 ...
"For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not fit to be called an apostle because I persecuted
the out-called of God".
That is why Jesus told the Twelve not to go into the way of the (heathen) nations, or the cities of
Samaria(Matthew 10:5), but only to those lost sheep of the Nation of Israel.
Although Paul did not qualify for commission as one of the Twelve because he had not witnessed
Jesus' earthly ministry, (as stated by Peter), he was selected by the risen Lord Jesus Himself. Paul's
commission was to carry the Good News of reconciliation to the dispersed brethren in the Roman
Empire - the scattered peoples of Israel. Those'unclean', cast-off Israelites, "barbarians and
Greeks"who could now receive a "placing of sons" (i.e. A.V. 'adoption') through Jesus, to become
'heirs'to the Promises of their Fathers. Jesus could not have done this Himself in His earthly
ministry, because until Official Israel had rejected Him, it could not be offered; and that rejection
could only be completed after His own death on the stake.
Section Six: PAUL AND THE LAW
There are many passages in Paul's teaching that claim that the law of God is no longer to be
considered. For instance,Romans 6:14 states ...
"For ye are not under the Law but under grace..."
andGalatians 5:18 ...
"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law..."
Romans 10:4 ...
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth".
How these passages contradict our Lord's words when He said inMatthew 5:17-19 ...
"Think not that 1 am come to destroy the Law or the prophets,. I am not come to destroy but to
fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven,
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of
Surely Paul's bold condemnation of the Law is completely contradictory to these words of Jesus
Again the Prosecution have not done their homework sufficiently, for they fail to state which Law
they mean. Or perhaps they are blind to the fact that there are two principle Laws laid down in the
1. The Laws of the Nation or Kingdom, which concern our mortal life on this earth - the Book of
Deuteronomycontains these in full.
2. The Law of the Temple, which wasadded to redeem the transgressor of the Kingdom Law
from eternal death - this Law appears in full in the Book ofLeviticus, and it was administered
by the Aaronic Priesthood. Both this Law and the Priesthood came to an end with the death of
the Messiah, and were of no further effect.
These two classes of Law, with their respective statutes, were well known to the people of Paul's
day. It was also recognised that the Law of Worship(Leviticus) was added for spiritual cleanliness,
in order to save the transgressor of God's commands from spiritual death,Galatians 3:19. It was
Paul's difficult task to teach these fickle, argumentative Israelites - who were not all heathens- that
the Law of Worship had ceased to have any effect after the death of Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb.
Paul was not talking about the Kingdom Law at all!
InGenesis 26:5, Jehovah said ..."Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My
Commandments, My statutes and My Laws".
These Laws were finallywritten down in full in the Book of Deuteronomy. Hence Abraham
received blessing because he obeyed them. Moses obeyed them, and likewise the prophets, but
Israel didnot obey them. Consequently, Israel lost her land and entitlement to be called by the
name of 'Israel'. It is obvious, therefore, that if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and Israel had to
obey the Kingdom Law till the coming of Jesus, and if we are going to have to obey them in the
coming Kingdom Age under our Lord, then Scripture and logic tell us that, while theKingdom
existson earth, THE KINGDOM LAW STANDS! This is the Law that Jesus endorsed by His
remarks concerning the carrying out of the least of thesecommandments, and then stating that a
person's position in the Kingdom of the Heavens will be determined by his or her attitude tothat
Law, while living on the earth.
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things (ie necessities of
LIFE) shall be added to you."
That is the blessing offered for obedience to that Kingdom Law, which is why Israel today is
suffering more and more as we strip away piece by piece the discipline of our law, founded upon
the Law of God. The Kingdom Law was known to the Greek-speaking Israelites as'Deutero
Nomium','the Second Law'- because Leviticus was the more important Law, being the Law of
Worship. It took precedence because it offered a spiritual reconciliation to God for breaking the
Laws of the Kingdom, hence saving the transgressor from eternal death.
The Kingdom Law, on the other hand, offersphysical LIFE or DEATH ON THE EARTH
Deuteronomy 5:33- "..that ye may live and that it may be well with thee..."
Deuteronomy 8:1- "..that ye may live and multiply..."
Deuteronomy 16:20- "...that thou mayest live and inherit..."
ButLeviticus 18:5 states ...
"Ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgements (ie. rules and regulations) which, if a
man do, he shall live in them. I am Jehovah. "
Notice the difference carefully.Deuteronomy refers to living, multiplying, inheriting, etc. IN
THE LAND,which ye shall possess because we do not live and multiply and inherit in Heaven.
But in the Leviticus quotation, the words"he will live in them (or 'by' them)", means "he will live
by (means of) them",i.e. live again in the resurrection as a result of obeying them. The Chaldee
paraphrases it..."shall live by them to life eternal".
The Amplified and some other Bibles have marginal references toLeviticus 18:5, against Romans
10:4-5, Galatians 3:12,and Luke 10:25-28. Both of the Pauline references speak of the Law, and
state that there is no need for its further application - and rightly so. Paul is only referring to the
Law of Worship, as is noted in the marginal references. This is the Law with its sacrifices which
Jesus came to fulfil - which is why John calls Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb, and Daniel prophesies
that the Messiah will complete the sacrifices, and that all offerings will cease(Daniel 9:27), being
ceremonies of sanctification for the spirit.
So now our atonement from sin comes by belief in Jesus' sacrifice upon the stake. In fact, it is the
only means by which we can regain our eternal life. Therefore Paul isnot guilty of refuting the
Kingdom Law in any way, although he does denigrate man's law on some occasions.
Section Seven: PAUL AND UNCLEAN MEATS
If what the Defence say is correct concerning the two separate Laws, then Paul denies the food
Laws which is one of the Laws of the Kingdom found inDeuteronomy 14, from verse 3, by
proclaiming inRomans 14:14 ...
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him
that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean".
