Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

In the vision of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, the "dwelling place of God" with "His people" (Rev 21:3), John saw twelve foundations named after the twelve Apostles. (Rev 21:14 = The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.) There was no place for Paul in this, indicating that Jesus did not consider him to be an "Apostle of the Lamb". In fact, Jesus commended the Ephesians in Rev 2:2 that he knew that "they could not tolerate wicked men, that they had tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them liars." Who was the only person who "claimed to be an apostle" at Ephesus? Paul! (Eph 1:1) There is tradition that John had also spent time at Ephesus, but he cannot be the said person because his credentials as a genuine apostle of Jesus were too well established, and the Revelation was given to him!

Near the end of his life, Paul writes to Timothy that everyone in the province of Asia (which includes the Ephesian church) had deserted him (2 Tim 1:15), which tallies with Jesus’ commendation in Rev 2:2. The very fact that Jesus had some commendation for the seven churches in Asia (Rev 1-2) indicates that there were well-established thriving churches in Asia, which had not rejected Jesus, but which Paul says had rejected him. In fact, in spite of Paul's great efforts, not one word is given from Jesus in the book of Revelation in recognition of him or his work among the Gentiles, a total surprise considering the fact that Jesus did have words of recognition for those who are supposed to have done far less than Paul for the spread of Christianity.

By the end of the first century, Paul was a disgraced person. At Jerusalem, he was shunned and had preferred to take refuge under Roman wings. In the province of Asia, where he had done his major work, everyone had deserted him (1 Tim 1:15). It was in the province of Asia that Paul had preached and planted many churches (Perga, Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe…), where he had labored a lot, "fathered" them as little children. And it is precisely these churches as a whole, which had deserted him. Now when a large number of people do not want to have anything to do with one person, generally the problem is with that one person. When all the churches in a large area deserted him who was their "father in Christ," surely there was a very good reason for doing so. And that very good reason was that John the apostle had moved there after Paul’s departure (Eusebius in the Hist. Eccl. [III, 1] says: "Thomas was allotted to Parthia, but John Asia, where he resided and died in Ephesus"), bringing major corrections in their beliefs, and exposing Paul’s untruths. This led them to desert Paul. Jesus commended the Ephesian church which had "tested those who claimed to be apostles, but were not; and were indeed liars" (Rev 2:2)

It was only in Rome, where he had shrewdly moved to (in spite of what he said in Rom 15:20 – "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation"), that Paul had some credibility. According to Paul-bashers, at Rome even Peter, with his wavering and unstable nature, came under the influence of Paul’s strong personality, and in fact, went astray. According to Paul-bashers, this is what was really meant by Jesus when he predicted (in John 21:18) to Peter that "when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go," and that the "Follow me" at the end of 21:19 is an indication and a warning to Peter that he should follow him rather than anyone else. Christians have believed that the prophecy was regarding the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God (according to John 21:19), but then the question arises – was Peter an unwilling martyr? Not only is that degrading to Peter, but it’s also not true to church history as we know it today. Peter was known to have gone to his death gladly, so the first part of John 21:19 just cannot be true. It is believed by Paul-bashers (and others too) to be a later interpolation, and a good case can be made for that. But we are going out of the Bible here.

Paul’s credibility increased again as the power and authority of the Roman church increased from the second century, and the power and authority of the Jerusalem church decreased. It received a huge boost in Asia when Marcion took a fancy to Paul’s writings. According to Paul-bashers, it was only then that Paul’s writings really assumed importance as the Marcionites, who were the first to treat Paul’s letters as authoritative, increased in number significantly. But again we are straying from of the Bible here so we have to leave that and have to come back to the Bible.

The number of apostles had already been completed to twelve on the choosing of Matthias in Acts 1:20-26. Jesus chose only twelve apostles and named them. Paul was not among them, in fact he was a complete stranger to Jesus and to the twelve while Jesus was on earth. Then Jesus promised the twelve that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28, Luke 22:30). Their number therefore corresponds to the number of the tribes of Israel, and we have no indication that Jesus intended to add others, either from his own mouth or from his disciples. Of course, Judas' betrayal and demise left only eleven. Could Paul have seen himself as filling the vacancy? No, for he would surely have made that his claim. The fact is that the remaining eleven were instrumental in the selection of Matthias to fill this vacancy as even Luke informs us in The Acts, and had Paul seen himself as being Judas' replacement, Luke would certainly have seen him as such.

According to the criteria agreed upon by the remaining eleven in Acts 1:20-26, the person to take Judas’ place should be one of the men who had been with them the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from them (Acts 1:21-22). Paul obviously didn’t fit into this criterion. His only credentials for "apostleship" was his claim that the Lord Jesus had met with him on the road to Damascus and sent him (the word "apostle" means "sent one") – an experience similar to Constantine’s and Mohammad’s. This is a testimony which is not valid according to Jewish law, since it was based on the testimony of only one person. If to anyone such a testimony would have been valid it was Jesus. Yet Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John 5:31), a principle Jesus also upheld when he quoted it in Mat 18:16 when he said "every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." It is a principle upheld by Paul himself in 2 Cor 13:1 where he says, "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." And if smaller matters were to be so established, how much more a far weightier matter like Paul’s commissioning!

