“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Yahshua said unto them, Truly, truly, I say unto you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me.” John 6:51-57.

Those words were so offensive to the hearers that many of his disciples turned away from him.

“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Yahshua knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Does this offend you? . . . From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” John 6:60-61, 66.

However, his original twelve disciples did not fall away:

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Yahshua unto the twelve, Will you also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Master, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that you are that Messiah, the Son of the living Elohim.” John 6:67-69.

They had a more intimate knowledge of Yahshua than did the crowd listening to him. They knew he was the Messiah and would not leave him. They were probably as perplexed as everyone else, but deep in their hearts they believed him to be Messiah. Their faith was “sure”, having come to Yahshua as a result of the Father’s calling of them.

“But there are some of you that believe not. For Yahshua knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” John 6:64,65.

Those that walked away from him were never truly given to him by the Father as the twelve were. Yahshua said of the twelve:

“I have manifested your name unto the men which you gave me out of the world: yours they were, and you gave them me; and they have kept thy word. . . . I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which you have given me; for they are yours.” John 17:6, 9.

Even today, almost two thousand years later, his “disciples” walk away from him, having great difficulty harmonizing the words in John 6:51-57 with their understanding of what the Scriptures teach.

They say the Scriptures clearly teach that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of human beings, whether literally or figuratively / symbolically, is forbidden by Yahweh. Therefore, they choose their “understanding” of Scripture over their “understanding” of Messiah’s words and fall away from the faith.

Is it possible that Yahshua’s words were justified based on his incredible knowledge of Scripture? No man in the history of the world had a deeper knowledge and understanding of Scripture than Messiah Yahshua. He certainly had far more knowledge about Scripture than the modern day “disciples” that fall away because they cannot harmonize his words with Scripture. Yet, they exalt their own knowledge over Messiah’s, choosing to believe that they know better than him.

Let’s examine the Scriptures and see if Yahshua’s words have any basis in fact and whether or not they can be justified in light of Scripture.

One passage that is used to say Yahshua taught contrary to Torah is found in Lev 7:26-27:

“Moreover you shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eats any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” Leviticus 7:26,27.

This passage certainly forbids literally eating blood. However, the words of Yahshua found in John 6:51-57 were not meant literally. This is evident by the fact that no remaining disciple ever literally ate his flesh or drank his blood. All remaining disciples partook of his flesh and blood symbolically through the symbols of the bread and fruit of the vine taken on the “Master’s Supper” (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Cor 11:20-29).

We also know Yahshua was not speaking literally because of what he said in John 6:51:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51.

Here, Yahshua says “the world” will receive “life” through his flesh which he will give. His flesh was not given only to his disciples living in his day, but to his disciples that would come from all walks of life throughout the world and throughout time. Any person in the world today can receive that same “life” through “eating his flesh” symbolically by eating the bread representing his body during the Master’s Supper. However, no one living in “the world” today, or even back then outside of Jerusalem, has access to his flesh to be able to literally eat it. Nor could they literally drink his blood.

Yahshua also said, in verse 63;

“It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.”

By saying, “the flesh profits nothing”, he is implying that literally eating his flesh will not profit a person. It is the Holy Spirit that gives life (Ro 8:9-11). Messiah’s words were given to him by the Father.

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” John 12:49.

The Father’s words are life giving words. He gave those words to His Son to speak. Therefore, those words are Spirit and can give life. It is not Yahshua’s literal flesh and blood that give life, but his words, his teachings, his doctrine because they are all of the Holy Spirit. We are to eat his life giving words just as Ezekiel was to eat the scroll.

“Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that you find; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.

So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.

And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill your bowels with this roll that I give you. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.” Eze 3:1-3.

We can now dispense with the notion that Yahshua was breaking Torah by teaching his disciples to literally eat his flesh or drink his blood. The question remains, “Is it breaking Torah to tell someone to symbolically eat something forbidden by Torah?”

Fat Forbidden

Just prior to Torah telling us not to eat blood, it tells us not to eat fat either.

“And Yahweh spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, You shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the fat of the beast that dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but you shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever eats the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto Yahweh, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people.” Leviticus 7:22-25.

We also read in Lev 3:17:

“It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.”

It is quite clear that, not only is blood forbidden to be eaten, but fat as well. Yet, we read in De 32:14:

“For Yahweh’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye. As an eagle stirs up her nest, flutters over her young, spreads abroad her wings, takes them, bears them on her wings: So Yahweh alone did lead him, and there was no strange mighty one with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and He made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock; Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou did drink the pure blood of the grape.” Deuteronomy 32:14.

What?! Yahweh made Jacob to eat “the fat of lambs”? It seems that this statement was meant figuratively. If so, it is acceptable to figuratively eat fat even though fat was forbidden to be literally eaten. It would, then, also be acceptable to figuratively eat human flesh or drink blood even though they are forbidden to literally be eaten. The expressions “fat of lambs” and “fat of kidneys of wheat” are both figures of speech – meaning abundant. Yahshua’s words in John 6 are also figurative meaning to fully partake of his teachings and his life.

Another example along the same lines is found in Ne 8:9-10:

“And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto Yahweh your Elohim; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.

Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Master: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of Yahweh is your strength.”

Here, Nehemiah commands the people to “eat the fat”. This is obviously meant figuratively. To “eat the fat” is to “eat the best”. Yet, fat, something forbidden to be eaten was commanded to be eaten. So, too, can flesh and blood be commanded to be eaten figuratively. To “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” figuratively means to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Master’s Supper. If Yahshua is still to be condemned for using such figurative speech, then Yahweh and Nehemiah must be as well.

Drink Blood

Just as fat was forbidden, but could figuratively be eaten, blood was forbidden, but could be figurative drink.

“Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.” Nu 23:24

These are the words that Yahweh commanded Balaam to speak to Balak. They refer to Israel drinking the blood of their enemies that were slain and eating their flesh. This would obviously not come to pass literally. Yet, Yahweh says that His people will figuratively “eat” the flesh and “drink” the blood of humans. Should we condemn these words as promoting cannabalism or are they acceptable because they are only figurative?

And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O [Yahweh] which art, and was, and shalt be, because you have judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. Rev 16:4-6

Whether this passage is to be understood literally or figuratively is irrelevant. What is important to note is that Yahweh gave them, at least figuratively, “blood” to drink which He clearly taught was forbidden in Torah. Similarly, Yahshua figuratively gave his disciples his flesh to eat and his blood to drink.

Eat Flesh

The next verse shows how Yahweh is above Torah (being the Creator of it) and can do things that Torah forbids.

