PAUL, The False Apostle of Christ

• Introduction

Thus far, I have shown that Paul's concept of God's foreknowledge, and his doctrine of predestination not only do not exist in Yeshua's words or the Hebrew Scriptures, but there is much evidence to the contrary to be found in them. We might call this the DNA evidence against him (Doctrine Not Accurate). It is an important part of the case against him. But it is by no means all the evidence there is against his supposed authority. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that he was not even a true apostle of Yeshua... let alone the greatest apostle who ever lived as he is so often eulogized.

There are a number of historical facts, including things that both Yeshua and Paul said as recorded in the Bible, that leave us with some very compelling evidence against his apostleship being recognized in heaven.

There are several interesting facts surrounding this case that should be noted and kept in mind.

• His apostleship was unrecognized by others.

Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yeshua, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!

• "I wanna talk about me!"

No other epistle author in the Bible wrote like Paul. This would be true on a number of levels, but one aspect is of particular interest when we are considering how Paul views himself. He had a way of drawing attention to himself with his usage of personal pronouns. When it comes to how often he uses words like, "I", "me", "my", or "mine", the overall rate in his epistles is almost three times that of his next closest rival. There are a number of reasons why many scholars today believe Paul was not the author of the book of Hebrews. One obvious reason is, in the other epistles credited to him, Paul doesn't hesitate to identify himself along with his supposed credentials. The author of Hebrews is strangely silent on these matters. Many scholars believe Barnabas was the author of Hebrews, but I think Apollos is a far better candidate... but that's a different subject. The point is, no one knows for sure. But Paul certainly couldn't be in the running as the author of Hebrews when one also considers the statistical rate of the personal pronoun usage. The author of Hebrews refers to himself only 9 times, which is approximately 1.3 personal pronouns per thousand words. To help put this in perspective, let's compare the book of Hebrews to the book of Romans. They are both relatively large books of similar length, divided into 13 and 16 chapters respectively. Yet in only the first half of the first chapter of Romans, which is 16 verses worth, Paul uses twice as many personal pronouns as the author of Hebrews uses in his entire book! In the book of Romans, Paul refers to himself 103 times, which is rate of about 18.2 per thousand! That is 13x greater than Hebrews. In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to himself 175 times, in 2Corinthians 103 times again, and in the relatively short book of Galatians, he refers to himself 69 times which is a rate of 25 personal pronouns per 1000 words!

It should be evident that Paul is at least as concerned with making a statement about himself as he is in communicating what he believes to be the truth about God.

His claim of apostleship stands alone.

Other than the twelve apostles who spent three and a half years with Yeshua, no one other than Paul can be identified as having claimed for themselves the title of "apostle". Barnabas was referred to as an apostle along with Paul by Luke in Acts 14:14, but there is no record of Barnabas claiming the title for himself.

• Our view of early church is polarized.

When we take a survey of the New Testament, we notice that Paul is the single greatest contributor to it. When we read the book of Acts, we can't help but get the impression that the great bulk of what God was doing in the early church was happening through Paul. But it is misleading, because the book of Acts was written from only one man's perspective... Luke's. Luke traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys and the bulk of the book of Acts is the account of those travels. What we have in Acts is only one man's point of view, and from Luke's perspective, Paul's story would no doubt have appeared to be front and center stage. There is a likely reason why Luke chose to follow Paul and record his story in the first place. Paul branded himself the apostle to the Gentiles, and Luke, being a Gentile, would have seen Paul as where things were happening for him. When we consider Paul taught that there is no difference in God’s eyes between Jew and Gentile, but all believers in Yeshua now constitute "the true Israel of God", what Gentile who desired to get close to the God of Israel wouldn’t be absolutely thrilled with Paul? But even though the view from the book of Acts is polarized and biased, it is still very important in helping us understand what was happening at that time. Without it we wouldn't have much of an idea at all. What was done and said as recorded by Luke is priceless, and we have no good reason to question what he saw and heard. Luke's own personal thoughts that he interjected occasionally may be questioned, but they are few and far between. I see no good reason to accuse Luke of malicious intent. The important thing to remember is that the book of Acts was written from a very singular point of view.

No doubt, God was doing other things at that same time. We don't have a detailed record of it, but we do have some clues. God was certainly working through the original apostles, and some of those things are recorded in the beginning of Acts. The apostle John was hard at work for his Lord, but we hear very little from him until we get to his epistles and the book of the Revelation at the end of the New Testament.

• Paul's claims of apostleship

Paul was not at all shy about calling himself an apostle. In fact, in nine out of thirteen of his books, he introduces himself as an apostle of Yeshua, and in each case states in some way that his apostleship is by heavenly decree.

Here is the question. Should we automatically believe the testimony of a person who makes grandiose claims about themselves when all we have for confirmation of their claim is little more than their word and maybe a statement or two from their best friend? If so, then we should likewise confirm those like Jim Jones and David Koresh. Unless there is obvious corroborative evidence to support such claims, all of them should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Unlike Paul, a true prophet or apostle does not have to go to such extraordinary lengths to convince the world they are who they say they are. Even Yeshua said that if he alone bore witness of himself, his witness was invalid. John 5:31 And of all the people who shouldn't need to have others testify on their behalf, Yeshua was that person. Yet he had Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, John the Baptist, the Fathers voice from heaven saying, "You are My beloved Son..." and hundreds of those who witnessed his resurrection. Paul had none of these. Though in his conceit, he considered himself to be God's special gift to the Gentiles, and claimed for himself a prophecy that was given exclusively to Isaiah in Isaiah 49:6.

"For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth." Acts 13:47

• Paul, the greatest apostle!

Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that Yeshua had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following.

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10

Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of Yeshua's 12, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble.

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10

Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians.

"But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9

This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch.

"But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14

Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem.

Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33

When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate Yeshua! Can anyone imagine Yeshua playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"?

So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said.

"Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2

• The book of Revelation

Back when I still believed Paul was a legitimate apostle, I was puzzled by one thing. If he was the greatest apostle who ever lived, as Christianity made him out to be, why didn't God give him the greatest prophecy since Yeshua... the book of Revelation? There are some interesting facts surrounding the book of Revelation, and things Yeshua said recorded in it that answer the question why Paul was not given the "Revelation". In other words, there is good reason why Yeshua did not give such an obviously high endorsement of Paul to the world. John was not given the Revelation because Paul was just a lesserapostle compared to him. The implications are far worse for Paul. Paul wasn't given the Revelation because part of the message of Revelation was given for the very purpose of exposing him as a false apostle! There is good reason why Yeshua used John the beloved apostle. He was one of the 12 Yeshua had been with for three and a half years training to be his witness, and he said that John's testimony would remain till he returned. (More on this in the chapter 10, Yeshua’s prophecy concerning Peter)

When was it written?

The first thing we notice about the book of the Revelation is that it has been given to the beloved apostle John. The second thing we need to understand is that the Revelation was most likely given to John during the Neronian persecution around 65 A.D. This was about the same time we hear the last from Paul who was in prison in Rome when he wrote his second epistle to Timothy. We'll come back to 2 Timothy in a moment.