Before we jump to conclusions on this one I would like to point out that this same food Law is also
given inLeviticus 11 from verse 1, but in a more extensive form. This was both a Law of Spiritual
cleanliness and sanctification(Leviticus 11:44) and a Kingdom Law as a Commandment
(Deuteronomy 15:4 & 5)for our physical life, material blessing, and well-being, etc. However, this
has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about. The Prosecution here have taken a text out of
context, to make a pretext."Romans" is a letter written by Paul to the saints at Rome for the sole
purpose of instructing them (and us) in the basics of what God's Book is all about.
In chapter 14, Paul is trying to sort out a minor difference, which is causing trouble between some
sections of this particular group. This disagreement is defined quite clearly in verse 2, and it is still
with us today. One faction believes that it can eat meat, and the other group are all vegetarians.
The meat-eaters, no doubt, quote the Law as their authority for eating meat, while the other group
quote that same law and point out that it is not acommandment to eat meat but simply a list of
certain meats, which wemay eat if we are foolish enough to do so (Deuteronomy 14:4). And so the
Paul rebukes both sides for their senseless bickering, and urges them to use their heads instead of
their emotions and personal inhibitions. Then he states in verse 14 that he (has examined what they
are arguing about and) is satisfied that none of the things to which they refer are'unclean' of
themselves, but only so in the mind of the person concerned.
The Greek word for'unclean' is 'akathartos', but that is NOT the word used in this context. The
Greek wordtranslated here as 'unclean' is 'koinos' which means 'common'. So, as Paul says, they
were not squabbling about"unclean food" but about clean meats, which, in the minds of some
over-scrupulous members, hadbecome 'common' - possibly because of being handled by too many
people in the killing, selling, cooking and serving process, and in this way had become'defiled' to
their mind. Thus Paul had satisfied himself that the quality of 'uncleanness' wasNOT an actual
property of the thing itself, but only a subjective quality in the mind of the person regarding it as
'unclean'. Nevertheless Paul does not dismiss the matter as being childish. He goes on to point out
that this subjective quality is quite real to the individual concerned, and other Christians should
remember that fact and not cause another to stumble by doing things in front of others who have
not got the same understanding of Scripture, as themselves.
Paul says that when one man sees another do something which his own conscience condemns, it
causes him pain. But when he is led on to dohimself what his own conscience condemns, then he
destroys himself morally - for it is fatal to have principles and then disregard them. So, in verse 17,
Paul says that you must have some forethought about what you eatand also drink in front of
others. For example some people regard it as almost immoral for anyone to drink alcoholic
beverages in a public place, lest another Christian - who has not the same will-power, may do the
same and so be led on to self-destruction by becoming an incurable alcoholic.
There is nothing in this entire chapter which refers to the unclean foods in the food Laws. And to
accuse Paul of repudiating the food Laws simply reveals failure on the part of the Prosecution to
research the Scriptures sufficiently.
The most likely text that prompted Paul in his advice to the squabblers, wasMark 7 which gives
the fullest rendition of our Lord Jesus' views on the defilement (or pollution) of food through
handling with unwashed hands.
Section Eight: PAUL'S RACIAL BACKGROUND
We claim that Paul was an ldumean(Acts 13:1). We also assert that in Paul's Epistle to Titus, he
denies the need to look at one's genealogy. This is so that people will not discover Paul's ldumean
ancestry. The denial of looking to genealogy is also a contradiction to Isaiah's call to Israel in
Chapter 51:1 ...
"Hearken to me ye that follow righteousness, ye that seek the Lord, look unto the rock whence
ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged - Look unto Abraham your father,
and unto Sarah that bare you; for I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him."
Paul claims to be aBenjamite and projects himself as such. Jesus says in Matthew 24:4 ...
"Take heed that no man deceive you".
We claim that this man is Paul, deceiving the disciples of Christ through glorifying himself falsely
for egotistical reasons, or for other gain. InMatthew 7:15 there is a further warning against Paul ...
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
The image that Paul puts forward of being aBenjamite fits this description only too clearly, for one
of the symbols of theTribe of Benjamin is a ravening wolf!
These'claims' by critics of St. Paul just collapse because they are too weak to stand up even to
elementary examination.Acts 13:1 states that Manaen was a foster brother (or court member) of
Herod, and that is the only reason Herod's name is mentioned. The Prosecution's claim therefore is
totally unfounded.Manaen is the one connected with Herod -NOT Saul. And the following verse
states that the Holy Spirit called for Barnabas and Saul to be separated for the Lord's work, so is the
Holy Spirit Himself mistaken?
The quote inRomans 16:11
"Salute Herodion my Kinsman",
may be just as readily translated
"Salute Herodion my countryman".
There is nothing in Scripture, which states that Herodion was an ldumean. That is an unsupported
assumption by the Prosecution. In any case, an ldumean is an Edomite, andDeuteronomy 23:7
states that an Edomite is our brother and therefore a'kinsman'. But there is nothing to indicate that
Paul was using the term'kinsman' in any other sense than that of tribal or family relationship as
he does for Andronicus and Junias in verse 7, and Rufus in verse 13. This entire list of names
seems to be one of close relatives - henceBenjamites like himself. Herodion is a Greek masculine
proper noun, and not a racial term, nor even a term showing support for Herod, which, in Greek, is
an entirely different word altogether.
The reference inTitus 3:9 and 1 Timothy 1:4 in which Paul denies the need to search out one's own
genealogy, does not conflict with Isaiah's call to Israel. Herod the Tetrarch had ordered the burning
of those genealogical records of Israel which were kept in the archives of the Temple, to protecthis
ownrulership. He himself was an ldumean, and therefore he feared any investigation into ancestral
records. At that time, of course, the Pharisees were frantically trying to retrace their genealogies in
order that they could continue to boast about their ancestry. Paul was also well aware of the class
distinction, which would arise when the"heathenised" Israelites, having lost all their records in the
captivity, would be joined to the Assembly.
Paul is simply saying that this endless labouring over trying to reconstruct authentic records could
be put to better use by labouring in God's stewardship in faith. Isaiah's call for Israel to look to
Abraham and Sarah as their father and mother does not mean to compile records of pedigree. It was
because of Abraham'sfaith that we received 'the promises of the fathers'. All Abraham's
contemporary Hebrews could have claimed equal entitlement to favour from God if pedigree alone
were the criterion.