Jer 19:9 – “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.”

Yahweh caused people to literally eat flesh. Yahshua merely causes people to symbolically eat flesh.

Nu 24:8 – “Elohim brought him forth out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Here, Israel is said to “eat up the nations”. Will they literally eat the people of other nations? No, but they will figuratively eat those nations just as Yahshua’s disciples will figuratively eat Yahshua’s flesh and figuratively drink his blood.

Another figure of speech is found in Ps 14:4 and 53:4:

Ps 14:4 – “Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon Yahweh.”

Ps 53:4 – “Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon Elohim.”

The workers of iniquity eat up Yahweh’s people as though they were eating bread. Did they literally eat Israelite flesh? I don’t think so. It is meat and drink to the persecutors of Yahweh’s people to be doing evil. However, it is meat and drink to Yahshua’s disciples to feed upon his righteousness and life.

Similarly:

Ps 27:2 – “When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.”

It is the desire of the wicked to persecute the righteous. It is food and drink for them. It sustains them. It is what they live for. Yahshua’s disciples, however, live to serve Yahweh through Yahweh’s appointed Messiah. They live by feeding upon the true bread from heaven. They eat his words, his body and his blood. None of these things are literally eaten. Each is figuratively eaten in some sense.

Consider the following words of David in Ps 34:8:

“Oh, taste and see that Yahweh is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!”

Peter uses a similar metaphor in 1 Peter 2:3:

“If so be you have tasted that the Master is gracious.”

In both these passages ‘taste’ is a metaphor for faith/trust/belief. David is not suggesting we literally taste Yahweh by eating him, but by experiencing His goodness through drawing close to Him and trusting Him in a deep personal relationship. Peter is suggesting the believer in the Master Yahshua has already tasted how gracious he is through their intimate relationship with him.

Similarly, Yahshua wants us to enter into that kind of intimate relationship with him.

To “taste” implies a deep experience with the subject. Heb 2:9 reads:

“But we see Yahshua, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of Elohim should taste death for every man.”

To “taste death for every man”, does not mean Yahshua simply had a near death experience. Nor does it mean he literally ate death. It means he literally died. He became as intimately related to death as one can get. Eating the “flesh” and drinking the “blood” of Yahshua speaks of an intimate association with Him that equates with tasting death. In fact, Ro 6:3-8 teaches us that baptized believers have died with Messiah. We have “tasted death” in a figurative sense in that we have died to sin.

In John 6:56, Yahshua emphasizes this intimate association with him:

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

True faith in Messiah is not just believing the truth about who He is and what He has done, but it is also committing ourselves to those truths. Many know of Messiah and accept some of his words for various reasons, but few partake of His salvation because they still rely on their own self-righteousness rather than abandoning themselves to Messiah alone.

Conclusion

Yahshua knew the Scriptures. He knew it was acceptable to teach his disciples to figuratively eat something that was literally forbidden to be eaten. He was not only following his Father’s example, but the example of several other Biblical writers.

Just as David admonishes us to taste and see that Yahweh is good, I admonish you to taste and see that the Master Yahshua the Messiah is good.

• Loved by their father.

Gen 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, . . .

Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

• Hated by their brothers.

Gen 37:4 And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

John 15:25 But this comes to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

• Sent to their brothers.

Gen 37:14 And he said to him, Go, I pray you, see whether it be well with your brethren, and well with the flocks; and bring me word again. So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which has sent me, has borne witness of me.

• Joseph’s dreams of the future and Messiah’s prophecies of the future provoked their brothers to hate them.

Gen 37:5 And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more.

Mat 21:33-46 . . . And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

• Their jealous brothers conspired to kill them.

Gen 37:18 And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him.

Luke 22:2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; . . .

• Sold for silver.

Gen 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

Mat 26:15 And said unto them, What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

• Both were rejected, stripped and put into the heart of the earth (pit).

Gen 37:23-24 And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colors that was on him; And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.

Mat 27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

John 19:41-42 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Yahshua therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the tomb was close at hand.

• Their brothers lied about them concerning their fate.

Gen 37:31-32 And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be your son’s coat or no.

Mat 28:11-13 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say you, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

• Raised up out of the earth.

Gen 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, . . .

Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Act 5:30 The Elohim of our fathers raised up Yahshua, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

• Overcame the temptation to sin.

Gen 39:12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

• Both put in prison (Joseph in the king’s prison and Messiah in death’s prison, the grave).

Gen 39:20 And Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king’s prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.

Mat 27:59-60 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock:…

• Suffered greatly for the sake of saving many.

Gen 45:5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that you sold me here: for Elohim did send me before you to preserve life.

1 Peter 3:18 For Messiah also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to Elohim, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

• Exalted to the position of second most powerful ruler.

Gen 41:39-40 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as Elohim has showed you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are: You shall be over my house, and according unto your word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than you.

1 Co 15:27 For he [Yahweh] has put all things under his [Messiah’s] feet. But when he says all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

• Everyone had to come to them for food (to Joseph for physical food and to Messiah for spiritual food).

Gen 41:57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

• The nations would come to them to be saved.

Gen 47:25 And they said, You have saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my master, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.

John 3:17 For Elohim sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

• Both were estranged from their families while saving the nations.

Gen 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

Micah 5:3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travails has brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

• Their brothers would bow down to them.

Gen 37:10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to you to the earth?

Gen 43:26 And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves to him to the earth.

Php 2:9-10 Wherefore Elohim also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Yahshua every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

• Their brothers could not recognize them due to their “Gentile” disguise (Joseph as an Egyptian and Messiah as the Lord of Messiahians) while, at the same time, they recognized their brothers.

Gen 42:8 And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is your Father? Yahshua answered, You neither know me, nor my Father: if you had known me, you should have known my Father also.

Consider also the Jewish rejection of the “Christian Jesus”

• Both purposely kept their identities hidden.

Gen 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, . . .

Mica 5:3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travails has brought forth: . . .

• Their brothers would have their eyes opened to behold their true identity.

Gen 45:4 And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt.

2 Co 3:14-17 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Messiah. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Master, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Master is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Master is, there is liberty.

• They would forgive their brothers and be reconciled to them.

Gen 50:17, 19-21 So shall you say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray you now, the trespass of your brethren, and their sin; for they did unto you evil: and now, we pray you, forgive the trespass of the servants of the Elohim of your father. And Joseph wept when they spoke unto him. And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of Elohim? But as for you, you thought evil against me; but Elohim meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear you not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spoke kindly unto them.

Luke 23:34 Then said Yahshua, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do . . .

• Both would continue to rule over their brothers.

Gen 50:18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we are your servants.