As Paul neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice speak to him (Acts 9:3-4). Now Paul himself was aware that "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:14) To double-check whether what had happened to him was indeed of the Lord, the right thing for him to do was to share it with the apostles at Jerusalem and cross-check it with them. Yet Paul says that after this, "he did not consult any man, nor did he go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before he was, but he went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, he went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. He saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:16-19). If one of the church members behaves in this manner today, we know what conclusion the church leaders would most likely come to! (Note: his going into Arabia temporarily for three years is itself questionable, since the way Acts 9:25-26, 22:16-17 and 26:20 are worded seem to indicate that he did go directly to Jerusalem. Nor does it make any sense why he should return to Damascus where his life was in danger!).

Of the 22 times in the New Testament 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 Jesus or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion 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 record, Luke would have been very familiar with Paul calling himself an apostle and was no doubt in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record as recognizing his apostleship! Paul himself admits this in 1 Co 9:2, according to which there were many who did not consider him to be an apostle.

Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at just claiming to be an apostle – he claimed that he was better than the others! In 2 Cor 11:5 he says, "I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles’" (one cannot miss the sarcastic tone when he calls them "super-apostles.") In 2 Cor 12:11, he reaches the pitiable state of admitting that he felt that he ought to have been commended by the Corinthians, for he was not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles.’ In 1 Cor 15:10 he says that he worked harder than all of them. He is dismissive of them in Gal 2:6, where he says, "As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me", calling James, Peter and John derisively as "those who seemed to be pillars." In 2 Cor 11:22-23, he defensively speaks of how he is superior to them: "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again." Had he not read Proverbs 27:2 which says (and according to which all mature people behave), "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips."

According to Paul, the things that mark an apostle were "signs, wonders and miracles" (2 Cor 12:12), when according to Peter (an eye-witness and an apostle appointed by Jesus himself), the person to "take over the apostolic ministry" (Acts 1:25) in place of Judas should be "one of the men who have been with them the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them." (Acts 2:21) Signs, wonders and miracles could be done by the devil also (2 Th 2:9, Rev 13:13-14, 16:14, 19:20), and was not a differentiating mark of the work of God.

In the light of all this, and in the light of the fact that Paul was not above lying (see later), his claim of being "the apostle to the Gentiles" as against Peter being "the apostle to the Jews" also becomes questionable. Paul is the only one who makes such a claim in Gal 2:7-9 –

However, Jesus had commissioned the twelve to go into all nations (Mat 28:19), into all the world and preach the good news to all creation (Mark 16:15). He had said that they will be hated by all nations because of him (Mat 24:9). The first opening of the gospel to the Gentiles was made, not through Paul, but by the Holy Spirit working through Peter, as Luke recounts in Acts when relating the story of the conversion of the centurion, Cornelius. Peter initially had a mind-block about going to the Gentiles and God had to supernaturally intervene to take away this mind-block by giving a vision three times in a row, as described in Acts 10. When Peter replied that he had never eaten anything impure or unclean (v 14), the voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. (vs 15,16) On meeting Cornelius, Peter says that it was this experience which took away his mind-block, saying "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean." (Acts 10:28) and later, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10:34)

Back in Jerusalem, even the other apostles had this mind-block (Acts 11:2-3) and only after Peter gave a detailed explanation (11:4-17) was their mind-block removed (11:18). Referring to the incident later on, in Acts 15:7, Peter is still clear that it is they who are the "apostles to the Gentiles":

Neither does subsequent church history corroborate this self-understanding of Paul as an "Apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13 and Gal 2:8) in contrast with Peter as an "Apostle to the Jews" (Gal 2:8) The tradition is that Peter is reported to have gone and preached in Rome and founded the church there; and had links with the churches at Babylon, Corinth and Antioch. Eusebius asserts that the church of Antioch was founded by Peter. According to tradition, he presided there for seven years from 33 to 40 A.D. Another tradition (corroborated by 1 Pet 5:13), is that he spent a few years in Babylon. Jude Thaddeus is supposed to have preached in Syria and Edessa in Armenia, Thomas in Parthia and later on in India, Andrew in Scythia and Greece, John in Asia (especially Ephesus) and Parthia, James (the apostle) possibly in Spain and India, Philip in France. About Bartholomew, there are different traditions regarding his place of activity – India, Arabia, Parthia, Phrygia, Persia, Lycaconia, Hierapolis, Armenia. Matthew is said to have preached in Ethiopia and possibly Persia; James (son of Alphaeus) possibly in Armenia, Simon the Zealot in Egypt, North and North-West Africa and Britain; Matthias in Armenia. We don’t know why none of all this is found in the New Testament and the exploits of Paul are given far more prominence, but it could be that what was to be included in the New Testament was decided by the Jew-hating Gentiles more than a hundred years after Jesus. One thing is very clear – all the twelve took Jesus’ commission as recorded in Mark 16:15, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" very, very seriously. If they had ignored this commission, if they had dilly-dallied, then one could consider seriously the possibility that Jesus had set aside the three years of personal training that the twelve had undergone at his own hands, and appoint for such an important task, a rank newcomer who had not spent even a single minute with him! Since the apostles did take the commission "to go into all nations, into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" very, very seriously, there is a very big question mark over Paul’s arrogating to himself the title of "Apostle to the Gentiles."