The Hebrew text means -Pay attention to Abraham and Sarah, or show regard to, or consider.
Would we interpret this as a command by God to record pedigree? We, who believe in the
Anglo-Saxon-Celtic identity as being that of Israel, pay attention to our forefather Abraham as the
father of our people. But do we pester Somerset House for confirmation via ancestry?NO, we
believeit through believing Moses and the Prophets as Jesus commanded us, for without that belief
we cannot believe Jesus either. It was because of Abraham's total obedience and unique faith in
God, that God called Abraham...
"alone and blessed him and increased him".
There is no evidence for the Prosecution's next claim -
"Take heed that no man deceive you"
This could apply to men in general. But even if it were specific, it would be grossly biased to
assume that Paul is the sole target for accusation without further proof.
Luke's account of Acts shows Paul befriending and being accepted by the other Apostles, without
question. So if Paul was the victim of this quote, then that Spirit which the Apostles received at
Pentecost, did nothing to influence these Spiritually-guided men - all of whom were persuaded of
Paul's worth, as were Luke, James and Peter.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are
The suggestion that the'ravening wolves' refers here to the symbol of the Tribe of Benjamin, is
ridiculous. If Paul were the target, then our Lord would have chosen His words more carefully.
Supposing that Paul was actually an ldumean, and also a false prophet, then our Lord would hardly
have stated ...'but inwardly they are Benjamites',- 'outwardly' perhaps. This observation alone is
sufficient to refute such a theory.
A false prophet is one who makes prophecies, which do not come to pass, but Paul's propheciesdid
eventuate - as inActs 23:3 where he told the High Priest Ananias that 'God would smite him'. This
came to pass in A.D. 66 when Ananias was assassinated by a rebel group. Therefore Paul was a
genuine Prophet,NOT a false one.
Paul was a pure-bloodedBenjamite and this Tribe were often recognised as being the light bearing
Tribe. This surely makesBenjamin a fit Tribe from which to be selected for Paul's mission.
Section Nine: PAUL AND IDOL SACRIFICES
We accuse Paul of contradicting our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, when he asserts that food sacrifices
to idols may be eaten(I Corinthians 8:1-13, and I Corinthians 10: 23-28). Our Lord says in
Revelation 2:14, addressing the church of Pergamos:
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of
Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to EAT
THINGS SACRIFICED UNTO IDOLS, and to commit fornication".
Once again the Prosecution have failed to do their research faithfully. Paul never at anytime refutes
the Law or Jesus, as witnessed by his confession of his own beliefs after conversion as stated in
Acts 24:14.. I Corinthians 10:23-28 is but the second part of Paul's attack against all things
associated with idolatry. This part really begins at verse 14, and follows on fromI Corinthians
8:13. The crux of Paul's attack is given in I Corinthians 8:4, which states:
"We know that there is no idol in the 'world' and that there is no God except one".
Therefore Paul's argument is that - provided the meat is clean - then an idol has no power to affect
the cleanliness of the meat one way or the other. But, Paul says, every Christian has not got the
same knowledge and strength of will, so we must always consider the weaker vessel. Here Paul
writes to the Corinthians on the matter of conscience, on much the same lines as in his letter to the
Romans (as set out previously) inRomans 14.
InI Corinthians 10:14, Paul resumes the theme he was discussing at I Corinthians 8:13, and he
now warns all his listeners to flee fromanything to do with sacrificial feasts to idols. Then in
verses 16, 17 & 18 he shows how an Israelite, by partaking of the Communion Cup and the Bread,
was a partaker of the same sacrifice that Jesus made and therefore partakers in common with the
worship of God as represented by the Altar. Similarly, by partaking of libations to idols and of food
offered to idols at temple feasts, they were also partaking of the worship, which those idols
Verse 19 - Paul says that such participation in no way made the idol real in any sense. But, verse 20
- the things sacrificed were sacrificed to evil spirits and not to God. Therefore, if they partook of
meats or wine offered on an altar at one of the feasts to evil spirits, they became sharers of that
worship of evil spirits in the same way that partaking of the Communion Bread and Wine made
them sharers of the Worship of God and they couldNOT partake in both!
Finally, in verse 25, we come again to the crux of the matter stated in chapter 8:4 ...
"Whatever is sold in the shambles".
This refers to the Jewish market where unclean meat could not be sold, let alone brought in. But
clean meat, which had been offered as sacrifices to idols, was often sold afterwards in the market
place. Thus what Paul says here is that once it has been brought to the market place it is simply
clean meat and its previous use is of no consequence. One would buy it as meat, not as part of a
sacrifice. This, one could eat without any qualms of conscience.
But Paul also says:
'Ask no questions as to its origin lest some weaker Christian overhears that it was sacrificial meat
and sees you eat it, and then because he knows you are a pillar of the 'church', buys and eats it
himself against his own scruples and so destroys himself morally by disregarding his own
Paul goes on to illustrate this and says, verse 27, if a Christian is invited to a meal at an unbeliever's
home, then again - provided the meat is clean - he needNOT inquire if it had been sacrificial meat.
But if a weaker Christian is also present, and points out that it had been offered to idols, thenDO
NOTeat it, because of what your eating of it might do to his conscience - not your own
conscience. Paul emphasises this in verses 29 and 30, where he states, in effect, that his own
conscience will never deviate from what heknows to be true, no matter what another man's
scruples may be. Nevertheless, he would, and did, refrain from indulging himself in any act of life
such as eating or drinking which might cause a weaker Christian to stumble.
Thus far from contradicting Jesus in any way whatsoever, Paul upholds the Law at every turn, and
in every respect, while at the same time giving practical explanations of how to deal with life's
every-day problems without unnecessarily complicating it with things that do not matter.
In our Lord's statement inRevelation 2:14, His address is with reference to ...
"... them that hold the doctrine of Balaam ... to cast a stumbling block before the children of
Israel, to EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS AND TO COMMIT FORNICATION",
(which of course means worship of those idols, thus committing a spiritual degradation).