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; . . .

The New Testament (Brit Chadasha) is the most published and most read book in the history of the world. Why? Because it contains the words of life which have given millions of people hope. They are words that have changed lives throughout all nations. No matter where people live, what their background is, what their occupation is, or what their religion is, when the good news (gospel) as contained in the New Testament is planted in their hearts through the hearing of those words of life, lives change for the better. Hardened criminals, murderers, thieves, adulterers, idolaters and even the most vile of men have had their hearts changed to become some of the most loving, caring, Elohim fearing people on the planet.

It is through the hearing of the good news, the gospel, the Word of life, that such people come to possess salvation and eternal life. And the ONLY place such life changing words are found is in the New Testament or writings that quote the New Testament. The good news of Messiah is the power of Yahweh unto salvation to everyone that believes it.

The New Testament reveals to us the identity of Yahweh’s promised Messiah. Even if one were to believe Yahshua was not the Messiah, his words as revealed in the New Testament are relevant to and needed by every generation that hears them. His teachings provide hope for the future, wisdom for the present, and understanding of the past. He has not only shown us how to live Torah by his example recorded in the New Testament, but he teaches us how to live Torah to a greater, more meaningful degree than the letter could ever do. And when we fail to live up to the expectations of Torah, he has provided a way for us to not only obtain forgiveness and overcome the curse of death imposed by transgressing Torah, but to obtain all the blessings of Torah and more.

Where Torah condemns a person to death, the New Testament provides hope for life and life more abundantly. Multitudes have lived with no hope of salvation because their sins were so great and their burdens so heavy. Yet, when the words written in the New Testament reach their hearts and they embrace them and believe, the light of life, hope, and peace overflows them. Their hearts are filled with joy as their burden of sin is lifted and put upon their Yahweh provided Savior and sin bearer. That joy then flows out of their hearts unto Yahweh in the form of thanksgiving and praise to Him. And that is exactly what Yahweh wanted all along; to inhabit the praises of His people. Where Israel failed under the letter of Torah and the burden of sin resulting from an uncircumcised heart, the New Testament believer is victorious through what the New Testament offers. Of course, what the New Testament offers is embodied in a person who is incredibly skillful in dealing with the human condition because he is so incredibly intimate with his Father. It is the circumcision of the heart by and through Messiah Yahshua that enables one to live a life that is pleasing to Yahweh. 

It is through the teachings of the New Testament that we can learn how to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit which then leads us through life and teaches us all things. If it were not for the New Testament teaching us about Yahshua, believers would never have received the indwelling Holy Spirit, without which no man shall receive eternal life. 

It is through the New Testament that we learn how to truly love Yahweh, our neighbors and our enemies. Torah provided a good foundation in that regard and the New Testament built upon it. Paul’s words concerning love in 1 Corinthians 13 are among the most meaningful, profound, and concise words ever written on the subject. And Yahshua’s sermon on the mount is an incredible revelation on how Yahweh would magnify Torah as prophesied by Isaiah.

It is through the New Testament that we are given the most detailed prophecies of end-time events as well as revelations concerning how Yahshua fulfills Old Testament prophecies, types and shadows. It is through the events and prophecies of the New Testament that we can see the true fulfillment of Yahweh’s appointed times. Otherwise, the Feasts have no prophetic nature, but are mere memorials of past events.

The New Testament teaches us how to overcome the world, Satan, death, the flesh, the self and any other enemy that may hinder us in our walk with our Creator. Through the New Testament we learn to pray, to fast, to serve others, to die to self and esteem others as more important than ourselves, to love one another, to be merciful and forgiving, to judge justly, to walk by faith, to walk in the Spirit, to obey Yahweh, to obey those that rule over us, to not seek revenge, to behave honorably towards our spouses, and a host of other things too numerous to mention. Many of those things are taught in the Old Testament as well because the same Creator is the source of both.

The New Testament, as the Old Testament, may have errors in translation, unwarranted additions to texts and anonymous authors, but they are minor in comparison to the treasures it offers. Those treasures are what make it the most popular and valuable book in existence along with the Old Testament. Together with the Old Testament, it becomes one harmonious message unveiling Yahweh’s plan of salvation for fallen mankind. It, like the Old Testament, is an invaluable guide book for holy living in a fallen world and a source of hope for a holy life in the world to come.

Blessed be the name of Yahweh for His mercy upon us and His love for us in providing such a book, but more importantly in providing such a Savior as Yahshua revealed throughout its pages.

There are several arguments used to attack the virgin birth doctrine. They are as follows;

1. Virgin birth proponents have divorced Isa 7:14 from the time frame in which it was given. They have shredded the context to prove the doctrine.

2. The Hebrew word “almah” should have been translated “young woman” rather than “virgin.”

3. The Messiah must literally be an ancestor of King David through a human father.

4. The virgin birth is never mentioned in New Testament writings except for the alleged birth accounts in Matthew and Luke’s accounts.

5. The virgin birth story has been copied from other pagan religions that have similar accounts.

When viewed superficially, each of these arguments has merit which is why many have rejected the virgin birth throughout history. If we examine these points under the light of Scripture, we can’t help but establish our faith in this doctrine and in Yahweh’s Word.

Argument #1 - Isa 7:14 has been divorced from its context.

I will not try to refute this argument by proving the context refers to Yahshua’s birth. The immediate context may very well be fulfilled in Isa 8:3,4 with the birth of Isaiah’s son. If so, there is another fulfillment which is, in reality, the primary fulfillment.

In the next chapter, Isa 9:6, 7 speaks of a male child being born which none will argue refers to Yahshua the Messiah.

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty El, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will perform this.”

This prophecy, however, is couched in the same context as Isa 7:14 and Isa 8:3.

All of chapter 8 refers to the destruction that was coming from the king of Assyria. All of chapter 9, with the exception of the messianic prophecies in vss. 1, 2, 6 & 7, refers to the same subject. We see king Rezin in vs.11, the Syrians in vs.12 and the destruction of Israel in the ensuing verses.

If we apply the same contextual argument as with Isa 7:14, we have no choice but to believe the child of Isa 9:6 is the same child of Isa 7:14. In fact, Isa 9:6 is never quoted in the New Testament as applying to Yahshua whereas Isa 7:14 is. The only verses we have that would somewhat tie in Isa 9:6 with Yahshua is Isa 9:1 & 2 which were quoted in Mt 4:15, 16 as pertaining to Yahshua.

“Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”

Herein lies the answer to the problem of context. It is the nature of many prophecies, Messianic or not, to be divorced from their context. We just saw how that is true concerning Isa 9:6 & 7. Let’s look at a few more.