Many Scholars (but by no means all of them) believe that Revelation was written later during the Domitian persecution of A.D.81-96. This theory has its origin in the testimony of the historian Irenaeus who wrote around the year 180 A.D. some 100 years or more later. Irenaeus held Paul in the highest esteem and lived to emulate him. He was also instrumental in pulling together the many splintering factions of Christianity at that time. There is no other reason to assume a later date than A.D. 65 for the writing of Revelation than his say so. But there is significant evidence to contradict him. It is my belief that he saw the devastating impact on Paul’s credibility that an earlier date for Revelation would bring. Fighting division, and wanting union (especially in favor of Paul), he settled on the later date in an attempt to give Paul a little breathing room. This only helps Paul a little. Even in the unlikely case that the Revelation was written later, it continues to reflect badly on Paul as you will see. The other early historians who also render the later date, Victorinus (c. 270), Eusebius (c.328), and Jerome (c. 370) were simply following Irenaeus’ lead.

There is evidence that can be deduced from the book of Revelation itself that calls for an earlier date for it's writing. In chapter 11, John is told to measure the temple. That temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. It is nonsensical to imagine that John was told to measure the temple after it was gone. Also, when one adds up the numerical value of the consonantal letters in the name "N’ron Kahsar" (which is the way all Greek speaking people pronounced the name "Caesar Nero"), the sum totals 666. The churches of Asia would have believed Nero was the beast of which Revelation prophesied... even though he was only a type, a sort of preview of things to come in the distant future, much the way Solomon, David's son, was a preview of Yeshua's coming kingdom.

There is also the consideration of the age of John. Being a contemporary of Yeshua, it is safe to assume that he would have been close to the same age as Yeshua. If John had been as much as 10 years younger than Yeshua, he would have been only 20 when Yeshua called him to follow him. It would seem doubtful that Yeshua would have called someone so young, but for the sake of a conservative estimate, if Johnwas only 20 when he was called by Yeshua, he would have been in his late fifties at the youngest in the year 65. If he had been the same age as Yeshua, he would have been in his late sixties. By first century standards, a person in age from late 50s to late 60s was considered a significantly old person. If the book of Revelation was written in the year 95 as some suggest, at the youngest, John would have been in his late 80s. This was virtually unheard of in the first century. If he had been the same age as Yeshua or older, (not at all out of the question), he would have been in his late 90s to over 100 years old. This is highly improbable. As long as one isn’t trying to salvage Paul’s reputation, the earlier date of 65 A.D. for the writing of Revelation, during the Neronian persecution, fits the data best.

• To whom was it written?

One haunting fact from Revelation Christianity has to deal with, is that in spite of Paul's supposed notoriety, Yeshua didn't call him by name, nor did he give any recognition of his work among the Gentiles. Of the seven churches in Asia to whom the book is originally addressed, one of them we definitely know had significant dealings with Paul. It is Ephesus, the first on the list of the seven. Also, keep in the back of your mind that these seven churches are located in what is called "Asia". We will be coming back to this as well. Here is John's record of Yeshua's command.

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." Revelation 1:10,11

Yeshua goes on to tell John what to say to each church. The general flow of what he said to each church went like this. First, he would tell them what they were doing right and commend them for it. Next he would point out to them where they going wrong and reprimand them for it. Then he would exhort them to repent and change what they were doing wrong, or they would suffer the consequences. Then he would give them a promise of reward if they did repent and overcome their problems. Then, and this is important, at the end of each and every message to a church, he would speak to the whole world and say that what was true and good for this and all seven churches was good for anybody who cared to listen.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". Revelation 2:7,11,17,29 and 3:6,13,22

• Paul and the Ephesians

Now, look at what was said to the church that we know Paul had been involved in... Ephesus. Among the things that Yeshua commended the Ephesian church for doing right, is this quote:

"I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2

Yes. I have no doubts Yeshua was referring to Paul and his companions, and that his claim of apostleship, as well as his doctrine, were false! Hang in there and consider all the facts with me for a minute. Here are four of them... with the silver bullet coming shortly after.

1. Paul's doctrine on the foreknowledge of God is not only groundless (because he had to abuse Scripture to support it), it is blasphemous, because it outright accuses God of unrighteousness. (See previous chapters)

2. We have record of Paul claiming to be an apostle to the Ephesians.

"Paul, an apostle of Yeshua by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus," Ephesians 1:1

3. We have no record of anyone else claiming to be an apostle to anyone anywhere, not even to the Ephesians.

4. Paul and his doctrine had troubles being accepted in Ephesus.

"And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..." Acts 19:8,9

Remember, this is recorded from Luke’s point of view and he believed Paul's doctrine was "the Way". Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans. If these men had stood up in front of the synagogue and said, "Paul's doctrine is flawed. He is a false apostle, and a liar", Luke would no doubt have seen this as "speaking evil of the Way".

If these four reasons are not enough to seriously call into question Paul's status as an apostle there is one more. It is a most interesting quote from Paul's own pen that finally seals the fate of his supposed apostleship. It comes from his second letter to Timothy, written during the same Neronian persecution in which John was given the Revelation. This letter is believed by many scholars to contain the last recorded words of Paul. Here he makes a short statement of lament that seems to have gone unnoticed... the implications of which are devastating to Paul if one is able to hear everything that is being said. Paul makes this statement to Timothy.

"This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2Timothy 1:15

Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "This you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia! The very place that Yeshua told John to write, where his seven churches were! And they were alive, and obviously had been established for some time. Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Yeshua. Obviously they hadn't rejected Yeshua if there were thriving churches there that Yeshua wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally! This is also corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple.

And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him. crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place: and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) Acts 21:27-29

Try to grasp the profound significance of all this. Here we have in the book of Revelation the words of Yeshua commending the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be his apostle, while Paul is the only person other than the twelve original apostles to have claimed to be an apostle... and we know he has made this very claim to this same Ephesian church. At the same time, Paul lamentshimself of the fact that he has been rejected by them! How could it NOT be Paul and his associates that Yeshua had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting? Could it be much more obvious? Here are the facts, paraphrased, one more time.

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Yeshua"

The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."

Yeshua to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

This should at the very least raise serious question about Paul. When we add to this the remaining evidence against his doctrine, as well as the documented fact that he outright lied a number of times (as I will show in the next chapter), we have more than enough reason to do as the Ephesian church and convict Paul of the crime of false impersonation of an apostle!

Yeshua’s description of Paul in Revelation was that he was a false apostle, and a liar. Consider his following words.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Paul A Liar?!

• Introduction

If Yeshua was referring to Paul as a false apostle and liar in the book of Revelation, how is it he was a liar? The claim of apostleship itself might be considered a lie... but in my thinking, the label "liar" implies a person who uses conscious intent to deceive. When Paul called himself an apostle, I believe he thought he was one. Therefore, I would have a hard time actually labeling him as a liar on those grounds alone. I would call him conceited and self-deceived. Interestingly enough, just by the way Yeshua states it, he appears to make the same distinction.