The reference inActs 15:29 instructing Christians thus ...
"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols" (from the A. V)
The word'meats' is not in the Greek text, which would be more accurate if read ...
"..be (keeping yourselves) from having and holding to idol sacrifices. "
whichActs 15:20 calls the pollution of idols.
With this insight it is easy to see that Paul's justifying references for the edibility are only
concerning that larger portion of meat, which wasnot burned on the altar to the idol in the
ceremony - which view our Lord confirms inRevelation 2:14 by including the reference to an
accompaniment of a committal of worship (fornication).
Section Ten: PAUL'S COMMUNION CONTRADICTION
Under the Law it was necessary that the Paschal Lamb should not only be free from blemish but
also have no broken bone(see Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 and John 19:36). That is why the
Roman soldiers were prevented from breaking our Lord's legs after His crucifixion on the stake.
Why then does Paul say inI Corinthians 11:24, concerning that tender moment when our Lord
took bread at the Last Supper with His Apostles ...
"And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take eat, this is My body WHICH IS
BROKEN FOR YOU: this do in remembrance of Me".
Again it is the Prosecution that is at fault for making false accusations, for Paul didnot write this
inI Corinthians 11:24. All the most accurate Greek texts omit the point of grievance claimed here.
Scholars and students have in recent years gained new evidence from ancient scrolls, which have
since come to light. Most of the recent translations agree with the Revised Version text, which
"... and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My body which is for you:
This do in remembrance of Me".
There is no mention of the body being broken in this account, which is confirmed as correct
throughnumerics by both lvan Panin and F. W. Grant.
Section Eleven: IS PAUL A PHARISEE?
Our Lord's warning against the teaching of the Pharisees could not have been plainer when He
stated inLuke 12:1 ...
"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees,"
Yet Paul, well after his supposed conversion to Christianity, boldly declares inActs 23:6 ...
"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee... "
Please notice that Paul did not say Iwas a Pharisee, but I am (present tense) a Pharisee.
The Prosecution quite rightly point out that the'teaching' of the Pharisees was the dangerous
'leaven', but do they dare to condemn all those who were Pharisees - because both Nicodemus and
Joseph of Arimathea were also Pharisees and secret Disciples of Jesus? Furthermore,Acts 15:5
declares that there were already a number of Pharisees whowere converted, but it does NOT say
there that theyWERE (past tense) Pharisees. In fact this verse implies that they were still
recognisable members of the Sect of the Pharisees, as was Paul.
However, again the Prosecution employ that most reprehensible of all habits to support their case -
that of taking a few words out of context, with neither any reference to the circumstances in which
they were spoken, nor even quoting all that Paul said, nor why he said it.
As mentioned previously inActs 23:3 Paul makes a prophecy which could only be made by a
person guided by the Holy Spirit that'God would smite the High Priest', which prophecy came
true. At this point Paul was arraigned before the whole Temple Council comprising of both
Pharisees and Sadducees who were about to join together in a vote to have Paul put to death. This
they could do - under an agreement with Rome - if the'crime' he committed merited death, in
accordance with their religion, (which Paul himself had supported and used with Stephen's case).
Perceiving that some of the councillors were Sadducees and some Pharisees, Paul then used the
true belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection of the body - (a fact which, by theResurrection of
Jesus, had already brought about the conversion of many Israelite Pharisees) to cause an uproar
amongst them, as the Sadducees deny the doctrine of the Resurrection. This tactic compelled the
Roman Captain to intervene and rescue Paul for the sake of the Apostle's own safety. Paul's
statement did not imply any rejection of his faith in Jesus. On the contrary, Paul said that he agreed
with the PhariseesIN THEIR OWN BELIEF IN THE HOPE AND RESURRECTION OF THE
DEAD. In Acts 24:14 Paul confesses that his faith was that which they - the Pharisees and the
Sadducees - callHERESY, believing all things written in the Law and the Prophets. This is
precisely what Jesus calls on us to believe and obey today and it shows clearly that Paul no longer
believed all that the Pharisees believed.
If the Prosecution make such an issue over Paul's tactical and timely statement inActs 23:6, why do
they not also loudly praise Paul for his outright confession of his faith as stated inActs 24:14?
Both verses are recorded by St. Luke and cannot be refuted without discrediting both theBook of
Acts, and the Gospel of St. Luke.
Section Twelve: PAUL AND DEAD BELIEVERS
Paul declares contradictory convictions on the important matter of the state of the believer at death.
On the one hand he takes a stand inI Thessalonians 4:13-18 which completely differs from the line
he takes inII Corinthians 5:8 & 9 and Philippians 1:21-24. As a result the churches teach two
different doctrines regarding the state of the believer at death. One teaching is that he sleeps from
the time of his death until the resurrection. The other teaching is that his soul and/or spirit go to be
immediately with the Lord. Such confusion in Scripture could hardly be labelled as the work of an
This whole matter of what happens to believers at death is a complete study in itself and would be
the subject of an entire talk. For this reason we may only deal with ironing out the particular
passages here put forward by the Prosecution. It is true that confusion has resulted from these New
Testament passages but the real question once again is - where does the blame lie - with Paulor
with our translators for interpreting Paul's words without thorough investigation?
Let us look first atII Corinthians 5:6-9 (from the Greek text) ...
"Being, then, courageous always, and oaware that, in the body, being amongst the public,
we are|away from being a public coming from the Lord (for thby faith are we walking, not
thby perception). Yet we are |encouraged, and are delighting rather to be away from the
public out of the body, and to be amongsta public that is toward the Lord.
Wherefore we are|ambitious< also, whether being amongst the public, or being away
fromthe public, to be well pleasing to sHim." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
Meaning, "..we are aware that whilst we are among the public in this body, we can not be the
public with the new resurrected body that comes from the Lord (at His Coming, when we see Him,
ie. perceive Him). Yet we are delighting..to be away from the public out of the body, (the interim
state, of waiting spirits)..."meaning - we are delighting at the present to be within this body,
amongst a public that is for the Lord, so we can continue to please Him: whether we are amongst
His public in our new resurrected body, or away from it, here on earth, or vise versa.