Deut 18:15-19 - “Yahweh thy Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of Yahweh thy Elohim in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my Elohim, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And Yahweh said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

This prophecy was given in response to the Israelite request found in verse 16; ” Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my Elohim, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.” The context shows the Prophet would speak to “them” (vs.18) rather than Yahweh. Yet, Jn 6:14 and Acts 3:19-26 teach us the Prophet to come was Yahshua. So how did Yahshua speak to “them” that said they did not want to hear Yahweh’s voice again?

Ps 16:10 - “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

Since David wrote this prophecy, the context suggests David’s soul would not be left in sheol to suffer corruption.. Yet, Acts 2:27, 31 teach us Yahshua fulfills Ps 16:10. This prophecy is clearly divorced from its context.

Ps 41:9 - “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.”

The context suggests the “me” of verse 9 is the same “me” of vss. 4-7. Yet, Yahshua applied this verse to himself in Jn 13:18. How can that be if the context of Ps 41:4-9 clearly shows the “me” of verse 9 to be a sinner (vs.4)?

Ps 68:18 - “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that Yahweh Elohim might dwell among them.”

The context of the entire Psalm concerns praise to the Almighty Elohim of Israel, “Yah” (vs.4). Yet, Paul applies verse 18 to Yahshua in Eph 4:8.

Ps 69:1-5 - “Save me, O Elohim; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my Elohim. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. O Elohim, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.”

The context concerns David praying in his affliction. Yet, in Jn 15:25, Yahshua applies Ps 69:4a to himself. How can that be if the context reveals the speaker to be “foolish” and a sinner (vs.5)?

Ps 109:7,8 - “When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

The context of Psalm 109 is David complaining about his enemies. Yet, verse 8 is applied to Judas in Acts 1:16, 20.

Ho 11:1 - “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”

The context clearly speaks of Israel as a people. Israel, as a people, was also called Yahweh’s “son” and “firstborn” in Ex 4:22. However, Mt 2:14, 15 applies Ho 11:1 to Yahshua being called out of Egypt. This prophecy obviously refers to two different events; one for the immediate context and one for the ultimate fulfillment.

Zec 9:9 - “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

The context of verses 1-8 is Yahweh’s judgment upon Tyrus and verse 10 speaks of the destruction of Ephraim and Jerusalem. Yet, verse 9 is applied to Yahshua in Mt 21:4, 5.

Zec 11:12,13 - “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And Yahweh said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of Yahweh.

The context of verses 1-9 is the destruction of Jerusalem followed by the breaking of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel (vss. 14-17). Yet, Mt 26:15 and 27:3-10 apply Zech 11:12, 13 to Judas’ betrayal of Yahshua.

From the few examples I have listed it is obvious that the context suggests a different fulfillment than the New Testament records. The fulfillment of each of these prophecies has been divorced from the context, not by man, but by the Spirit of Yahweh.

The same is true of Isa 7:14. What appears to be the fulfillment based on context is not the primary fulfillment recorded by the Spirit of Yahweh.

Those that oppose the virgin birth would have us discard Matthew and Luke’s accounts as unauthentic because they don’t fit their interpretation of Isa 7:14. Using that logic, every New Testament reference to the fulfillment of the prophecies listed above should be discarded as well. That, however, is an illogical conclusion. Wisdom suggests that we understand Isa 7:14 as we would any other prophecy whose fulfillment is divorced from the context, especially when there are New Testament witnesses to the ultimate primary fulfillment.

Additionally, as far as I know, Matthew and Luke’s accounts are found in all Greek manuscripts. This leaves us absolutely no grounds to question their authority. Yet, one virgin birth opponent writes, “Matthew and Luke’s accounts can NOT be proven to be free of scribal corruption.”

First of all, neither can any other New Testament verse. So what’s the point of such a comment? Second, they don’t need to be proven authentic; they need to be proven unauthentic and that proof has yet to be seen.

The same author writes, “Matthew and Luke’s accounts may be an invention of the early Constantinian minded Greek and Roman scribes.” Yet, Ante-Nicene Fathers records virgin birth discussions 200 years prior to Constantine ( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter VII). Ignatius was martyred no later than 117 A.D.

Argument #2 - “Virgin” is an erroneous translation.

The following is a list of all verses that contain “almah” which was translated “virgin.”

Ge 24:43 – “Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;”

Ex 2:8 – “And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.”

Ps 68:25 – “The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.”

Pr 30:19 – “The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.”

So 1:3 – “Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.”

So 6:8 – “There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.”

Isa 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

“There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.” (TWOT)

On the other hand, the word for “virgin” in Mt 1:23 is “parthenos.” Here is Thayer’s info on this word.

3933 paryenov parthenos par-then’-os

of unknown origin; TDNT – 5:826,786; n f

KJV – virgin 14; 14

1) a virgin

1a) a marriageable maiden

1b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

1c) one’s marriageable daughter

2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity

2a) one who has never had intercourse with women

I don’t see a non-virgin in this definition.

“Parthenos” was used in the following OT verses of the Septuagint;

Ge 24:14 – “And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.”

Ge 24:16 – “And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.”

Ge 24:43 – “Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;”

Ge 24:55 – “And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.”

De 22:23 – “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;”

Jud 19:24 – “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”

2 Sa 13:2 – “And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her.”

2 Ki 19:21 – “This is the word that Yahweh hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee.”

Isa 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isa 37:22 – “This is the word which Yahweh hath spoken concerning him; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee.”

Isa 47:1 – “Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate.”

Jer 2:32 – “Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.”

Jer 18:13 – “Therefore thus saith Yahweh; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.”

Jer 31:4 – “Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.”

Jer 31:21 – “Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.”

La 2:13 – “What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee?”

Am 5:2 – “The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.”

From these verses it is quite clear that “parthenos” refers to a virgin who was undefiled by man. The Septuagint is older and probably more reliable than the Massoretic text. Most New Testament quotes of Old Testament verses agree with the Septuagint. I don’t believe the New Testament writers were actually using the Septuagint, but that they were quoting from the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated. That text is no longer available. All we have now is the post-Yahshua Massoretic text which may have undergone scribal manipulation concerning “almah.” Even if it didn’t, “almah” still carries the meaning of virgin.

Since it has been shown in Argument #1 that Isa 7:14 has a dual fulfillment, the word “virgin” is a perfect translation. Isaiah’s wife was a virgin and Miriam was a virgin. If we choose “young woman,” then we create unnecessary complications. The Septuagint uses “parthenos” to leave absolutely no doubt what was meant. Additionally, the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by Jews. This tells us that the Hebrew word “almah,” at the time the Septuagint was wriiten, meant “virgin,” not “young maiden.”