The point of all this is: If the Lord Jesus had himself specifically commissioned the twelve to go into all nations, and if the Holy Spirit specifically made the first openings to the Gentiles through Peter, and if Jesus took so much pains to remove the mind-blocks of the twelve, and the twelve took their commission very, very seriously, can we believe only on the testimony of Paul that he (Jesus) had changed his mind and restricted Peter’s and the other apostles’ ministry to be only to the Jews, bypassing them and appointing him (Paul), an outsider, as the "apostle to the Gentiles"?

Paul was not at all sheepish about calling himself an apostle. In fact, in nine out of thirteen of his letters, he introduces himself as an apostle of Jesus, and in every case he states in one way or another that his apostleship stands by divine sovereign decree.

Should we automatically believe the testimony of a person who makes grandiose claims about himself 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 made today and in the past, all of them should be taken with a very large helping 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 Jesus 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, Jesus was that person. Yet he used the testimonies of Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, John the Baptist, the Father’s voice from heaven declaring to everyone "this is My beloved Son..." and hundreds of those who witnessed his resurrection just to name a few. Paul had none of these.

However, even with his own conception of being the "Apostle to the Gentiles," Paul did not confine his ministry to the Gentiles. He seems rather to have gone first to the synagogue to preach the gospel in every city to which he journeyed, as in Antioch. He turned to the Gentiles only after the Jews rejected him (for good reasons). Neither did Peter and the others of the Twelve confine their mission to the Jews only. This would have been a flagrant violation of Jesus’ command if it were true.

In light of all this, it is no wonder that Paul was constantly being questioned about his "apostleship." For example, John Calvin in his Commentary on Galatians (available at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/calcom41/cache/calcom41.txt), says

And with good reasons too one might add. No wonder that he had to constantly introduce himself as "Paul, an apostle…" and defend his "apostleship."

So how was Paul a "liar"? Not because he was a false apostle. The word "liar" indicates a conscious attempt to deceive. When Paul called himself an "apostle of Jesus Christ," he was most likely sincerely deceived. His attempts to consciously deceive others lie elsewhere.

Firstly, he lied to the Galatians. The apostles and the elders had decided to write to the church at Antioch to "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (Acts 15:20) They clearly did so in the letter wherein they stated: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." (Acts 15:28-29) That they considered these things quite important and fundamental is seen from the fact that they repeated it to all Gentile believers asking them to follow these guidelines. They said later on in Acts 21:25 – "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." – the same requirements re-iterated later. Paul delivered the letter to the church at Antioch (Acts 15:30) and later on in other places too (Acts 16:4). However in his letter to the Galatians, Paul says that "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal 2:10)

This is not a case of harmless omission. When he said that the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the poor it was an outright lie. Because the context is that Paul was attempting to persuade the Galatians not to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. This is the foundational theme of the entire book. Paul was trying to convince the Galatians that he had Jerusalem’s full support in spite of the fact that he didn't think he needed it. But 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 nowhere in the letter is there any mention of the poor! (although there is nothing wrong with that) The Greek word that Paul used ("monon") and is translated "only" literally means "with nothing else", "merely", "sole" or "singly".

In the book of Galatians, Paul begins telling of his contacts with the Jerusalem Messianic leaders in 1:18. He had just finished telling the Galatians that his doctrine was given to him by divine revelation alone. It didn't even come from the original apostles who had spent three and a half years with Jesus. 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 that he still had Peter, James, and John’s full support. After beginning to mention his contacts with Peter, James and John in Galatians 1:18 he says these words: "I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie." (Gal 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. Jesus had a few words to say concerning this type of oath: "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Mat 5:33-37)

The second instance of Paul’s lying was before the Sanhedrin. When Paul was arrested in the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem he had to be rescued by the Romans. On the following day the Roman commander allowed Paul to be taken before the high priest and the Sanhedrin to defend himself against the charges he was up on. During this trial, an interesting thing happens –

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. The truth concerning why he was arrested is recorded a little earlier in Acts 21:27-28 -

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. Again, for Paul to claim he was being judged on his view of the resurrection for the purpose of dividing his accusers against each other was a lie.

The third instance is of Paul lying to King Agrippa, in the recounting of his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. The incident is recorded in Acts 9:3-6 –

The second account is in Acts 22:6-10 and here, Luke records Paul's personal account of his experience as given before the angry Jews in Jerusalem –

There is no real problem or conflict in these first two accounts. Even with the slight variations, the main points remain basically the same. They are quite consistent and corroborate each other.

The third record of Paul's conversion experience is again given by Paul himself in his own defense before King Agrippa in chapter 26:12-19 –

How did "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do" become all this? This is not just a simple case of information having been left out of the first two accounts making it a weak argument from absence. Some arguments from absence are excellent arguments. If one can establish that something important should appear, then one can make a good argument from absence if it does not appear. The argument against the theory of evolution that there is a total lack of intermediate species (missing links) in the fossil record is an example of a good argument from absence. Many a murder case is decided on the basis of an argument from absence! In Paul's case, if in fact Jesus had actually come out and said anything like, "Here is the reason why I have appeared to you...", what Jesus said immediately following this would without question be the focal point and highlight of any-and-every recollection of the encounter! But nothing of the sort is found in the first two accounts.