It can not refer to anything else, because Psalms makes it clear that nobody can praise God from the
grave, without praise or enactments, it is impossible to be pleasing Him as an ongoing condition.
And now the other text,Philippians 1:20-26, which gives a similar picture (also from the Greek) ...
".....in accord with my 'premonition and expectation, that in nothing shall I be put to
|shame, but iwith eall boldness, as always, now also, the *anointed One, shall be being
magnified amongst 'that body of mine, whether through life or through death to me.
For,the *anointed One, is He 'Who is to be living; and gain, he 'who is to be dying.
Yet, if He 'Who is to be living, is in flesh, this is a fruit, for work, to me also.
I,myself, shall be preferring< asomething, that I am not making known ( yet I am
being pressed< out of the two) having the yearning iofor the outcoming solution, and
to be togetherwith the anointed, for it, rather, is much better.
Yet to the flesh, he 'who is to be staying because of =you, is more necessary.
And, having this confidence, I amoaware that I shall be remaining, and shall be
abidingwith =you all iofor =your 'progress and joy of "the Faith",- that in me,
through my 'presencetdwith =you again, =your 'glorying may be superabounding
amongstthe anointed of Jesus." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
Note: Paul is torn between praying for the resurrection to come quickly so that he can live a life
with the Lord for ever, and praying to God to hold it back a while longer so that he will have more
time in this life to explain the Scriptures to these people and so perhaps save a few more of them.
The Prosecution accuse Paul of taking a contrary stand inI Thessalonians 4:13-18, which reads
from the Greek ...
"Now wedo not |want =you to be |ignorant, brothers, concerning 'those who are reposing<,
lest=you may |sorrow< according as the rest also, 'who |have no expectation.
For, if we are believing that Jesus died and rose, thus also, 'those who are put to |repose,
will 'God, through 'Jesus,|lead up together with sHim. For this we are saying to =you in
theword of what is sanctioned; that we/, the living, 'who are surviving< ioto the presence
of the Lord, should by no means|outstrip 'those who are put to |repose, tfor the Lord
sHimself will be descending< from heaven iwith a shout of command, iwith the voice of
theChief Messenger, and iwith the trumpet of Deity, and the dead among the anointed
shall be rising< first. Thereupon we/, the living 'who are surviving<, shall at the same time
be|snatched away together with them in clouds, ioto meet the Lord ioin the air. And thus
shall we always be togetherwith the sanctioned. So that, |console one another iwith these
'words."(The fully translated literal New Covenant)
The Prosecution have obviously misinterpreted the point of this passage. If Paul were referring to
Jesus bringing the spirits of the deadwith Him to earth, then it would be impossible for the living
to precede them to His presence. Therefore Paul would have no need to state the obvious so
forcefully to dispel uncertainties. Verse 16 states that thedead must rise first and then the living.
We are talking here of resurrectedsouls, which is identified with the blood, not spirits. The
earth-name'Jesus' portrays such, not 'CHRIST' - (Anointed One), which has reference to His
Spiritual Priestly Role.
Thus the sequence of events is that those souls who sleep (in death) whose spirits have returned to
God -Ecclesiastes 12:7 - (because it is from an incorruptible seed) God will raise up from death
(as He did with Jesus) through Jesus at His Coming; and then the'surviving living' will follow on.
Note also, most carefully, that when Jesus died on the stake He commandedHis Own Spirit back
to God to await His Own Resurrection. Hence it went to be with the spirits of the dead in Israel.
Also asI Corinthians 15:51 & 52 state, both the dead and the living saints (anointed people) in
their correct order will be transformed instantly into an immortal, incorruptible state. This is the
Divine Plan of inheritance for all those spirits ofjust men who died with the belief that God would
be true to His word and resurrect them to an eternal life.
However, the student would benefit greatly by distinguishing the difference between'soul' and
'spirit'as God does throughout the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, Paul does, in Hebrews 4:12
(and see alsoI Corinthians 2:14-16). This valuable distinction is completely overlooked by the
Prosecution, as proved by their statement.
So it is then that Paul has remained consistent in his doctrine, which throughout these passages
does not conflict in any way with itself, nor with the rest of Scripture.
Section Thirteen: PAUL TO THE GENTILES
We find that throughout the Bible all the prophets and promises were of concern to Israel only.
Even the Gospels (after an inspection of the few contradictory passages in the Greek) endorse this
view. But Paul constantly preaches auniversalism, which is totally unaligned with the rest of
Scripture. His preaching is to the gentiles, who, he says, can receive all the promises of Abraham,
even though they are not ofAbraham's seed - which violates the words God used when He gave the
unconditional promises that wereonly given to Abraham and his seed after him (or in their
generations) for ever and promised by Jehovah Himself.
Here again we are pleased at least on one point not to cross swords with the Prosecution. We agree
that all the promises that the Lord made were with Abraham and his seed only. These promises
may not be obtained by any other people than Israel - for whom, and to whom they were intended.
The Greek word for'seed' is 'sperma'. Only Abraham's offspring, literal descendants resulting from
his sperm, are to receive the inheritance of the Fathers. A'gentile' can not become an heir to these
promises by adoption or grafting. This idea of a universal application for'gentiles' to 'inherit the
promises' is a theological myth, a man-made precept pushed upon us by the established catholic
This'gentile inclusion theory' is not supported by Scripture anywhere. Neither does Paul preach it
anywhere in his epistles. It is the mistranslations in our Bibles that are at fault. For even though
sincere men have compiled our translations, many passages are puzzling, stilted and even
unfathomable - especially within thePauline Epistles. This is because Paul was extremely educated
as a lawyer - which our translators were not - and he used all the subtleties of the Greek grammar,
which is often difficult to parallel in our English language.
Most of the confusion is primarily caused inPaul's Epistles by the mistranslation of two words ...