Argument #3 - Messiah must be a literal ancestor of King David through a human father.

I will address this argument in two sections;

A) Could Messiah have been fathered by a genetic ancestor of King David?

B) Could Messiah sit on the throne of David even though he was not begotten by a human father?

A) Let’s assume Joseph was a genetic ancestor of King David and that he was the genetic father of Yahshua. That would make Yahshua the son of Joseph. Yet, time and time again we are taught that Yahshua is the “Son of God” (Son of Yahweh). How can it be said that he is the Son of Yahweh if Yahweh did not father him?

The superficial answer is that we are not to understand “Son of Yahweh” literally. Spiritually speaking he is the son of Yahweh just as any other believer would be a son of Yahweh. Sounds good, but it is not the whole truth.

First, that would imply the prophets were sons of Yahweh in the same sense that Yahshua is. Yet, consider Mt 21:33-41;

“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.”

This parable refers to the nation of Israel killing the son (Yahshua). Prior to that, Yahweh (the householder) sent many servants (prophets included) who they also killed. Yet, those servants are not referred to as sons. There was only one son sent. Why? Because the householder (Yahweh) only has one true son (Yahshua).

Second, that simplistic answer does not address why Yahshua is called the “only begotten Son of Yahweh.” (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9). “Only begotten” is from the Greek “monogenes” (Strong’s #3439). It is a contraction of #3441 “monos” meaning “remaining, i.e. sole or single; by impl. mere,” and #1096 “ginomai” meaning “to cause to be (“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflex) to become (come into being).” In other words, Yahshua is the only being that Yahweh brought into being. However, we know Yahweh brought Adam into being through creation from dust. Therefore, monogenes cannot be understood in that sense. Nor can it be understood in the sense of Yahweh bringing Abel into being through Adam and Eve. Then there would be many sons begotten by Him, not “monos.” Therefore, “monogenes” can only be understood in the sense that Yahshua is the only being that Yahweh directly brought into being in the way that He did (without an earthly father or via creation as Adam was).

“Monogenes” was also used in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38 referring to a woman’s only son, a man’s only daughter and a man’s only child respectively. It should also be noted that Isaac is called the “monogenes” of Abraham in Heb 11:17. This is a reference to Gen 22:2 which says;

“And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”

“Only” is from the Hebrew “yachid” yet, the Septuagint did not use “monogenes” to translate “yachid”, but “agapetos” meaning “beloved.” “Agapetos” was no doubt chosen because Isaac had a half-brother (Ishmael).

Some will say “only begotten” refers to Yahshua being begotten at his resurrection. This is based on Ps 2:7 and Acts 13:33;

“I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

“God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Yahshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

While this is true in a spiritual sense, it has a literal application as well. In Jn 3:16, 18, before his resurrection, Yahshua said he was the only begotten Son of Yahweh.

Having established that, how can Yahshua be Yahweh’s only begotten Son if he was just like any other man that has ever been begotten by an earthly father? Can it be said that Moses or Paul were Yahweh’s only begotten Sons?

Additionally, there are several problematic verses that prove Yahshua could not be fathered by a man.

In Jn 6:31-71, Yahshua taught the people that he was the true bread that “came down from heaven.” (Jn 6:33,38,41,42,50,51,58). After he taught them, he perceived his disciples murmured at his hard sayings. He then said to them, “What and if you should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (Jn 6:62).

How can Yahshua declare he came down from heaven if he was merely born of Joseph? How can he imply he would ascend back to heaven where he originally came down from? Was there ever a time between his birth and this account in John where he ascended into heaven? If not, that proves he had to have a heavenly origin, not an origin from Joseph.

Consider also Jn 3:13;

“ And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

And 1 Cor 15:47;

“The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Master from heaven.”

Other problematic verses are Jn 16:27,28,30; 17:8.

“For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. . . Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.” (KJV)

“For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that Icame out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.”

The phrases “came out” and “came forth” are from the same Greek word, “exerchomai,” meaning “to issue” (Strong’s #1831). It comes from two root words. The first is #1537, “ek” or “ex,” “a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote).” The second is 2064, ” erchomai.” Thayer’s definition is;

1) to come

1a) of persons

1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning

1a2) to appear, make one’s appearance, come before the public

2) metaph.

2a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence

2b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto

3) to go, to follow one

I have tried to understand these problematic verses as they would apply to Joseph as Yahshua’s genetic father to no avail. There can only be one conclusion, Yahshua did not have two earthly parents. Since Miriam was undoubtedly human, the other had to exist in heaven from which the Messiah issued out of and came down from.

One other problematic verse is Mic 5:2;

” But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

“Goings forth” is from the Hebrew “mowtsa’ah. Strong’s says the word means “a family descent.” In other words, lineage. BDB says the word means “origin” or “places of going out to or from.”

If Yahshua was born of Joseph, then his family descent, lineage, or origin can be traced no further back than Adam. Yet, Mic 5:2 says his “family descent” is “from of old, from everlasting.” This can only be true if Yahshua came into being by Yahweh who has no beginning. Some might argue that “everlasting” (Heb – “olam”) does not necessarily mean forever and ever without end. That may be true in certain circumstances, but not based on the context of this prophecy. If “olam” is to be understood as going no further back in lineage than to Adam, then this would be true of all men. Yet, this is a specific, identifying characteristic of the coming Messiah. It must be understood in such a way that it disqualifies most men just as being born in Bethlehem and becoming a ruler in Israel would disqualify most men.

B) Could Messiah sit on the throne of David even though he was not begotten by a human father?

I believe the answer is yes.

First, we know Joseph was of the seed of David (Mt 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4). We also have two genealogies showing Joseph to be a descendant of David. Certainly one of them is truly Joseph’s genealogy.

Second, the people of Yahshua’s day thought he actually was Joseph’s son (Luke 4:22; Jn 6:42).

Third, Luke 3:23 says,

” And Yahshua himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” (KJV)

“As was supposed” is from the Greek “hos enomizito.” According to Strong’s #3543, “nomizo” means; “prop. to do by law (usage), i.e. to accustom (pass. be usual); by extens. to deem or regard.” It comes from the root word “nomos” meaning “law.” Is it possible that Luke 3:23 does not mean “as was supposed” but rather, “as was customary” or “as was regarded” or “as saith the law”? In other words, Jewish custom and law considered Joseph to be the lawful, legal father of Yahshua.

How can that be? Via adoption!