Why should Paul present such a false picture to King Agrippa? This can be deduced from putting two and two together – What would Paul want, and why should Agrippa do that? Paul would want his message to be freely preached without any hindrance or danger of life from the Jews, and without having to be in Roman custody. Festus had already confessed that "he was at a loss how to investigate such matters" (Acts 25:20) – matters which related to the Jewish law. He did not want Paul to go to Caesar, since he felt that he had nothing definite to write to Caesar about him, and that it was unreasonable to send on a prisoner without specifying the charges against him." (Acts 25:26-27). He wanted Paul to go to Jerusalem to stand trial there (25:20). This is something Paul didn’t want, since he was afraid for his life (Acts 23:12-22; inspite of his boast in Acts 21:13 where he had boasted that "I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus" (but more about it later under "Paul the coward"). Now King Agrippa was in a unique position – unlike Festus, he was well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies (Acts 26:3), so he could judge the matter himself without needing to send Paul to Jerusalem. Also Agrippa, being a Jew, would want to be "on God’s side." So if Paul could convince Agrippa that it was indeed he who was on God’s side, Agrippa would side with him, set him free from Roman custody, ensure him protection from the Jews, and allow a free proclamation of Paul’s message. Festus would be glad that the matter was solved and peace restored without him having to take a decision, or without him having to send Paul to Caesar without reasonable charges. He couldn’t care what message was being preached, so long as there was peace. Here was Paul’s golden opportunity and his defense to King Agrippa in Acts 26:2-23 (of which our passage of Acts 12-19 is a part) is carefully worded to achieve the above objectives.

(To sidetrack a little more, Agrippa was not convinced. However, he too would have his own tightrope to walk on! He would want some kind of decision reached (to please Festus), and he would want peace to prevail, all without offending the Jews! Setting Paul free would create a possibility of more riots. Holding Paul, a Roman citizen under custody when he was already in custody for more than two years would draw another appeal from Paul. Sending him to Caesar when Agrippa himself would have been the more knowledgeable person to judge matters of Jewish law would have reflected poorly on himself. The best way out would be in some way to get him off his hands without having to take any decision. No wonder Agrippa said to Festus, "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." - Acts 26:32, and sent him to Rome on that basis alone. More on the "appeal to Caesar" later.)

Another instance of Paul’s lying – in Acts 9:23-25 is given an account of Paul’s escape from Damascus:

But while writing to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 11:32-33, he says that he had to escape because the governor wanted to arrest him:

So Paul lied. He lied to the Galatians, he lied before the Sanhedrin, and he lied to King Agrippa. And he lied to the Corinthians regarding the reason he had to flee Damascus. But besides being a liar, he was also a coward and a hypocrite.

How can one call Paul a coward when he suffered so much persecution and ended up dying a martyr's death? Paul did indeed start out quite courageous, suffering significant persecution at the beginning of his missionary work. But near the end, when it finally came to the crunch, Paul went back on his confession of courage and took the cowardly way out. Just before leaving for Jerusalem, Paul boasted, "I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 21:13) and he would not be dissuaded (Acts 21:14). But he seems to have lost all courage after that as seen from one incident after another.

Near the end of Paul's missionary journeys, the Messianic believers of the time were in much disarray as to what should be done about Paul. The Gentiles more generally, with some exceptions, embraced him and his doctrine. On the other hand the Messianic Jews, with fewer exceptions, had a very difficult time with him. Let’s look at what happened when Paul arrived at Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-28). Luke writes:

We 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. James repeats them here saying that they had written to the Gentiles concerning them. Why should James mention that they had written to the Gentiles about these laws when Paul already knew that (and in fact Paul himself was the letter-bearer)? The answer is that James is now talking about what they had done after they heard that Paul taught all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to Jewish customs (21:21). This means that James and the other apostles had written to the Jewish believers among the Gentile nations a second time, to correct the wrong things that Paul was teaching them (purposely this time and not out of ignorance, since he was aware of the Jerusalem council’s edict).

It is apparent that Paul didn't stop with telling just the Gentiles to forsake Moses. Here he is being accused of telling the Jews the same thing and James' response is that this can't possibly be, and had better not be true! When we consider some of the things Paul said, It is very believable that he in fact was teaching this to the Jews. Here are some of these –

So for Paul, there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, and what was applicable to the Gentiles was also applicable to the Jews. For James and the apostles at Jerusalem, this was not so. Furthermore the limiting of the commandments to be followed by the Gentiles was only a temporary concession for the purpose of not making it difficult for the Gentiles who were turning to Jesus (Acts 15:19)

Now suddenly, Paul finds himself confronted with the fact that he had been caught lying; and that too regarding a matter which was important and fundamental to James and the other apostles at Jerusalem! This is where he lost his nerve. Paul found that James was quite stern with him this time. They, who had earlier extended to him their right hand of fellowship (Gal 2:9) were now behaving quite differently! On their arrival, they were not even greeted by James or the apostles themselves, but by other brothers. Paul had to wait till the next day before he had to "go and see" James and the elders (Acts 21:17-18). After hearing Paul patiently and praising God that He was doing a work amongst the Gentiles (as any believer would respond), they immediately turned to what was really on their minds – that Paul taught all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to their customs (21:21).

To provide Paul a graceful way out, James’ solution was that Paul demonstrate that he did not do such a thing by practical actions - join in the purification rites of the four men and pay their expenses so that everybody will know there is no truth in the reports about Paul, but that he himself was living in obedience to the law. Paul complied meekly (21:26). And it was for the express purpose of getting everybody to know there is no truth in these reports about himself, but that he himself was living in obedience to the law (21:24).