"And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2

Notice that the idea of apostle is completely negated first and then the idea of liar appears to be in addition to the fact. So if Paul was the one Yeshua was referring to, I would expect him to be guilty of using conscious intent to deceive. Here again I would draw a distinction and not include the many errors he had in his doctrines because I’m sure he thought he was right. What I am looking for are outright bold-faced lies.

If Paul’s letters are the inspired and infallible word of almighty God, breathed through Paul by the Holy Spirit as Christian doctrine asserts, would it have been possible for Paul to have told an outright lie in them? I think not. So if he did, what would that by itself directly imply concerning the notion that his words are God’s words? Consider the following.

• Paul and the Jerusalem Council

In the book of Acts, Luke records two separate trips Paul made to Jerusalem to discuss doctrinal matters with the head Messianic leaders Peter and James. The first incident is recorded in Acts 15. Here, as the story goes, there had been a disagreement as to whether the Gentile believers needed to be circumcised, so Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to find an answer to the question. When they came to Jerusalem, the elders received them, and Paul told them of his work among the Gentiles. At this point, a group of believing Pharisees stated that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and require them to keep the Law. This must have been the hot topic of the day, because it was just what Paul and Barnabas had been sent there to discuss. And it says there was "much dispute" among those who were at the conference. Then Peter speaks and makes reference to an event where he had been sent to the Gentile Cornelius, and he goes on to say these words.

"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers or we were able to bear?" Acts 15:8-10

Here Peter is referring to the Gentiles and appears to be calling the Law an unbearable burden. Before going on to the subject of Paul, a couple of things need to be addressed in this quote because there are those in the Jewish community who can’t believe Peter or James would ever call the Law an unbearable burden. Some would rather charge Luke with dishonest reporting. As mentioned before, I see no reason to accuse Luke of malice. I believe Luke accurately recorded what he saw and heard. The people he quotes may have been in doctrinal error, and his own commentaries may have been made in Paul-induced ignorance, but I personally have a hard time with the notion that Luke was part of a grand conspiracy to destroy the Law. I see Luke as a very typical everyday person, a Gentile with honorable intentions. He also records events which end up convicting Paul as well as support him! When he is discredited as a reporter, nothing he says is reliable anymore.

The key to understanding Peter’s quote which appeared to call the Law an unbearable burden is to remember who started the argument and who he is addressing... the Pharisees. (see previous three verses. Acts 15:5-7) Even Yeshua called their idea of the Law a burden. He said:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do. But do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do. For they bindheavy burdens hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:2-4

These words must have been echoing in Peter’s ears when he heard the Pharisees demand that the Gentiles keep the Law. He knew what their idea of the Law was... with all its added oral traditions… a burden! Yeshua kept the whole Law as found in Moses, and yet said these words.

"My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt.11:30 NKJV

Here is what the apostle John said about God's Law.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:3

The true unadulterated Law of Moses is not unbearable. But Peter and James did not want the Pharisees dictating to the Gentiles their idea of the Law with all its traditions, additions and amendments. This is what Peter was referring to when he called the Law an unbearable yoke.

As the story continues, Paul and Barnabas tell of "the many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles". Then James begins to speak, and after a short speech says:

"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21

Here James is endorsing dietary and sexual purity laws along with Moses in general. It is reasonable to assume that James intended for the four laws he outlined to be a kind of stop-gap measure, to keep the new believers from defiling themselves before they could receive the rest of the Law through the reading of Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. The continued hallowing of the Sabbath is evident in that James uses the present tense word "being", and the attendance of the new Gentile believers to synagogue on the Sabbath is obviously assumed. The idea of "troubling" the Gentiles is his way of saying the Pharisaic laws were too much of a burden. The issue of circumcision is left up in the air. Again, it appears that James intended the new believers to be convicted when they heard Moses read in the synagogues and as a result, follow through with the rest of the Law including circumcision. This was his way of trying to keep as many of the factions together without unduly reproaching the believing Pharisees, and allowing for the Gentiles to receive a more unadulterated version of the Law.

The Messianic leaders then decided to write a letter to the Gentile believers. This was to be the official position on the issue, and it was given to Paul, Barnabas, and other leading men of the congregation who went with them to confirm its authenticity and see that it was delivered properly. The part of this official decision that we will focus on is the list of four immediate requirements concerning dietary and sexual purity laws. They are listed a second time in the official letter itself:

"…For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:28,29

Twice, these four requirements are listed in Acts 15. Later in the book, Paul returns again to Jerusalem, only this time he was in trouble for what he had been teaching. After a short lecture to Paul concerning what he had been hearing about him, James makes this statement.

"But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25

There they are again. The same four requirements listed a third time.

• The Lie

In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem council meeting.

First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book of Galatians.

Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta of spiritual emancipation". One reference says, "…it remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident to the reader of Galatians that Paul’s position against the Law is quite hostile. His intention is to convince the Galatian believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including circumcision. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these quotes:

"…for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified." Galatians 2:16

"But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident…" Galatians 3:11

Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us."

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…" Galatians 3:13

The law is not a curse, nor does it of itself bring one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it is man and not the Law that is the problem.

"Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4

He even drops his own name as the foremost authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal lie.

"For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’". Galatians 5:14

This is only the second greatest commandment. Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Yeshua said to him, "’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love God with all our heart: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."

Paul is so filled with malice toward those who preach circumcision that he wishes they would take the knife and cut their own penises off! Galatians 5:11,12 He refers to circumcision as "the mutilation" in Philippians 3:2. His attitude toward the Law and those who teach it is obviously quite hostile.

Now, keeping Paul's anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at Paul’s recollection to the Galatians of his first meeting with the Jerusalem council.

"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles… But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter… and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I was also eager to do." Galatians 2:1,2,6-7,9-10

This is Paul’s version of what happened. When he said that the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie? Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What's more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had Jerusalem’s full support... in spite of the fact that he didn't think he needed it from those who only "seemed" to be something and "added nothing" to him. In light of his message, he could not afford to tell the truth, that the official edict from Jerusalem included four requirements from the Law of Moses, three of which were dietary. So he told them a lie when he said, "They desired only that we remember the poor". The official letter read that the Gentiles were to "keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." And this lie isn't just a matter of conveniently leaving some things out, he left all the commands out, and then replaced them with one that wasn't even in the official letter. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of "the poor"! And then Paul has the gall to state it like, "...and they didn't need to tell me that. I have always been eager to remember the poor. See, those who only seemed to be something can't even add that to me." What is it going to take for Christianity to see the lies and incredible arrogance of Paul? Read the passage above again if necessary.