At this point I would like to present an excerpt from an article entitled, “Virgin Birth, Jewish Adoption and Genealogy of Yeshua,” by Mike Gascoigne. The article can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.write-on.co.uk/vbirth.htm.

In the article, the author quotes the Talmud which many readers reject. I, too, reject most Talmudic writing. However, references in the Talmud to Jewish customs and culture at that time should be accepted as valid practices of the day. The bold print is mine.

Jewish Adoption Means the Child is Begotten of the Adoptive Parents

In the case of Yeshua, it is unlikely that Joseph would have registered Yeshua as an “adopted son” because he would then have to explain the Virgin Birth to the Roman authorities and they would have considered him to be mad. He would have just registered Yeshua as his son.

Even if Yeshua had been born outside of Joseph’s household, and Joseph had adopted him, he would still be considered to be Joseph’s son just as if he had been born there.

The Talmud states emphatically that there is no difference between an adopted child and a child who was born into the household, and the genealogical tables in the Bible do not attempt to identify anyone as an “adopted son”. Instead they are just called “sons”.

Here is an example.

And the sons of Ezrah were, Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon … And his [Mered's] wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took. (1 Chr. 4:17-18)

According to the Talmud, Jehudijah and Bithiah were one and the same person. She was the daughter of Pharaoh who took Moses out of the bulrushes and looked after him. She was a Jewish Proselyte, and the purpose of her trip to the river was to cleanse herself from the idolatry of Pharaoh’s house. Jered is considered to be Moses, and it says she “bare” him, even though she only looked after him.

The quotes from the Talmud are as follows:

R. Simon b. Pazzi once introduced an exposition of the Book of Chronicles as follows: ‘All thy words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning’. [It is written], And his wife the Jewess bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Why was she [the daughter of Pharaoh] called a Jewess? Because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written, And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river, and R. Johanan, [commenting on this,] said that she went down to cleanse herself from the idols of her father’s house. ‘Bore’: But she only brought him [Moses] up? - This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten him. ’Jered’: this is Moses. Why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for Israel in his days. (Talmud Mas. Megilah 13a)

And his wife Ha-Jehudiah bore Yered the father of Gedor [and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah] and these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Now, ‘Mered’ was Caleb; and why was he called Mered? . – Because he opposed the counsel of the other spies. But was he [Moses] indeed born of Bithia and not rather of Jochebed? – But Jochebed bore and Bithia reared him; therefore he was called after her. (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 19b)

The Talmud Mas. Megilah uses the literal translation of Ha-Jehudiah which means “the Jewess” while Mas. Sanhedrin acknowledges it as a name. The name “Bithiah” might have been given to Pharaoh’s daughter when she was converted, since it means “daughter of God”. Then she was called Jehudijah when she married Mered, because she had joined the tribe of Judah. Amram and Jochebed, the genetic father and mother of Moses, are mentioned in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59.

If Mered was Caleb, it follows that his father Ezrah was Jephunneh the Kenezite, mentioned in Numbers 32:12 and Joshua 14:6,14. The Kenezites lived in the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants, and they are mentioned in Genesis 15:19. It appears, therefore, that Ezrah (Jephunneh) was a Proselyte who worshipped the God of Israel and joined the tribe of Judah. So we have Mered (Caleb), the son of a Proselyte, marrying Bithiah, who was also a Proselyte.

The genealogy is as follows:

It is difficult to verify whether or not the Talmud has correctly interpreted this passage in 1 Chronicles. However, the purpose of this study is not to establish a precise genealogy, but to investigate the Jewish view of adoption. The Talmud is universally accepted as an authentic account of Jewish culture and the statement that an adopted orphan is considered to be born into the household should be taken as authoritative.

Here is another example which is easier to verify:

Saul had two daughters, the older one was Merab and the younger was Michal. (1 Sam. 14:49). Merab was promised to David as a wife, but she was given to Adriel the Meholathite instead. (1 Sam. 18:17-19). David married Michal, the younger daughter of Saul (1 Sam. 18:20-30). Michal was given to another man called Phalti after David had fled from Saul (1 Sam. 25:44) but David took her back again when he returned to take the kingdom. (2 Sam. 3:13-16)

When David brought the Ark to Jerusalem and danced before the Lord, Michal mocked him, saying he had exposed himself to the women. She died childless, apparently as a judgement for her mockery.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (2 Sam 6:23)

In apparent contradiction to this, the following passage suggests that Michal had five sons from Adriel, who as we have already seen, was the husband of Merab.

And the king … took the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite. (2 Sam. 21:8. Green’s Literal Translation)

The Talmud resolves this as follows:

Now as to R. Joshua b. Korha, surely it is written, And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul whom she bore to Adriel. – R. Joshua [b. Korha] answers thee: Was it then Michal who bore them? Surely it was rather Merab who bore them! But Merab bore and Michal brought them up; therefore they were called by her name. This teaches thee that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him. (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 19b)

The genealogy is as follows:

————————————————————————

The Genealogies of Yeshua in Matthew and Luke

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies of Yeshua.

Matthew 1:1-17 gives the genealogy from Abraham to David, and then from David to Yeshua via Solomon.

Luke 3:23-38 gives the genealogy in reverse order, and goes all the way back to Adam. The line of descent from David is through his son Nathan instead of Solomon. There are many more generations in Luke, and the names are different. According to Matthew, the father of Joseph is called Jacob. According to Luke, he is called Heli. It is not certain whether Matthan and Matthat are the same person, listed in Matthew and Luke respectively as the grandfather of Joseph. The only two names that appear identically in both lists are Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel.

One possible explanation for the differing genealogies is that Luke’s Gospel gives Mary’s genealogy, with Joseph’s name used as a covering to avoid the suggestion that Yeshua was illegitimate.

However, a much more satisfactory explanation is that one or both lists include adopted children, and there is nothing in either of them to suggest who is an adopted son and who is a genetic son.

To illustrate this, we should look at the two names that appear in both lists, Zerubbabel and Shealtiel. Matthew associates them with the exile into Babylon as follows:

And Josiah fathered Jechoiachin and his brothers, at the carrying away of Babylon. And after the carrying away of Babylon, Jechoiachin fathered Shealtiel; and Shealtiel fathered Zerubbabel. (Matt. 1:11-12. Green’s Literal Translation)

These are undoubtedly the same Shealtiel and Zerubbabel that appear in Ezra as follows:

Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon … Now in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel…appointed the Levites … to set forward the work of the house of the Lord. (Ezra 3:2-8)

They also appear in Haggai as follows:

In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying… (Haggai 1:1)

Speak now to Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying… (Haggai 2:2)

In 1 Chronicles 3 there are a number of fragmented genealogies of the tribe of Judah. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) is mentioned as the father of Shealtiel, in agreement with Matthew’s Gospel, but Zerubbabel is not listed as the son of Shealtiel. Instead he is the son of Shealtiel’s brother Pediah.