However the cowardly compromise didn’t help him much. When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. (Note: From Asia, where Paul had done most of his preaching, and who had suffered the most because of it). They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him. Soon the whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions, and they were trying to kill him so much so that the commander of the Roman troops had to intervene and save Paul from the mob (Acts 21:27-33). He was then sent to Felix to be protected from the Jews. Felix procrastinated for two years. Then Festus comes in and asks Paul whether he was willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before him there (25:9) to which Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" (Acts 25:10-11)

Caesar!!! Of all the people to seek justice from, Paul opts for appealing to the likes of Nero!!! Nero - 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 (1 Cor 6:1-6):

Of course one can argue that Nero was not so bad in his earlier years when Paul made this appeal, but the fact still remains that Paul voluntarily chose to be judged by an unbeliever rather than by a respected believer, in direct contradiction to his own statements in 1 Cor 6:1-6. Didn’t he consider James and the other apostles ‘believers’? The crowd at Jerusalem who wanted to take his life respected James and the other apostles and would have listened to them. Why did not Paul appeal to James instead of Caesar? Festus would have gladly sent Paul to James (25:9). Paul chose not to go to Jerusalem for the simple reason that he knew that James would not stand by him! No wonder he did not accede to Festus’ request even though he could have easily done so and gained his freedom!

He couldn't even practice what he preached in 1 Cor 6:1-6. And whatever happened to, "I am willing to die in Jerusalem for Christ"? That 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. Question: What martyr ever thought he deserved to die? Can you imagine Jesus saying to Pilate: "I don't deserve to die. I appeal to Caesar for justice."? Of course not! And what is almost as absurd is that Paul said he was willing to go to his death if he deserved it! Question: How many individuals who know they deserve death are perfectly willing to go quietly to their execution? This whole picture that Paul paints is upside-down! True martyrs, like Jesus, go quietly. The guilty go screaming all the way! This was the grandest act of cowardice Paul could have made, especially in light of the fact that he had bragged earlier that he was willing to die as a martyr. He didn't go through with it because the bottom line for Paul was the preservation of self and the image he had gained among many Gentiles. As will be shown a little later, Paul was very full of himself. No one who is full of himself is truly willing to die as a martyr. They might very well brag that they are, to uplift their image as seen by men, but when it comes down to the crunch, they will always play the self.

Paul knew what to expect in Jerusalem. He knew that the Jews probably had copies of his letters and were preparing to cross-examine him about the things he had written and how his behavior before the crowd as described in Acts 21:26 squared up with what he had written. They might very well have had it in mind to bring up the quotes mentioned above from Galatians and Philippians. The words he had written about them in Phil 3:2 where he called them "those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh", would have danced before his eyes day and night!

Now if it was an instance of momentary cowardice, Paul could even have been excused. We know what we ourselves are. Like Peter, we brag; but when it comes to crucial moments we chicken out. Paul was also a human being like us and an act of momentary cowardice like Peter’s is excusable. But this was not a momentary act of cowardice to be repented of, be forgiven by God, and forgotten to move on ahead in life, like Peter did! Paul had two full years before he made this appeal to Caesar! It was a cold, deliberate and thoughtfully considered decision! Two full years while Felix procrastinated (Acts 24:27), to ponder on what he had done and repent of his cowardice and his hypocrisy and turn to Jesus. Didn’t he have Peter’s marvelous example of how he had been restored by Jesus so soon after repentance? If not from Jesus’ own words and character, couldn’t he have drawn strength and inspiration from the real-life example of Peter? But no, Paul did not want to face the Jews in Jerusalem. For as Agrippa remarked, "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." (Acts 26:32). Paul’s appeal to Caesar was a deliberate and considered act, done in two full years of deliberation, not an act of momentary cowardice. He knew as well as Agrippa did that "he would be set free if he didn’t appeal to Ceasar." No wonder he chose to appeal to Ceasar: He did not want to be set free!

Hypocrisy is tied with cowardice – it is because one is afraid of something or someone that one acts contrary to professed beliefs. The above discussion on "Paul, the liar" and "Paul, the coward" mentioned cases of hypocrisy arising out of cowardice. But it’s not just out of fear that one can act the hypocrite. That in fact, is a less serious case! Far more serious is the hypocrisy that Jesus denounced greatly, the hypocrisy arises out of a desire to appear great in the eyes of men, which emanates not from fear but from worldly desires. In Gal 5:2, Paul says, "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Now look what he wants to do with Timothy (Acts 16:1-3) –

Of course, one could defend Paul here by saying that the Galatian letter was written long after he had Timothy circumcised, and his views matured during the interval. Let us then say that is the case, and look at the implication: His views changed from one thing to another during the period when he was preaching his gospel throughout the world. The Truth, however, did not change during that period, for that is unchanging. He therefore could not have been preaching the Truth during this period of changing views, yet he claimed to be preaching the same gospel from beginning to end.

A way of defending this behavior would be to say, as Paul said in 1 Cor 9:22 – that this was a case of "becoming all things to all men." But, this principle is fine so long as it is confined to non-essential matters. "To a Hindu I become like a Hindu" is fine if it means wearing a kurta at a Hindu function, not if it means bowing before an idol! As is clear from the letter to the Galatians, circumcision was not a non-essential thing for Paul, else instead of saying "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Gal 5:2) he could have just said "it doesn’t really matter". The only conclusion left is that Paul behaved hypocritically.