Paul begins telling the Galatians of his contacts with the Jerusalem Messianic leaders in Galatians 1:18. Just before this, in verses 11 and 12, he had told them that his doctrine was given to him by divine revelation. In other words, it didn't come from the original apostles who had spent three and a half years with Yeshua and only "seemed" to be pillars of the church. When Paul tells of his meeting with the Jerusalem leaders, his attitude was that the original apostles were of no significance to him, but... if it mattered to the Galatians... he indicated in Galatians 2:9 that he still had Peter, James, and John’s full support anyway. This is the picture Paul is painting.

After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of the Gentiles, he says these words.

"Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie." Galatians 1:20

Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying! Yeshua had a few words to say concerning this type of oath:

"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne’ nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’, and your ‘No’ be ‘No’. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." Matthew 5:33-37

Paul’s own words convict him again. He was a liar, along with being a false apostle just as Yeshua had commended the Ephesian church for exposing. He was a liar regardless of whether or not the Ephesian church was aware of this particular lie. But it is not at all unlikely that the Ephesian church was very familiar with both Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the official letter from the Jerusalem council. The Jerusalem council letter would have been circulated to all the Gentile churches, and we know that Paul’s letters were being copied and circulated among the churches as well . Peter makes this apparent in 2 Peter 3:15,16 when he speaks of Paul and the content of "all his epistles". Peter could not say this without being familiar with most if not all of them! One can also see from the passage that he assumes his readers are aware of them as well. (2 Peter 3:15,16 is the passage in which Peter appears to call Paul's letters Scripture. I deal with this issue in chapter 10.)

The fact that Paul lied to the Galatians is by itself enough to establish him as a liar, but once a person crosses that line he will likely continue the practice. His lie to the Galatians is by no means his only lie.

• Paul's lie before the Sanhedrin

When Paul was arrested in the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem, he had to be rescued from the Jews by the Romans. On the following day, the Roman commander allowed Paul to be taken before Ananias the high priest and the Sanhedrin to defend himself from the charges against him. During this trial of sorts, Paul makes an interesting claim.

But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:6,7

This was a divide-and-conquer ploy in which there was not one shred of truth. For Paul to say he was being judged on the issue of the resurrection of the dead was an outright lie. It had nothing to do with his arrest. The truth concerning why he was arrested is recorded a little earlier in Acts.

...the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place..." Acts 21:27,28 NKJV

The truth is that Paul was being judged on the matter of bringing to nothing the importance of Israel, the Law of Moses, and the temple. For Paul to suggest otherwise was a lie. He had said earlier that he was willing to die in Jerusalem for what he believed. The question is, when it finally came down to it, why didn't he have the courage to stand by what he had been teaching the Gentiles?

• Paul's lie to King Agrippa

Later in Acts, Paul lied to King Agrippa when recounting his conversion experience on the road to Damascus.

The story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is recorded three times in the book of Acts. The first is documented in the narrative by the author, Luke.

And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Yeshua, whom you are persecuting, It is hard for you to kick against the goads." So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" And the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." Acts 9:3-19

The second account is Paul's personal account of his experience as given before the angry Jews in Jerusalem.

"Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' So I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Yeshua of Nazareth, Whom you are persecuting.' ...So I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.' Acts 22:6-15

There is no significant problem or conflict in these two accounts. Even with the slight variations, the main points remain basically the same. The fact is, they are consistent and corroborate each other. The third record of Paul's conversion experience is given by Paul in his own defense before King Agrippa. Here is how the story goes now.

"While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' So I said, 'Who are You , Lord?' And he said, 'I am Yeshua, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes and to turn them from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision..." Acts 26:12-19

Now wait just a minute Paul! According to what you and Luke have previously testified, when you asked Yeshua what you were to do, he told you to do absolutely nothing other than to go to Damascus, andthere you would be told "all things" you were to do! Now you want us to believe Yeshua told you all of this on the spot?

This is not just a simple case of information having been left out of the first two accounts. If in fact Yeshua had actually come out and said anything like, "Here is the reason why I have appeared to you...", what Yeshua said immediately following this would naturally be the focal point and highlight of every recollection of the encounter! But nothing of the sort can be found in the first two accounts. On the contrary, what Paul said he was told to do in the first two accounts proves that what he said in the third account was a fabricated lie. Was he told all things he was to do by Yeshua himself on the road, or did Yeshua tell him to go to Damascus where he would be told all things he was to do?

It should be apparent that Paul wanted to paint a picture for King Agrippa that he believed was his unavoidable destiny, so he embellished the account of his vision with a lie. The part of his story in bold print above is a total fabrication... sounding far more like something Paul would say than something Yeshua would say. The main purpose for Yeshua confronting Paul is obvious and found in his first words: "Why are you persecuting me?" Yeshua's purpose was to stop the persecution! The fact that Paul didn't reject Yeshua but submitted to him with the words, "What would you have me do?" is a secondary outgrowth from the event. Had Paul stubbornly tried to continue on his way to Damascus to arrest the Messianic believers, it would have been the end of him on the spot. The scene is very reminiscent of Balaam being stopped by the Angel of the Lord because he intended to curse Israel. The parallels between Paul and Balaam are striking. They both started out as enemies of God on their way to curse God's people when they were stopped by a blinding vision on the way. They both repented, converted and served God for a short while, then turned on Him and His people again. If it can happen to Balaam, why not Paul? For more details on this incredible parallel, read 'Jesus Words Only' by Douglas DelTondo.

From Paul's fabricated story, it is evident that he designed it to impress upon King Agrippa the picture that it was Yeshua's plan that he be delivered from the Gentiles by him. But Yeshua never said those words, and as proof that it was one big fat lie, Paul never was delivered from the Gentiles.

A little later in the story, Festus and Agrippa mock Paul (Acts 26:24,28) and come to the conclusion that Paul was little more than a harmless crackpot. This is when Paul opts for making an appeal to Caesar for justice in the matter. Christianity has generally thought of Paul's appeal to Caesar as a brilliant tactical maneuver. But something King Agrippa said to Festus seems to go unnoticed.

"This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." Acts 26:32

Paul's appeal to Caesar is the subject matter of the next chapter.

Paul A Coward?!

• Introduction

One common way of dealing with an opponent is to opt for the character assassination tactic. Most of us who hold to a position that has its enemies have been victim of this kind of treatment. Yeshua certainly experienced it at the hands of the religious leaders of his day. It is the practice of focusing on destroying the source of the offending doctrine... the person, rather than deal with the issues involved. All issues involved in the debate, including character issues, need to be considered. Character is important. A person's character tells much about their reliability, and it is a significant factor when searching for the truth. But ignoring the issues by refusing honorable debate, and opting only for the attack on a person's character with lies and distortions is itself a cowardly act.

When it comes to Paul, I have dealt with the substantive issues of doctrine logically and honorably, and shown where his error has been. In the previous chapter I showed how Paul lied to the Galatians, the Sanhedrin, and King Agrippa. The fact that he lied was born out to show that it was indeed Paul who Yeshua referred to as a false apostle and liar in Revelation 2:2, and to call into serious question the idea that Paul's words are the infallible Word of God. The fact that Paul outright lied to the Galatians, the Sanhedrin, and King Agrippa is a blemish on his character record. Now we need to consider other character issues concerning Paul. We will see that in spite of the fact that Paul started out with some courage, suffering significant persecution at the beginning of his missionary work, near the end, when it finally came to hard choices, Paul went back on his confession of courage and took the cowardly way out. As you will see, it is the kind of thing that no one would ever expect from Yeshua or any true man of God.