And the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, and Shealtiel his son, and Malchiram, and Pediah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedebiah. And the sons of Pediah: Zerubbabel and Shimei. … (1 Chr. 3:17-19. Green’s Literal Translation)

Why does this verse appear to be at variance with Ezra, Haggai and Matthew’s Gospel, suggesting that Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel’s brother Pediah? The only possible answer is that Zerubbabel was the genetic son of one of these two brothers, but was adopted by the other. During the return from the Babylonian captivity, there must have been many orphans who required adoption. It is very likely that either Shealtiel or Pediah might have died and Zerubbabel was adopted by the surviving brother.

The genealogy is as follows:

In true Jewish tradition, as we have already seen, the Bible does not say anything to distinguish between genetic birth and adoption. In this case it is not even possible to tell from the context who is the genetic father of Zerubbabel and who is the adoptive father.

This, of course, provides the answer to all the Jewish anti-missionary groups that try to ridicule Christians with the suggestion that if the New Testament can’t even get the genealogy of Yeshua right, how can we believe anything else it says? They should be aware that the same apparent contradictions occur in the Tanakh, for the same reasons. Not only do we have two different fathers of Zerubbabel, but we have also seen how Michal, the daughter of Saul, was childless until the day of her death, yet she bore five sons to Adriel.

It is likely that at the time of Yeshua, many different genealogical tables existed, and none of them made any distinction between genetic birth and adoption. Far from contradicting each other, Matthew and Luke are actually strengthening the point, that Yeshua was descended from David, by giving two different tables that both have the same result.

The book of 1 Chronicles goes on to list the children of Zerubbabel.

… And the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: and Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed, five. (1 Chr. 3:19-20)

Why does it say “five”? Some translations say “five others”. Are these the five who were born after their sister Shelomith, or were they adopted? In true Jewish style it doesn’t tell you. This whole chapter is just a fragmented genealogy and there is no reason to believe there were only five. There might have been six or seven. Matthew’s Gospel says there was a son of Zerubbabel called Abiud, and Luke says there was a son called Rhesa.

According to Luke’s Gospel, the father of Shealtiel was Neri instead of Jehoiachin, giving a different line of descent from David. Again, an adoption might have occurred during the chaos of captivity into Babylon.

The Scriptures have several teachings concerning adoption that would help us to understand this issue as it relates to Joseph and Yahshua. The question is, “Can an adopted son sit on the throne as King?”

Rom 9:4 says;

“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;”

The Israelites were adopted by Yahweh. That is why Yahweh spoke of them as “my son” (Ex 4:22,23; Deut 14:1,2; Isa 43:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1).

Now, who was the first king over Israel? 1 Sam 12:12 & 8:7 tell us Yahweh was their first King. Yet, they rejected Him as King resulting in Saul reigning over them. David followed Saul as Israel’s next king. He, in turn, was succeeded by his son Solomon. Notice what the Word says about David and Solomon;

“And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto Yahweh to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. (1Ch 29:22b, 23)

Solomon was actually seated on the “throne of Yahweh.” He was there instead of David. In other words, David also sat on the “throne of Yahweh” as king over Israel at one time. This is said because Yahweh was Israel’s first King and it was His throne they ruled from after rejecting Him.

Saul would have been the first fleshly king to sit on Yahweh’s throne. All successive kings of Davidic descent clear down to Zedekiah sat on the throne of Yahweh. (They also sat on the throne of David).

The point is this; every king that ever sat on the throne of David, including David himself, was an adopted child of Yahweh. As such, they were entitled to inherit everything from their father (Yahweh). Every king of Davidic descent, even though they were adopted, was permitted to rule.

It doesn’t stop there, however. Rev 2:26, 27; 5:9, 10; 20:5, 6 all show that believers in Yahshua (the king who sits on David’s throne), will also reign as kings. Whose throne will they sit on?

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” ( Rev 3:21).

Those that overcome will sit on the throne of David with Yahshua and will rule with him over the nations. Who are those overcomers? Are they literal descendants of David through an earthly father? No. They are adopted sons of Yahweh who are entitled to the throne just as though they were literal sons.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of [Yahweh], they are the sons of [Yahweh]. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of [Yahweh]: And if children, then heirs; heirs of [Yahweh], and joint-heirs with Messiah; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of Yahweh.

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of Yahweh.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love [Yahweh], to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Rom 8:14-17, 19, 21, 28)

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of [Yahweh]: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of [Yahweh], and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 Jn 3:1, 2).

We have a glimpse of what we shall be in Revelation. We shall be kings reigning with Yahshua. We have already seen, in Rev 3:21, that the throne that overcomers will sit upon is Yahshua’s throne, the throne of David, the throne of Yahweh. How does one acquire the throne? One way is through inheritance!

” He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are Yahweh’s, and he hath set the world upon them.” (1 Sam 2:8)

In other words, Yahweh will bring to power whoever He chooses to inherit it. Deut 17:15 says Yahweh is the one who would choose Israel’s king. He chose Saul. Then He chose David even though David was not the firstborn of Jesse (1 Sam 16:11-13). Eventually Joash became king even though he was not the firstborn of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 11:12).

Yahweh rules in the kingdom of men, and “He gives the kingdom [and its throne] to whomever He will” (Dan 4:25). His adopted sons, or “overcomers,” will inherit all things.

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his Elohim, and he shall be my son.” (Rev 21:7)

One of the things they will inherit is the right to sit on the throne of David with Yahshua. The point, however, is that they don’t sit on the throne because they are David’s literal seed according to the flesh, but because, as adopted sons, they receive it through inheritance.

If overcomers can sit on the throne of David with Yahshua even though they are not the literal seed of David according to the flesh, then Yahshua can as well. He can sit on David’s throne because he is Joseph’s adopted son. As such, he was adopted into the tribe of Judah through Joseph and therefore entitled to Joseph’s inheritance as well as the right to sit on the throne of David, the throne of Yahweh.

Actually, Yahshua has more right to sit on the throne of David than David himself since Yahshua is literally Yahweh’s Son whereas David was only Yahweh’s adopted son.

Some may continue to argue that an adopted son cannot be considered “the seed of David.” Are not adopted sons in Messiah Abraham’s seed? (Gal 3:29). If we are Abraham’s seed, then we are also Isaac’s seed, Jacob’s seed. Yahshua is the seed of David through Joseph’s adoption of him (Joseph being the seed of David as well).