'gentiles'and 'Christ'. The latter word is dealt with in the next section, but the former word
'gentiles'is the Latin version of the Greek word 'ethnos', which simply means 'nations'. In some
cases this does refer to heathen nations, but when used with the article it obviously points to the
Nations of Israel who were at that time slowly moving through Europe to the Isles of the sea.
Right from the very beginning of his work, Paul addresses himself directly and exclusively to
Israel, and to nobody else. InActs 13:26, Paul says ...
"Men, Brothers of the womb (i. e. Sarah's), Sons of the RACE of Abraham, and the ones among
you (already) fearing God, unto US (i.e. the RACE of Abraham) the word of this salvation was
Paul used the past tense and it refers toMatthew 10 where the Apostles were sent only to Israelites.
Hence this is a further confirmation of Paul only speaking to Israelites.
This address was made in the synagogue at Antioch and the term'fearing God' is quoted from
several passages of Scripture, which would be familiar to his audience. It refers to Israelites only
for it was the special privilege of the saints (who are Israel only) to'fear' God. The identity of 'the
ones fearing God'is firmly established in verses 16 and 17, where Paul opens his address to -
"Men, Israelites and the ones fearing God", then in verse 17 he states ...
"The God of this People of Israel, chose the fathers of US"
Thus the'Men', the 'Israelites' and the 'ones (already serving and fearing God)' are all included in
the'US'- the people of Israel whose fathers God chose. It does NOT refer to members of any other
race but Israel.
Paul then continues with a masterly thumb-nail summary of the history of this one People, in the
next 9 verses, in order to identify precisely who he is talking about beyond any shadow of doubt.
He then in verse 26 repeats his opening words and delivers his message to the end of verse 41.
In verse 44 - a week later - Paul now addresses a vast multitude, but the Jews disputed so
vehemently, that Paul then told them that by their own actions they had judged themselves
unworthy of eternal life; so now we (i.e. Paul and Barnabas) are going to the Nations (of Israel).
Note: This is in strict accordance with the task for which Jesus selected Paul inActs 9:15 -
"... as a chosen vessel to bear My Name before the Nations and Kings, both of the children of
Paul then quotesIsaiah 49:6 as his authority for turning to the Nations of Israel, saying ...
"For so the Lord commanded us (Israel, in Isaiah 49.6) saying, 'I will set thee (Jesus) for a
light to illuminate (or reveal) the Nations, that thou (Jesus) mayest be My Saviour unto the end
(singular) of the Earth.' "
This verse is quoted again by'Simeon' in Luke 2:32, where he says of the baby Jesus in his arms,
that He would be
"a light bearer for revealing (the lost) Nations and Glory of THY PEOPLE ISRAEL."
ThusActs 13:16 to 13:47 is exclusively for Israel only and verse 48 states that when (members) of
the Nations (who obviously were not the disputing Jews in this vast crowd) heard Paul, they were
glad and glorified the word of God ...
"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
And will the Prosecution please take very careful note, it was those whowere already
predestinatedto eternal life (Israelites) who believed. They (Israel) were predestinated from the
foundation of God's Order. They (Israel) were redeemed while still in unbelief, and it only required
their voluntary acceptance and belief of God's word to complete that ordination to eternal life.
The lost sheep of the Israel Nations, at that time were'lo ammi' - 'not My People', cast off for
disobedience. They had been captured by Assyria (and Babylon), but after release from that
bondage, the great majority had not returned to the Israel lands. Paul announces here that all those
Nations of Israel, sons of Abraham, who were dispersed even to the end (singular) of the Earth
(Ultima-Thule, i.e. the Isles of the sea) could now receive the salvation predestined for them (in the
promises to their fathers), as Luke here records. Not only did those ordained to eternal life believe
Paul, but also that Jesus was the promised Messiah, Who would gather them - His brethren -
through grace, back to their former position of Sons of the Father. These dispersed Israelites (the
wild olive - i.e."heathenised" Israel) could now be grafted into the official olive tree - i.e. official
Israel - the 'olive tree' being the symbol of Israel only throughout Scripture. Only trees of a related
species can be successfully grafted, hence the wild olives are still Israelites even though they are
All ofPaul's Epistles show to whom he was writing. Here are a few such openings from each
Epistle ... Romans: is addressed to"All God's beloved in Rome"(chapter 1:7) "who are called
saints"- not called to be saints; the verb 'to be' is not in the Greek text. Only Israelites are called
'saints', meaning 'set apart, separated-to-God, or Holy People'. Chapter 15:4 states
"For as many things (that) were written aforetime were written for our endurance and that
through the comfort of the Scripture we might have hope"
and onlyIsrael received instruction aforetime through Scripture.
I Corinthians 10:1-2:
".. our fathers (were) all under the cloud, they were also all passed through the sea, and all
(were) baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea... "
II Corinthians 6:17:
"Therefore, come out of their midst and be ye separate, says (our) Lord, and be not touching an
unclean thing, and I shall take you and you will be for sons and daughters, says (the) Lord
Almighty - therefore as we have these promises .. "
OnlyIsrael had these promises.
"Wherefore the law has become our schoolmaster unto an Anointed (One), so that we may be
justified by faith. "
The Law was only given toIsrael, to be their schoolmaster.
"God sent forth His Son, having become out of a woman, having become under Law, so that He
might redeem the (ones) under Law, in order that we might receive from (this) the placing of
sons", (A.V. - adoption of sons).
OnlyIsrael was given, and therefore was under, the Law.
"..to the Holy Ones (or saints - i.e. Israel) the ones being in Ephesus .."
"..(God) hath chosen us ... before the foundation of the Order (Greek 'kosmos') that we should
be holy... Having predestined us unto a placing of sons through Jesus... "
"in Whom we also were chosen by inheritance being predestined, " (verse 11)
"you were sealed with that holy spirit of the promise, which is a token of our inheritance into
redemption... " (verse 13)Redemption was only for a neigh of kin, family member.
"..to all the Holy Ones (or saints) ... the ones being in Philippi..."