When I suggest that Paul lost his courage and became a coward, the question arises... "How can you call Paul a coward when he suffered so much persecution and ended up dying a martyr?" First of all, a true martyr is one who is given the choice to recant or die, and chooses not to recant. That takes true courage and conviction. If one is simply executed as a Christian without having been given a choice, as Paul was with many other Christians in Rome because Nero needed a scapegoat to blame for the fires, no courage can be implied. It is one thing to be involved in risky endeavors that might lead to persecution. In those situations one is forced to deal with events as they arise. It is quite another thing how a person responds when the ultimate choice of life or death is presented to them.

Setting the stage

Near the end of Paul's missionary journeys, the Messianic believers of the time were in disarray as to what should be done about Paul. The Gentiles, with a few exceptions, generally embraced him and his doctrine. The Messianic Jews on the other hand, with even fewer exceptions, had a very difficult time accepting him. This is born out in Acts when Paul made his final trip back to Jerusalem.

On the following day Paul went in with us to James and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place..." Acts 21:17-28a

I have already dealt with the issue of the Jerusalem council's edict concerning the four dietary and sexual purity laws that were to be observed by the Gentile believers...the ones that Paul lied about to the Galatians. But Paul's message didn't just affect the Gentiles. Here he is being accused of including the Jews. James' response is that this had better not be true! When we consider what Paul taught, it is no wonder the Jews took offense.

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,..." Galatians 3:27,28a

"Indeed, I Paul say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law, you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." Galatians 5:2-6

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon theIsrael of God." Galatians 6:15,16

Paul has clearly stated in no uncertain terms that in his eyes there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. In fact, he thinks that the only Israel that God recognizes anymore is a spiritual Israel made up of both Jew and Gentile who reject the Law and live by faith. This is the foundation stone of what is termed "replacement theology" where the church has supposedly replaced the nation of Israel. This belief is responsible for all of Christian anti-Semitism that has been perpetrated against Jewish people throughout history. And if this were not enough, Paul has the gall to do a complete flip flop of the Jewish picture of the unclean Gentiles and refer to his own people as dogs and evil workers, and to circumcision as "the mutilation".

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh..." Philippians 3:2,3

Here are some more anti-Law quotes from Paul's letters. First to the Corinthians he puts himself above Moses by saying;

"Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what waspassing away". 2Corinthians 3:12,13

And to the Ephesians in Asia he said;

"...having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is , the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,..." Ephesians 2:15a

With these kinds of quotes available and going around at the time, is it any wonder that James and the elders said;

"...they (the Messianic Jews) have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs." Acts 21:21

Nor is it any wonder the Jews from Asia (Ephesus and Galatia) said;

"Men of Israel help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place;" Acts 21:28

Paul's doctrine is the hot topic of the day. The very fact that he was accused of being anti-Law to this extent in his own day does away with the argument from pro-Paul Observant Messianic Jews, which suggests that Paul's letters have been misunderstood. People everywhere were talking about him even then. The quotes above that we have in writing are enough to indict him today! One can only wonder what he said to the people in person. Paul's contemporaries had him there in the flesh to ask him if he was being misunderstood. Obviously, he wasn't misunderstood. They understood him perfectly well.

The fact that Paul lost his spine for his doctrine in the face of James' request that he demonstrate his loyalty to Moses by involving himself in a Nazirite purification rite that culminated in animal sacrifices is in itself evidence of cowardice. But this is not the worst of it. Shortly before this encounter with James in Jerusalem, Paul boasted that he was willing to die for his cause.

• The boast

Remember, the hot topic of the day was Paul's downright anti-Semitic/anti-Law doctrine. On his way to Jerusalem he was stopped by several people who told him not to go to Jerusalem. One of these was a man named Agabus.

When he (Agabus) had come to us, he took Paul's belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" Acts 21:11

First, let's address the idea that Agabus was a true prophet. The test of a prophet is really very simple. If what he says comes to pass, then he is for real. If not, then he has spoken from his own heart and he is a false prophet. The account of what actually happened to Paul was quite the opposite of what Agabus had prophesied. Agabus said that the Jews would bind him and give him to the Gentiles. But Acts goes on to record that the Jews were trying to kill Paul themselves and the Roman centurion had to rescue him. From that point on, the Jews were continually trying to have Paul delivered to them by the Gentiles! Read Acts 21:30-ch.23:22 Agabus' prophecy sounds more like what happened to Yeshua. He was bound by the Jews and delivered to the Gentiles. Agabus was obviously in agreement with Paul and his doctrine and was speaking from his own heart. Many there are today and in times past who desire the image of a prophet. They will tend to make prognostications that are relatively safe bets. In Paul's time, considering the massive amount of scuttlebutt going around concerning him and the anger of the Jews in Jerusalem, it was a very safe bet that Paul was going to run into trouble in Jerusalem. Agabus simply capitalized on the obvious and since he thought that Paul was the best thing to come along since Yeshua, he apparently figured he was in for a parallel fate. But he missed it.

Paul's response to Agabus when he gave the supposed prophecy is of primary interest here.

And when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, "What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 21:12,13

• The run

This sure sounds noble and brave if not outright boastful, but watch what transpires. We have looked at Paul's arrest and how the Gentiles had to save him from the hands of the Jews in Acts 21:30-ch 23:22. After this he was sent to Felix to be protected from the Jews. Ch. 23:23-ch. 24:27 There he stays for some time while Felix procrastinates dealing with the issue. Then Festus comes along and is compelled to do something about Paul and asks Paul a question.

But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning these things?" Then Paul said, "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar." Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" Acts 25:9-12

Caesar!!! Of all the people to seek justice from, Paul opts for appealing to the likes of Caesar Nero!! Nero! You know..., that blood thirsty tyrant who murdered untold numbers of innocent people including his own mother! And Paul says that this is where he "ought to be judged"! This is the height of hypocrisy for Paul in light of the fact that he had previously instructed the Corinthians not to seek justice from the unrighteous. All of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is telling... here are the highlights.