Imagine Jesus "trying to become all things to all men so that by all possible means some might be saved!" Would Jesus have done such a thing? Would he have approved of such a thing when even from the Old Testament times, God wanted his people to be "different" from the other nations, set apart from them by peculiar laws and rituals?

Jesus said, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." (Mat 23:9). Paul considered himself like a "father" to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians – "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." (1 Cor 4:15-16) and "As a fair exchange--I speak as to my children--open wide your hearts also." (2 Cor 6:13); "For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children…" (1 Th 2:11) Furthermore, ge urged others to imitate him:

The only exception to all this seems to be Eph 5:1. Even Jesus did not call on his disciples to imitate him! When pointing out to them the proper model for imitation, he always designated the Father. He indicated this directly in the following passages:

So what’s wrong with imitating someone if he is a good person? Plenty. Number one – the maximum level you can reach is a standard which is lower than what God wants you to achieve since that person himself is never at God’s perfect standard. Two, you may end up imitating his faults and sins too. Three, it’s your spiritual relationship with that person which develops (it is he who is subconsciously in your mind), not your relationship with God. Four, you may end up following "shifting shadows"; only the Father does not change like shifting shadows (James 1:17). Five, you may be setting yourself up for possible shock or even disillusionment if that person falls! This is exactly what is wrong with the cults and the guru-dependent religions. At the most what one can do is draw inspiration from someone else’s example, which is a far cry from imitating him.

The second area in which Paul disobeyed Jesus was in the area of taking oaths. In Mat 5:33-37, Jesus has told us not to swear oaths:

People who swear oaths do it basically because their own credibility is low – they know their own word cannot be trusted, and they know that others know it too! Therefore, they call someone else witness; using the other person’s credibility to buttress and bolster their own credibility. And why can their own word not be trusted? Because they have had a history of not keeping their word, of not doing what they have said, or a history of having spoken untruths. And since the other person knows it, they swear oaths to increase their credibility. They also do it because making the other person believe what they what him to believe is somehow very important to them – more important than being truthful. What the other person thinks of them is somehow more important to them than what God thinks of them. Thirdly, they don’t have a sense of the sacred, they think that "God’s Name" can be used for their own selfish purposes. This is why Jesus said in Mat 5:37 that "anything more than a simple ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ comes from the evil one. They even call on God as a "witness". Calling another human being as a witness has the danger that you may actually cross-check with him! But God? How will you cross-check with God? Anything can be passed off using God’s Name!

Paul seemed to have a habit of swearing and taking oaths and calling God as his witness. Now take a look at some of the statements which Paul made:

Why all this oath-taking and defending? We know from experience that the more a person defends himself, the more he is likely to be covering up something! A godly person, who walks in the sight of God, who knows that his ultimate judgment is going to be at the hands of the God who sees and knows everything (not only all our actions but also everything in our hearts – our thoughts, motives and attitudes), and who is interested in doing God’s work, does not go to such great lengths to defend himself. He just goes about his work and leaves God to defend him if necessary.

The most damning thing about all this is that if there had been other witnesses on whom Paul could have called, brothers of good repute who could substantiate his claim, he certainly would have done so. Why didn't he do this? There should have been others who could witness for him – Ananias of Damascus, his Damascus disciples, the men who were traveling to Damascus with him. He told others about these people, but he never called them forth. The Jerusalem apostles would have confirmed that he did not return to Jerusalem to see them for three years – where were they? So far as we can tell, they have not yet spoken a word in his behalf. Instead, he calls on the only witnesses he knows who will not contradict him – God and the Holy Spirit.

Of course Paul's oath-taking does not constitute proof that he was lying. Children react this way when they are accused even when innocent. "Did you take the chocolate?" – "No, mummy I did not take the chocolate, I swear I did not." "Did you beat him?"- "No dad, I didn’t beat him; ask anybody", "I don’t believe you." - "If you don't believe me, ask my dad." They, being children, don't think of the implications to their credibility, of not letting their "Yes" be a simple "Yes" or their "No" a simple "No", even when they have done no wrong. But we are not dealing here with children or with flippant responses. We are dealing here with what is supposed to be "the Word of God." Is the Holy Spirit really so childish and immature? And would He contradict Jesus’ explicit command in Mat 5:37?

Paul even goes so far as to wish that those who preach circumcision would take the knife and cut their own penises off! In Gal 5:12, he says about them, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" In Phil 3:2, he writes about them, "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Even a civilized person would not use such language, let alone God who is supposed to have inspired these passages.

Besides revealing Paul’s uncouth character, the statements also show his inordinate desire for the Galatians and Philippians to accept his message. Keeping aside the rightness or wrongness of his and the circumcisors positions for the time-being, a godly man, even when opposed by ungodly people, does not stoop to such low levels of language. Can you imagine Jesus using such language when he was opposed by sinful people?