InPhilippians 1:12 Paul's address is proven to be to Israelites by his term 'adelphoi' - 'brethren'
meaning 'womb sharers', or 'brothers of the same womb' (Liddel & Scott Greek-English Lexicon).
This term Paul uses throughoutall his Epistles.
"..to the Holy and faithful womb-brothers in Colossae..."
I Thessalonians 1:1&4
"..to the out-called of Thessalonica.. "
"Having known womb-brothers, the choosing of you, having been loved by God, that our good
news (or Gospel) came not in word only unto you, but also in power and holy spirit..."
II Thessalonians 2:13
"Womb-brothers having been loved by (the) Lord, because He chose you from (the) beginning
unto salvation in sanctification of spirit to a belief in truth."
"In many portions and in many ways, God in old (times) having spoken to the Fathers in the
prophets, upon the last part of these days, He spake to us by a Son... "
It was theIsraelites' forefathers who received instruction by the prophets.
The remaining Epistles -Philemon, Timothy I and II, and Titus - are all addressed to individuals
and not to gatherings.
Section Fourteen: PAUL THE UNIVERSALIST
Pauls main thesis is that by an acceptance of Christ, any person of any race may receive the
promises, because they become Abrahams seed...
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female, for you are all one in Chrtct Jesus. And if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams
seed and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:26-28).
And what of Gal 5:2-4,
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I
testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law, Christ
has become of no profit unto you, whosoever are justified by the Law, you fall out of grace."
These passages speak for themselves and condemn Paul when compared with the rest of Scripture.
If Paul said this, then by the evidence of the rest of Scrioture, Paul should be lynched. But surely
true justice requires that a suspect be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. The evidence must
be sought in the Greek text. For what conceivable reason would Paul offer universalism, thus
opposing all the rest of Scripture? The answer hinges on one important word, and that is Christ.
This word is not a translation of the Greek text at all. The Greek wordchristos is the victim of
unmerciful theological murder. Our translators have taken this Greek word, lopped off the last
letters os, ou, o and transliterated it as Christ into our English Bibles. To the English reader
this word in itself has no meaning so the reader, thinking it merely to be the official title for
Jesus, then tries to fit a meaning of Jesus into every text, with confusing results.
Firstly the Greek wordchristos means anointed. It should be translated as such throughout the
Bible. In some cases itdoes refer to Jesus, but in very many vital cases it does NOT.
Secondly as the meaning is anointed, then one is forced to agree that it is an adjective,not a
Thirdly this wordchristos is masculine.
So now, one may ask, what does all this mean? In the first instance, although anointed is an
adjective, it can be used as a noun (as in English), and anyone who speaks Greek would
automatically recognise the noun to whichchristos belonged, by the context, gender and case,
whether written or otherwise. For instance, a sentence in English constructed in this way, could
Today we saw many cars, and drove the red away
Nobody is going to argue that red is the proper noun of the driven car, so why do our translators
do this with the wordchristos? Red is obviously the description of that particular car in which
we drove away.
In the third instance, ifchristos stands in place of a noun, then because it is masculine, the noun
to which it refers mustalso be in the masculine gender, be it a man, Law, brother, righteousness or
a people, etc.. The title Jesus Christ should read Jesus Anointed (One) or Jesus (the) Anointed
Jesus beingthe Noun described.. But Christ Jesus (Greek Christou Jesou ~ by the same
token could equally read
1 (If Jesus is in the dative case)
in an anointed Jesus(thus meaning the same as the title Jesus Christ)
2 (If Jesus is in the genitive case)
in an anointed (something masculine) of (or, belonging to) Jesus
But this expression was invented by Paul and is only used by Paul throughout Scripture to assist
him in his task to explain to the dispersed Israelites their new status brought about by their
redemption through Jesus crucifixion. They now belong to Jesus by right of His having paid the
price for their redemption, whether they wanted it or not, whether converted or not, the deed was
done for the whole Israel Nation. He tells them that they are now.......
"an anointed (people) of (or, belonging to) Jesus".
The appearance of this expression in any other Books or Epistles than those of Paul will be found
to be false when examined against the most accurate Greek texts.
So let us see the effect of substituting this translation in the chosen passages presented by the
Prosecution. Incidentally, this same method of translation may also be applied toall Pauline
quotations that pose similar difficulties. However, please bear the following in mind whilst reading
these translations these Anointed People (of Israel) now belong to Jesus by the right of
Redemption, and that it is theLaw of worship that is being discussed.
In Galatians 3:23 where Paul is addressing the womb-brothers (3:1-5),
"Now before the coming of "the Faith" we were garrisoned< under law, being locked< up
togetheriofor "the Faith" |about to be revealed. So that the Atonement *Law has become
our escort intothe anointed, that we may be |justified oby faith.
Now,at the coming of "the Faith", we are not longer under an escort, for =you are all sons
of Deity, through "the Faith"within the anointed of Jesus. For as many as are immersed
intothe anointed, slip themselves iamongst the anointed, wherein is not Jew, yet nor Greek,
wherein is not slave, yet nor freeman, wherein is not "male and female"(Gen.1:27;
i.e.-natural man, see 1Cor.2:14 ), for =you/ all are one people amongst the anointed,
ofbelonging to Jesus. Now if =you of|belong to the anointed, consequently =you are Holy Land
*tenants according to a promise that of|belongs to the Abraham seed."
(The fully translated literal New Covenant)
To suggest that if you belong to Jesus you are a literal descendant (a seed) of Abraham
irrespective of yourracial origin is sheer biological nonsense. And Paul was far too skilled as a
lawyer to put forward such a proposition. Does not Peter also testify...
"But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood~ a holy nation for Gods possession".(I Peter 2:9)
That race is Israel only.
The maleand female in the Greek text, is in the accusitive case, and neuter in gender, which is
identical to the Sentuagint text of Gen 1:27 where it states...
"And God made mankind according to the image of God He made it, male and female
He made them".