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?... If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?... Now therefore, it is an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another, Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?" 1 Corinthians 6:1,4,7

Paul couldn't even practice what he preached. And what ever happened to, "I am willing to die in Jerusalem for Christ"? It was a statement of willingness to be a martyr and "accept wrong". Paul tried to explain to Festus that he didn't deserve to die because he had done nothing wrong. What martyr ever thought he deserved to die? Can anyone imagine Yeshua saying to Pilate, "I don't deserve to die. I appeal to Caesar for justice"? Of course not! And what is just as absurd is that Paul said he was willing to go to his death if he did deserve it! How many individuals who know they deserve death are perfectly willing to go quietly to their execution? This entire picture that Paul has painted is stood on its head! True martyrs, like Yeshua, go quietly. The guilty at least protest, if not scream, all the way! It was the grandest act of cowardice Paul could have made in light of the fact that he had bragged he was willing to die as a martyr. He didn't go through with it because the bottom line for Paul was the preservation ofself and the image he had made for himself among the Gentiles. As has been shown in previous chapters, Paul was terribly full of himself... even putting himself above Moses. No one who is full of themselves is truly willing to die as a martyr. They might well brag that they are, because they are full of themselves... to uplift their image in the eyes of men. But when it comes down to hard choices, self-centered men will always play the coward.

Paul knew what to expect in Jerusalem. He knew that the Jews had probably obtained copies of his letters and were preparing to cross examine him about the things he had written. They might very well have had it in mind to bring up the quotes mentioned above from Galatians and Philippians. And besides all this we have to ask: Where in the world was James? Why didn't he come to Paul's defense seeing he had "myriads" of observant Messianic Jews following his leadership? If it was all just a simple misunderstanding why didn't James straighten things out? Remember, it was James who put Paul up to going to the temple to prove himself in the first place! James had been made aware of Paul's writings and knew he couldn't defend him. Paul, on the other hand, didn't stand a chance in Jerusalem and he knew it. He knew Nero didn't care one bit about the Jewish Law. He might well have had it in mind to bring to Nero's attention other things he had written... like:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2

This would have been music to Nero's ears.

• Festus' decree

There have been times when God has grabbed the voice of a King, Prophet, Priest, or even donkey, to seize the moment and make a statement. Festus' words were likely one such time. We should hear the voice of God in the words; "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" God was telling Paul that he would find out how much justice, let alone mercy, he would find at Nero's seat for making such a foolish appeal.

Later in the book of Acts, just before a shipwreck, Paul has a dream. An angel speaks to him and tells him among other things, "you must be brought before Caesar". Acts 27:23,24 I don't doubt that Paul had been given a vision. In his arrogance, Paul naturally put a positive spin on the prophecy. Yet one can't help hearing echoes of Festus' words in them. God had spoken through Festus, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" It was therefore necessary for Paul to survive the shipwreck to fulfill them and stand before Caesar. We now know how much justice Paul found at Nero's seat. None. Paul was neither successful in converting Nero, if he was even given a chance to speak at all, nor did he find the justice he sought. What other purpose could there have been to make it a "must" to be "brought before Caesar"?

Yeshua’s Prophecy Concerning Peter Did Peter endorse Paul?

Introduction

Whenever Paul is called into question, someone inevitably states that even Peter called Paul's letters "Scripture". This is taken from 2 Peter and assuming the book is authentic. * (see footnote at end of chapter) I personally tend to give the book the benefit of the doubt. The passage in question is the following.

"…and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." 2Peter 3:15,16

Before we get to the subject of Yeshua’s prophecy to Peter, there are several facts in this quote that need to be clearly pointed out. First, notice that there is only one issue stated by Peter in which we know he is in agreement with Paul... the patience-in-persecution issue. Second, the "things hard to understand" are not identified in this short passage, much less outlined as to which position is correct and which is the "twisted" version. This is again because the context of the next verse is almost always left out. Here, Peter clearly tells us which version is the twisted version.

"You therefore, beloved, since you know these things beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the Law-less." 2 Peter 3:17

Third, it is particularly interesting to note that in spite of the fact that Peter has obviously read what he believes to be "all" of Paul’s epistles and is therefore fully aware of Paul claiming to be an apostle, Peter does not call him a fellow apostle, but instead calls him "brother"! Fourth, claiming that Peter was endorsing Paul’s letters, as "Scriptures" is taking great liberties in interpretation. Though the Greek word for "Scripture" does in fact mean "Holy Writings", and the Greek word for "rest" means "the rest of any number or class under consideration", when Peter said, "as they do", he was merely comparing similarities in the way some people deal with both Paul’s writings and the Holy Word of God. To say that Peter actually called Paul's letters "Scripture" is a long abstract connection. If all we had were this passage, just exactly what Peter thinks of Paul’s writings is somewhat up for grabs.

But it can't be denied that Peter is in fact being considerate and speaking favorably of Paul. This is in spite of the fact that Paul never returns the favor when he makes mention of Peter. Whenever he does, Peter is always left looking bad. If we read the next verse, we see that Peter obviously takes a stand against the Law-less doctrine that many are deriving from Paul's letters, but he continues to speak favorably of Paul. He apparently refuses to admit to himself or believe that Paul was in fact preaching that the Law had been abrogated. At that time, Peter must have been attempting to smooth over the situation.

This brings us to a prophecy that Yeshua gave to Peter shortly before his ascension, the implications of which should cause us no surprise that Peter continues to be used to support Paul to this day.

• The Prophecy concerning Peter

In the last chapter of Johns' gospel, Yeshua issued a prophecy concerning Peter that has a definite connection to the subject at hand. Yeshua said:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you bound yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will bind you and take you where you do not wish." John 21:18

If these few words concerning Peter’s future were all we had to go on, what could be determined from them? It could not include more than a couple things. Peter would be taken where he did not want to go, and it was not a good sounding prophecy. But the narrative comes to the rescue with the interpretation of this prophecy in the very next sentence.

"This he spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God." John 21:19

First note that these words of interpretation are not the words of Yeshua, but are the commentary of the writer, John. It can be deduced from the remaining context that this interpretation concerning Peter’s martyrdom was generally accepted by all.

Here is the question. How could the disciples possibly get the idea of "death" from Yeshua’s words? It may not have been a good sounding prophecy, but it certainly doesn't give any picture of Peter dying. Tradition tells us that Peter was crucified up side down, but this is only a tradition. Even if this were true, one can find even less of this picture in Yeshua’s words. Many translations read, "...you will stretchout your hands..." This is a classic example of how accepted traditional interpretations can play a large albeit damaging role in the translating process. The Greek word translated "out" primarily means to stretch out in front toward something. The King James Version translates this most correctly, "...thou shalt stretch forth thy hands...". This is hardly a picture of a crucifixion. Also, the chronological order of the events listed in the prophecy would be backwards if this were a picture of a crucifixion. This is easy to see when one reads one of today's popular paraphrased versions which reads, "...when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and take you where you do not want to go." It is hard to imagine someone dressing Peter while he is on a cross and then taking him some place that he didn't want to go. I'd figure he was there already! If this were a picture of a crucifixion, Yeshua would have put it in the proper chronological order as he did in the first part of his statement when he said to Peter, "...when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished...". If this were a picture of a crucifixion, Yeshua would have said to Peter, "...when you are old, another will gird you and take you where you do not wish, and you will stretch out your hands."

• Correlation of Peter’s and John’s prophecy

Let's get back to the question... how could the disciples possibly get the idea of "death" from Yeshua’s prophecy to Peter? The answer is in the next few verses.