Paul talks about himself far more than any other New Testament writer. A person who is full of himself is well-summarized in the words "I, me and myself". Such a person loves to talk about himself and uses these three words more frequently than others. Paul also talks too much about himself. A word-concentration analysis of Paul’s letters for these three words (taking only those instances where he is talking about himself) is very revealing. But before that, a point about "word-concentration-analysis". It can be very revealing, but it is not to be done blindly. Otherwise one can prove anything from any writing! It has to be done only to confirm an impression one gets after reading the material. For example, I once did a "one-sitting reading" of the book of Leviticus. Most Christians would be horrified at such a thought, but the idea is to "get the big picture" without getting bogged down in minor details. What is the author of the book of Leviticus (i.e. God) really trying to say through all those myriad laws? So try to read the book of Leviticus say in two hours (that would force you to not get caught in the details but get the big picture), to get the one most important point that God wants to make through it, without getting caught in the details of all the laws. As I read it, the words "Be holy (for I am holy)" seemed to be bombarding at me. This is the one thought that God seems to want to communicate through the book of Leviticus and He does it by repeatedly sprinkling the book with that phrase, in the midst of all those laws. As a result, when you read it (without getting bogged down in the details of the laws), the one big feeling you are left with is that God wants you to be holy because He is holy.

That led me to do a "word-concentration-analysis" of the word "holy," to confirm this impression. The concentration of the word "holy" seemed to be far higher in the book of Leviticus than in any other piece of Scripture. A word-concentration analysis revealed that it was in fact almost 6 times higher than in the rest of the Bible!

Number of times the word "holy" occurs in Leviticus = 74

Number of times the word "holy" occurs in other books = 510

Pages occupied by Leviticus in my Bible = 47

Pages occupied by other books in my Bible = 1892

Concentration of the word "holy" in Leviticus = 1.574 times per page

Concentration of the word "holy" in other books = 0.269 times per page

Relative concentration in Leviticus as compared with the rest of the books = 5.85 times!

Now on a general reading of Paul’s epistles, one does get a feeling that he does talk too much about himself (using the words "I", "me" and "myself" far more than normal), and a word-concentration analysis confirms this. In the example of the book of Leviticus above, I have used "pages occupied in my Bible" as a denominator, but one can use any other valid denominator such as number of words in the book, number of sentences etc. The results will vary, but only slightly, since we are interested in relative concentrations. To be significant, the concentration should be greater than atleast a factor of two. In the following table, which is a word-concentration analysis of the letters in the New Testament (where the words "I", "me" and "myself" could be expected to be used), the denominator used is the size in kilobytes of the txt files of these books on my computer. The analysis is very revealing about Paul’s self-focused attitude.

Number of times "I", "me", and "myself" appear in the letters, and their concentration:

Well, well, well. The relative concentration of the pronouns "I", "me" and "myself" (only where the writer is referring to himself) is thus more than 4 times in Paul’s letters than in the other letters. This is quite significant and shows how much Paul loved to talk about himself. Of course his talk is wrapped up in appropriate spiritual language, but it is self-talk all the same. It is interesting to note that his two earliest letters, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, show the least level of concentration! His self-love and self-glorification seems to have increased over time! (Note that letters with very small dividers like Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John will not give representative results because of their small divisors).

In fact he talks so much about himself, that he doesn’t seem to have any time to quote Jesus! This is one very strange thing about Paul – he never quotes Jesus (except maybe in Acts 20:35 where he attributes the statement "It is more blessed to give than to receive" to Jesus.) One would have thought that his letters would have been full of quotes from Jesus. Paul had plenty of problems in the churches he had planted and the easiest, most obvious and most natural thing for him to do was to quote Jesus to support his arguments. It would also have been the most effective thing to do. If I am the pastor of a church, and I have problems with my church members, and I know that they respect the authority of Jesus, then the first thing I would do is to quote Jesus to them. It is the most natural and obvious thing to do. But Paul never does it! Not even once!

It is not just the small number of quotations from Jesus that is striking, but specifically Paul's failure to quote from the sayings of Jesus where he might appropriately have done so. For example, in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 Paul is urging the Corinthians to be generous in contributing to the collection he is making for the Christians in Jerusalem. He uses a battery of different arguments to press his readers to respond, but no use at all is made of the extensive and colorful teaching of Jesus about wealth, poverty, and "laying up treasures in heaven!"

This lack of quotes is so glaring that it makes one wonder whether Paul was even aware about the real teachings of Jesus. Come to think of it, perhaps he was not. When Jesus was in his earthly ministry, Paul didn’t know him at all. Paul never spent a single minute with him, never heard a single word from his mouth. Paul’s first meeting with Jesus was the questionable one with the ‘risen Jesus,’ an experience similar to Constantine’s and Mohammad’s. When Paul first went to Jerusalem, he spent time only with Peter; and did not even meet any of the other apostles! He only saw James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:18-19). One would have thought that a newly-converted Christian would be most eager to chat up with any and every-one who knew Jesus personally; and listen, listen, listen! How much more with Jesus’ hand-picked apostles, who had spent day-in-and-day-out with him!

It was fourteen years later, when doubts had finally crept into his mind that he might have been running his race in vain, that he set before the apostles appointed by Jesus, the gospel that he had been preaching among the gentiles (Gal 2:2), which he calls "my gospel" in Romans 2:16, 16:25, and 2 Tim 2:8. If he would have taken pains to get his facts right the first time, such doubts would not have arisen. As has been pointed out before, Paul lies in 2:6 when he says that "they added nothing to his message," when actually they made a major correction as recorded in Acts 15:20. To make sure that the message did reach the intended recipients, they put it in writing (15:23) and sent Judas and Silas, respected men who had risked their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus (15:26), and who were prophets (15:32). So they did "add to his message" that the laws of Moses were still applicable to the Jews and the gentiles were to follow the minimum dietary requirements required of all the gentiles – in other words, to maintain the status quo as was before Jesus. Jesus had not come to "do away with the law" but to "strengthen it and make it complete" (Matt 5:17). If Paul would have bothered to get it right the first time he would have saved fourteen years of wrong preaching. But Paul was so full of himself and "his gospel" that he did not correct himself even after his arraignment.