This script was used by all Greek-speaking Bible readers, and therefore would be immediately
related to this particular passage. So the descendants of this Gen 1 creation of Mankind are not
within an Anointed People, or in the Kingdom. Only the Adamic strain,sons of Adam, through
Abraham and theone seed from Isaac to Israel (referred to in Gal 3:16) which is anointed, will
qualify as heirs to the promise, the evidence for this statement is supported throughout Scripture.
However, should there still be those among my readers doubting the use of Christ as presented
here, I would like them to consider some awkward texts that I believe prove this application of the
word Christ to a people, Rev 12:10 from the A.V. is a good example.
"Now is come the salvation and strength, and the Kingdom of our God and the power of His
Christ (i.e. Anointed People) for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them
before our God"
Some Christians would argue that this reference to Christ does mean Jesus. But if one bears in
mind that salvation meansdeliverance, did Jesus only receive Gods strength and deliverance
at that point in time which the first word Now stipulates? This event is after Jesus had led His
heavenly armies to war against those enemies of God opposing the saints, prophets and
God-fearing ones. No, only the blind would be stubborn on this point especially after comparing
this verse with Rev 11:15
"The Kingdom of the Order is become (the Kingdom) of our Lord (i.e. Jesus) and of His
One may ask then that even though this may be grammatically a possible rendering of the Greek
wordChristos, does Scripture give any plain references concerning an Anointed People to which
these references could apply? Yes, the answer lies in Habakkuk 3:13
"Thou went forth for the salvation of Thy People for the salvation of Thine Anointed."
and again, look at Psalm 105:15
"Touch not Mine anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm"
Now let us move on to the following text, Gal 5:2-4 which, as the Prosecution claim, seems to state
that those circumcised are fallen from the Grace of Christ. But the Prosectution fail to point to a
subsequent verse which rejects their conclusions Verse 6 reads....
"For in an Anointed (people) belonging to Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor
uncircumcision; but faith which works by love."
The requirement for circumcision ceased with the Leviticus Law along with the Aaronic Priesthood
that administered it. It is not in Deuteronomy. Bearing this in mind, what does Paul actually mean?
Let us read from Gal 4:30 from the Greek....
"Butawhat is the scripture saying? |Cast out this 'maid and her 'son, for by no means
shall the son of the maid be inheriting with the son of the freewoman.
Wherefore, brothers, we are not children ofthe maid, but of the free woman.
Forto 'freedom the *anointed One frees us ! |Stand firm then, and be not again
|enthralled< with the yoke of slavery.
|Lo! I/, Paul, am saying to =you that if =you should be circumcising< yourself as
one*anointed, - it will |benefit =you nothing. Now I am attesting< again to every
hman who is circumcising< himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Mosaic 'Law.
=You were exempted from the anointed, you whoa are being justified< in law,-
=you fall out of the gratuity.
For we/, in spirit, are awaiting< the expectation of a justification oby faith. For in
Jesus anointed, neither circumcision is availing anything, nor uncircumcision, but a
faith, operating< through love." (The fully translated literal New Covenant)
This whole passage revolves around the question of circumcision or baptism. Before the death of
Jesus on the stake, every male child was circumcised on the 8th day in accordance with
Levitical Law into the anointed (people) Israel. But after Jesus redeemed Israel, the Levitical
Law came to an end.ACCEPTANCE into an anointed (people) now required baptism plus belief
that Jesus is the Son of the Living God that is Faith in Jesus.
If an Israelite did believe and was baptised, then it became possible by Gods Grace for God
to accept the death of His Only-begotten Son Jesus as a sufficient sacrifice and justification not to
imputesin to that believer. This is amnesty NOT forgiveness of sin. But this Grace of God only
comes into force as a result of two things; the death of Jesus as the Redeemer, and the faith and
baptism of the redeemed. Thus Paul was trying to convince these uncircumcised Israelites that they
could not have it both ways. If they sought justification by circumcision, then they were not only
committing themselves to doing the whole Law, but they were cutting themselves off from Gods
Grace which was dependent solely on acceptance of an Anointed One (Jesus). And since entry into
an anointed (people) now depended on baptism and belief in an Anointed (One), then they were
also cutting themselves off from the anointed (people) whom Jesus, by His act of Redemption had
now placed in a state of freedom from the Levitical Law the yoke of bondage unto death.
Note: The Levitical Law was called the Yoke of Bondage because it could not lift the sentence
of death for breaking the Law. It could only suspend execution of that sentence until the coming of
a GoeI(Redeemer), who was without sin, and who could, and would, lay down His life for Israel
and so have that sentence of death executed on Himself, instead of on Israel.
Circumcision was instituted as a Covenant between God and Abrahams seed until the End of the
Age, or possibly Everlasting. Paul doesnt dispute that nor repudiate it in anyway, but in Rom 4:11
& 12, Paul states that Abraham received this Covenant whilehe himself was still uncircumcised.
He received it as ratifying the promise that he would be the father, not of all the ones circumcised,
but the father of the ones believing that is, all believing uncircumcised persons (as Abraham
was himself at that moment) as well as all believing circumcised persons. Therefore, since faith or
belief in Jesus was now a requirement for acceptance into Israel, and because belief does not
depend on whether one is circumcised or not, then circumcision was no longer a requirement for
entry into Israel as it had been under the Levitical Law before the First Coming, or First Advent of
Jesus to the Earth.
It should now be quite evident that none of the accusations made by the prosecution against Paul
stand up to examination by the Greek text in which Paul wrote his Epistles. This examination again
and again and again reveals that there are, indeed, grave errors and seeming contradictions but that
the guilt for these errors lies with the translators and theologians, not with Paul.
Before the Defence closes its Case, a testimony by a leading witness should be heard by the Jury.
We call upon Peter the Apostle, who wrote in his letter in II Peter 3:16-18
"as our beloved brother, Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as also
in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, wherein are some (things) hard to be
understood, which the unlearned and unsteadfast distort, as also the rest of the Scriptures to
their own destruction. Ye, therefore beloved ones having this advanced knowledge, beware lest
you (get) carried away with the wicked, and fall from your own steadfastness."
The author wishes to thank Mr R K Phillips for various points as given in his tape, The Paul