"Then Peter, turning around saw the disciple whom Yeshua loved following... Peter, seeing him, said to Yeshua, "But Lord, what about this man?" Yeshua said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow me". Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. John 21:20-23a

There it is! Peter and the rest of them who were still scratching their heads over what was said about Peter, were smart enough to know that how Yeshua answered the question about John would help them understand what he had said about Peter. Voila! So, if John was going to live until Yeshua returned, that must mean that Peter’s negative prophecy meant he was going to die! It only stood to reason, and in fact was pretty good logic. But it assumed that they clearly understood what Yeshua was saying about John! How Yeshua had answered the question about John certainly did have a close correlation to what he had said about Peter, but the problem is that the disciples didn't understand the prophecy concerning John either! This is obvious in light of the following text. Stay with me on this. I'll warn the reader that it gets a little involved as we sort through this, but it all comes together beautifully in the end... and the truth is something very few have seen since Yeshua spoke these words. .

• Unraveling John’s prophecy first

Let's focus on John's prophecy. Most scholars agree that verse 24 was added by someone other than John. It was most likely John's disciples shortly before, or more likely, shortly after John's death.

"This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." John 21:24

The plural word "we" in this verse is very much out of place with the singular "I" of the very next verse.

"And there are also many other things that Yeshua did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25

This last statement of John has a very familiar ring to it. It sounds strikingly similar to the last two verses of the preceding chapter.

"And truly Yeshua did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30,31

In the entire script of the book of John, there are no other passages that sound like these two. I believe John had originally ended his record of the gospel at the end of chapter 20, but then decided that in light of what could still be written, he would add to his record what we have come to know as chapter 21. The reason I add this observation here is because it is important to note that John has set a precedent and shown us how he would tend to end his record. In chapter 20, he goes from a direct quote of Yeshua in verse 29, to verse 30, and 31 as quoted above. The new end of his record and what he actually wrote in chapter 21 is very similar. This helps us to understand what parts at the end of the 21st chapter are actually John's and what parts were added later by disciples. We already know some was added.

Getting back to the reason why John’s disciples added what they did. No doubt the death, or prospect of John’s death was causing problems with the common interpretation of Yeshua's prophecy concerning him. Everyone thought John would not die. And now they were being forced to admit that maybe John and the others who had heard the prophecy that day might have misunderstood Yeshua. They did not want John’s record to make Yeshua look like a liar, and far be it from them to let the misunderstanding continue over what was probably no more than a case of missing one small word. So to remedy the problem they settled on the understanding that Yeshua must have said, "If I will that he remain till I come..."

If in fact Yeshua had said "If", this would cause several problems for my thinking besides the fact that I think they completely misunderstood Yeshua right from the start. First, if indeed Yeshua had clearly said, "If I will that he remain", I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person would take this statement and run with it, claiming that Yeshua had definitely said John would not die. If the "If" were common knowledge, reasonable thinking people wouldn't push the hypothetical question to a definite statement. Yet it says in verse 23.

"Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple (John) would not die."

Secondly, the statement of Yeshua as recorded with the "if" is grammatically incorrect! If the statement of Yeshua had started with the "if" as a hypothetical question, then the last half of the question should not have been stated as though it were following a definite statement. In short, if Yeshua had said "If I will that he remain", he should have continued to follow it with the hypothetical question; "whatwould that be to you?" But he didn't. He said, "what is that to you?"

Here is what happened. Yeshua’s statement concerning John was no less a prophecy, nor was it any less definite than was his prophecy concerning Peter which started with... "Most assuredly, I say to you...". I believe he said...

"I will that he (John) remain till I come! What is that to you?"

This makes perfect sense why everyone interpreted it the way they did and subsequently used it to interpret what Yeshua had said about Peter. Everyone including Peter himself. Peter continued to believe this interpretation until he did die a martyrs death. He mentions it himself in his second epistle.

"...knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Yeshua the Messiah showed me." 2 Peter 1:14

But when John was obviously coming to the end of his life and his disciples began to realize they had missed it somewhere, they thought to themselves and reasoned just like anyone would. They thought to themselves… "Yeshua must have said 'if', and the 'if' just wasn't heard. The focus of his statement must not have been on John as we thought. He must have been simply telling Peter to mind his own business." Read the account again and see if this doesn't sound like what happened.

22 Yeshua said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow me." 23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Yeshua did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things that Yeshua did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

It appears that John’s disciples, in an attempt to try to remedy an apparent misunderstanding, added the "if" in verse 22, and all of verses 23 and 24 as highlighted. John’s ending and actual words of chapter 21 read like this,

Yeshua said to him, "I will that he remain till I come! What is that to you? You follow me". And there are also many other things that Yeshua did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Now compare the last three verses of the previous chapter where John had originally ended, and notice how it is uncluttered with explanatory apologetics... and notice the similar flow.

Yeshua said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." And truly Yeshua did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

If it is true that Yeshua did not say "if", but said, "I will that he (John) remain till I come", we are left back at square one in the same difficult spot John’s disciples had been in. It doesn't make sense. John died a long time ago! What could Yeshua have meant by, "I will that he remain till I come."

I must digress a little further from Peter's prophecy, but hang in there with me and watch it all come together.

• Still unraveling John's prophecy Past precedence for help

To help us understand what Yeshua meant about John, let’s take a look at some other passages found in the Gospels where Yeshua was completely misunderstood. It seems to have happened on a fairly regular basis. When trying to understand what Yeshua meant by what he said, the greatest tool available to help us understand is the context in which a statement is found. What was said in the same scene before and after a curious statement will give us the best clues as to its meaning. We need to see that Yeshua virtually always had an underlying theme threaded through his discourses. As will be shown, this could not be more true with respect to Peter's and John’s prophecies.

When a passage seems to jump out of its context with no apparent connection to what was said before or after, red flags should appear. This is especially true in this first example found in two places. After Yeshua had prophesied concerning what was going to happen on earth just before he returned, he said:

"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled." Matthew 24:34,35 and Luke 21: 32,33

The most common interpretation of this passage suggests that those in the future who are alive at the time the prophecies begin to come true would live to see all of them fulfilled. But Yeshua had clearly said, "this generation", and not that generation. Everyone who heard him that day heard him say that they would not pass away. They knew he was talking about them. It is only now, many hundreds of years after that generation has passed away that we feel forced to accept the current prevailing interpretation.

Any person with an interest in the events that must transpire at the close of this age is very familiar with these words and uses them to bolster the argument that Yeshua will return in our lifetime. I personally still have plenty of good reason to believe he is coming soon, but I no longer use this passage as an argument for the case because it is not what Yeshua meant. The people who were there that day heard him correctly!