With an attitude like that, no wonder he looked down upon the apostles appointed by Jesus. Note his condescending tone (in the italics) in what he writes about them in Galatians 2:1-6 –

Later on he calls James, Peter and John as "those reputed to be pillars" (2:9). There is a world of difference between acknowledging them to be pillars, and calling them "those reputed to be pillars." When we talk about a particular church, we acknowledge the elders of that church as "pillars" of that church, and don’t derisively refer to them as "those reputed to be pillars". To recap ground already covered before, the same sarcastic tone is seen in 2 Cor 11:5 and 12:11, where he calls them "super-apostles". In fact, he claimed that he was better than them! In 2 Cor 11:5 he says that "I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles’". In 2 Cor 12:11, he reaches the pitiable state of admitting that he felt that he ought to have been commended by the Corinthians, for he was not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles.’ In 1 Cor 15:10 he says that he worked harder than all of them. In 2 Cor 11:22-23, he defensively speaks of how he is superior to them: "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again."

So what? The big question is not whether you have suffered more, but whether you have been faithful to Jesus’ words. There are people from other religions who have suffered more for their religious beliefs. What is all that suffering going to avail them on Judgment Day? We are going to be judged by how faithful we have been to Jesus, not by what or how much we have suffered. One person may be faithful to Jesus and hardly suffer anything: he will hear from Jesus "Well done, good and faithful servant"; another may suffer a lot for something contradicting Jesus’ words and hear the words "Away from me, you who are against the law." (Matthew 7:23)

According to Paul-bashers, some of the veiled references in the book of Revelation actually refer to Paul. According to Paul-bashers, besides being the "false apostle" of Rev. 2:2 who the Ephesian church had tested and rejected and had been commended by Jesus for doing so, Paul was also the "666" of Rev. 13:18! And the logic fits in far better than all other attempts to find out who the "666" refers to. Over the last 2000 years, attempts have been made to apply it to a number of people and institutions, from Nero and Domitian to the Roman empire and the Roman Catholic church, to Hitler, right up to the 18-digit international bar-coding system (6+6+6=18) and the World-Wide-Web (‘W’ is ‘6’ in Hebrew numerology so ‘WWW’ is ‘666’). But none has provided a good enough fit. The reasons are three –

• The "fits" to 666 seem to be too forced; none seem to provide a natural fit. The writer expects the readers (mostly simple uneducated folk in the first century) to calculate his number (Rev 13:18). So it has to provide a natural and easy fit, easy enough for simple, uneducated people to calculate.
• The fits are not according to the well-accepted rules of numerology. A good fit has to be according to the well-known and generally accepted rules of numerology. For example ‘WWW’=’666’ is not according to the accepted rule of numerology that the numbers have to be added. ‘WWW’ would be 18 and not 666.
• They generally refer to people or institutions after the second century (only Nero and Domitian don’t). This would be meaningless and useless for people in the first century who were suffering due to their testimony of Christ. The purpose of the book of Revelation was to give hope and encouragement to such people, by describing the final triumph of Christ over the evil forces, no matter what happens in between. The author used signs and symbols to communicate in such a veiled manner that their meanings were obvious to them, yet hidden from the unknowing. The primary purpose of providing hope and encouragement to them would be defeated if the symbols referred to something or someone post-second century.

In all these three respects, Paul as 666 provides a much better fit than others. He is from the first century, contemporary with the readers of the book of Revelation, the fit is according to the well-known rules of numerology, and easy enough for the simplest people to calculate. So how and why does Paul fit so well? The following is the table for Hebrew numerology:

In those days, people were known by the place they came from – "Jesus of Nazareth," "Joseph of Arimathea," "Paul of Tarsus." In case of only one famous person from a place, sometimes even his name was omitted and only the place mentioned – the Nazarene, the Tarsan etc. Now "Tarsus" is written "TRSV" in Roman letters, and according to Hebrew numerology these letters add up to 666: T=400, R=200, S=60, V=6). Now that sure is a very good fit: fitting in an easy, simple manner, in a way any person knowing the basic rules of numerology could calculate, and fitting a first-century person. We will know the truth on Judgment Day.

Many other character traits of Paul’s, such as his humility, his veracity, his integrity, his authenticity; and even his love for his brothers, come under question. In his letters he makes enough number of statements showing these. However, talking is easy and one can easily make such statements when knowing that they are going to be read by many. What is not easy is living according to them, especially under trying circumstances. It doesn’t seem that Paul had done so, considering the attitude of James and the apostles at Jerusalem towards him when he finally set out for Jerusalem at the end of Acts 20, and considering that everyone in the province of Asia, where he had done a large part of his work, had deserted him (1 Tom 1:15). But enough on Paul’s character and credentials. As said before, these are not the really important things. Paul may be a horrible sinner, and yet what he has written from the book of Romans to the book of Titus may be the truth. After all, the entire Bible has been written by human beings who were themselves sinful persons. The real issue is not Paul’s character, but whether what he has written in the books of Romans to Titus is the truth. And the test for that is whether his teachings are in line with Jesus’ teachings. This is what we turn to in the second part.