Of those today who are familiar with these words of Yeshua, the vast majority of them could not quote from memory the next verse, which was undoubtedly spoken in the very next breath. Yet virtually every one of them knows this passage and has likely quoted it as many times as the former verse. The reason is because there is no direct connection that one can draw between the traditional interpretations of these two statements. Yet it should be painfully obvious there must be a connection. Both verses together read:

"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away." Matthew 24:34,35

See the connection? The people heard Yeshua correctly that day and they knew he was talking about them. But what was missed is that Yeshua was not referring to them and their physical bodies passing away. He was referring to them in a figure of speech again. He was talking about that generation’s testimony and their record of the prophetic words he had just spoken. Every time we pick up a Bible and read what Yeshua had prophesied concerning events before his return, we are seeing this prophecy fulfilled before our very eyes. We are in a figure, holding that generation in our hands and bringing to life their testimony of Yeshua's words. That generation’s testimony of Yeshua’s words has not passed away! It is inconceivable to think that they might when we consider the millions of Bibles in print all over the world and how close we are to Yeshua's return. From this example alone, one should see the importance of not letting an interpretation stand alone out of its context.

The other main point we need to see from the fact that Yeshua was not referring to the physical bodies of the people of that generation, but was speaking of their testimony, is that he was using the same figure of speech when he said John would remain! Notice the words "pass away" and their correlation to the word "remain" in John’s prophecy. What does not pass away, obviously must remain!

Hopefully by now one might begin to see where this is going. But I would first like to further support this thesis with one more short example of a similar misunderstanding in John. This one is covered in chapter 1, but if you missed it, here it is again.

"Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. …for my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." ...Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying. Who can understand it?" John 6: 51,55,60

Yeshua gives the disciples the interpretation in verse 63.

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

Here again, in spite of the fact that Yeshua had appeared emphatic that his flesh and blood were edible, he was not literally talking about his physical flesh and blood. He was speaking about his words, histestimony. The same as in Matthew and Luke, when he spoke of the generation that would "not pass away". He was not speaking of their literal physical bodies, but of their word, which was their testimony.

In John 15:16 Yeshua said to his disciples:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain."

• John's prophecy finally unraveled

It was indeed Yeshua’s will that John remain just as he said. And he has! Every time we read the gospel of John or the book of Revelation, Yeshua’s words are being fulfilled in front of our very eyes. John remains with us to this day!

Back to Peter

Now that we understand Yeshua’s prophecy concerning John, we should be able to use it to help interpret his prophecy concerning Peter. The disciples were right in assuming a connection between the two. But let’s go back to the beginning of the particular discourse in which both of these prophecies are found so we can see the beautiful underlying theme that Yeshua had on his mind throughout the entire scene... and from which he never swerves from start to finish.

To set the scene, Yeshua has appeared to his disciples the third time after his resurrection, and this time while they were fishing. He fills their net with fish then says, "Come eat breakfast." After breakfast they get up and go for a walk. The discourse begins.

Yeshua said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes Lord; You know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs". He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know all things; You know that I love you." Yeshua said to him, "Feed my sheep. Most assuredly I say to you, when you were younger, you bound yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will bind you and take you where you do not wish." John 21:15-18

Is it not obvious, that what was on Yeshua’s mind in this scene is the feeding of his sheep after he left? And how else could Peter possibly accomplish this other than by telling others of what he had seen and heard? Again the issue is the same. Yeshua was concerned about Peter’s words, his testimony, his record of what he had seen and heard over the previous three and one half years. This is the very same underlying theme of John’s prophecy as has been shown. It was John's word... his testimony... his record that would remain intact until Yeshua returned. Not his physical body.

This entire scene begins with Yeshua talking about someone’s testimony, and it ends with Yeshua’s prophecy about someone’s testimony. All that is left between is Yeshua’s prophecy concerning Peter! Would it not be safe to assume that he was speaking about Peter’s testimony as opposed to Peter physically?

Before continuing, there is one more interesting fact that needs to be added to this equation.

As I have previously discussed at length in chapter 1, in the Gospel of John, it is recorded 25 times that Yeshua used the emphatic phrase, "most assuredly, I say to you…". In all but two instances, what is said by Yeshua immediately following it has a direct connection to something that was said earlier in the same discourse. The first instance where it is not obvious that what Yeshua said after has any connection to something said before is the very first time it is recorded in John. I addressed it in chapter 1 and showed that the precedence holds true there. The second time there is no obvious connection is the last time it is used in John and this time it is spoken to Peter just before Yeshua issued his prophecy concerning him. In this last case there is no exception to the well established rule. But we would have to make an exception here if we were to except the traditional interpretation of Peter’s prophecy. The old interpretation is clearly an issue of how Peter would die. Peter feeding the sheep with Yeshua's words and testimony of him has no relevance or connection to how Peter might die.

Now we have from both before and after the prophecy, strong evidence to suggest that what Yeshua said to Peter has nothing to do with Peter’s physical life and death. Instead it had everything to do with hisword and testimony, which are the care and feeding of Yeshua’s sheep.

• Conclusion

So what did Yeshua mean when he said to Peter,

"…Feed my sheep. Most assuredly I say to you, when you were younger, you bound yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will bind you and lead you where you do not wish."

Yeshua was saying to Peter that if he loved him, he should feed his sheep by telling them the truth about what he had seen and heard over the past three and a half years with him. But beware, in the future when Peter was older, he would stretch forth his hands to feed the sheep and "another" would "bind" him and take him where he did not want to go. And where could that be other than away from feeding the sheep as he should? Yeshua was in effect saying to Peter... "Your accurate testimony to my sheep is very important to me. But someone will come along to turn you from this mission. That direction, you do not want to go!"

After Yeshua had spoken this prophecy to him, he said, "Follow me". But Peter immediately began to concern himself with John. It would appear that this question was indicative of the lack of focused stability in Peter which would ultimately lead to his being led away by someone else, because Yeshua answered the question with... "I will that he remain till I come! What is that to you? You follow me."

Now that we understand Yeshua’s prophecy concerning Peter, the question remains: Who is the "other" that was to come along and bind Peter and take him away from feeding the sheep with the truth as he should? You guessed it. It was none other than the false apostle, and liar... Paul!

So how did Paul bind Peter and take him where he did not want to go? He continues to do it today! It is in the same way that Yeshua's prophecy concerning John is fulfilled every time we read the Gospel of John... for John has remained! Every time someone quotes Peter's words from 2Peter 3:15,16, claiming that Peter called Paul's writings Holy Scripture, they are fulfilling Yeshua's prophecy concerning Peter. For it is they who are helping Paul to bind Peter, and are taking Peter (his testimony) where neither he nor Yeshua wanted him to go... in support of Paul... against the Law!

* Foot Note. There are those who maintain that the book of 2Peter is not authentic based on its grammatical structure and the treatment it received by the early "Church Fathers". The issue is neither here nor there when it comes to the prophecy that Yeshua gave to Peter as found in the Gospel of John, which book is relatively unquestioned in its authenticity. Interestingly enough, Yeshua's prophecy is fulfilled either way, whether Peter actually penned these words or not. Peter is still being bound by this passage and taken where he does not want to go... in support of Paul, against the Law!

#English #Islam