Argument #4 - The virgin birth is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament except for the alleged birth accounts in Matthew and Luke’s gospels.

This reasoning is hardly worth countering, but I will briefly address it for the sake of those who promote it.

There are many beliefs that are based on less than a handful of verses. For example, the account of the wise men in Mt 2:1-18 is only found in that book. I am not aware of any prophecies pointing to that visit nor of any parallel accounts in the other evangels. Does that mean the account is bogus and should be cut out of our Bibles?

What about the account of the two blind men that is only found in Mt 9:27-31? This is not the same account as in Mt 20:29-34; Mk 10:46-52; or Luke 18:35-43. Should we consider this an “alleged” account and trash it?

In Mt 13:44-50, Yahshua gave three parables that are only found in Matthew’s evangel; The Buried Treasure, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Parable of the Net. More fuel for the fire?

In Mt 17:24-27, Yahshua tells Peter to go find some money in the mouth of a fish to pay his tribute (taxes). Again, there is only one witness to this account.

Yahshua gave the Parable of the Laborers in Mt 20:1-16 and the Parable of Two Sons in Mt 21:28-32. Only one witness, Matthew. Yet, who would reject these as authentic truth?

The Parable of the Ten Virgins is the last example I will give. Again, only Matthew gives this parable, but only those who lack understanding would consider these to be the “alleged” words of Yahshua and call for their removal from the Bible.

I have only superficially scanned Matthew’s evangel to glean these examples. I was looking for examples where only Matthew is a witness. There are far more examples in the other evangels including where only two evangels witness an account as in Matthew and Luke witnessing about the virgin birth. We might as well totally discard all four evangels if we are going to discard the virgin birth accounts in Matthew and Luke.

Argument #5 - The virgin birth story is copied from pagan myths.

Here is an excerpt from an anti-virgin birth study;

“One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

been male.

lived in pre-Christian times.

had a god for a father.

human virgin for a mother.

had their birth announced by a heavenly display.

had their birth announced by celestial music.

been born around December 25th.

had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant.

met with a violent death. rose again from the dead.”

According to the logic of this argument, since all these figures were believed to have a virgin mother, we should reject a belief in Yahshua’s virgin birth. To carry that logic one step further, we should reject all the other points as related to Yahshua. We should reject the belief that he was a male, that Herod tried to kill him, that he rose from the dead, etc. Are proponents of this argument prepared to rewrite the New Testament scriptures that teach these truths as they have proposed to rewrite the verses concerning his virgin birth? I am certainly not prepared to do that.

Some additional thoughts

Irenaeus, in combating some of the heresies of his day, made several analogies which you can read in ”Ante-Nicene Fathers”, Volume 1, pages 453, 454 and 547. His comments are summed up below.

1Co 15:45 says, “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Yahshua is being identified as an anti-type of Adam. He is the “last” or second Adam and Paul is drawing an analogy between the two. To carry the analogy a liitle further;

Adam came to exist without an earthly father. If he had an earthly father, then we can understand the last Adam, Yahshua, to also have an earthly father, Joseph. Since Adam was created directly by Yahweh from dust, he had no earthly father. Yahshua, to be the anti-type, would not have an earthly father either.

Adam was created from dust before it ever rained upon the earth and before the ground was ever tilled by man (Gen 2:5). Therefore, Yahweh brought forth Adam from virgin soil that was untouched by man. The last Adam would also be brought forth from a virgin source that was untouched by man. It is interesting to note that Yahweh could have created Eve from that virgin soil as well, but He chose a different means, possibly to preserve the anti-type of only one being, Yahshua, to ever be born of a virgin.

Another analogy is drawn between Eve and Miriam. It was an angel (fallen) that had deceived Eve (a virgin) into disobeying the Almighty. Through that virgin’s disobedience, bondage to sin and death came upon the human race. In contrast, an angel (good) brought good tidings to Miriam that she would bear a child miraculously. She obeyed the Almighty and allowed His will to be done in her thereby allowing the human race to be rescued from bondage to sin and death through a virgin. The disobedience of one virgin was balanced out by the obedience of another virgin.

Irenaeus also sees an analogy between the stone that was “cut without hands” which was part of king Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Yahshua’s coming of a virgin. Just as no human stone cutter brought forth the stone of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Yahshua’s advent into this world was not by the will of man or the physical intervention of man, but by the will of Yahweh.

In conclusion, when the Scriptures are rightly divided the virgin birth doctrine stands secure as a one of its precious truths. It does not matter if Miriam was of the seed of David or if matrilineal descent is acceptable. Joseph, a descendant of David, was Yahshua’s lawful father under Jewish law and custom; a custom that Yahweh Himself established by example in adopting Israel; and a custom that will continue in the future as overcomers in Messiah are enthroned with him via adoption!

Praise be to Yahweh for His Word and His ways.

This study will address those issues concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews which are under attack by Satan and his fellow workers. May the Almighty guide you through this defense and firmly establish in your heart and mind that the words of Hebrews are truth and invaluable for the edification and spiritual growth of His people.

Argument #1

The author of Hebrews is unknown. “An anonymous book is not worth the paper it’s written on.”

Defense

If we apply that reasoning to the Old Testament books as well, we would need to discard all the books from Judges to Job, except Ezra and Nehemiah, since their authors are unknown. We would also need to throw out about 70 Psalms. Additionally, it is assumed that Joshua wrote Joshua, but there is no proof of that. So that book may need to be trashed as well. We would also have to cut out the accounts of the death of Joshua and Moses since we don’t know who wrote those either.

The fact of the matter is that the identity of the author is not what’s important, but the content.

Argument #2

“The author of Hebrews is also well known for making fearful warnings to those who do not get in line and agree with his doctrine. Many Christians have spent sleepless nights worrying about the implications of certain passages in Hebrews. The most notable of them are these. 

Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.  Hebrews 4:1

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to an open shame.  Hebrews 6:4-6

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His People.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:26-31.

. . .

Of course, all those who employ these extortive threat tactics thoroughly believe their doctrines are correct and they honestly believe they are doing others a priceless favor if they can manage to convince them to agree. But what this philosophy really amounts to is the end justifies the means. It is very common in many religious institutions today and is used regularly on easily impressionable children. It would be a repulsive tactic even if their doctrines were correct!  But, as I have shown, the doctrines of Paul and of Hebrews are severely flawed from the start. So I would encourage others to not be struck with fear by their intimidating words. They are not the words of God.”1

Defense

The author above rightly calls such New Testament passages “fearful warnings”, but then he later calls them a “repulsive tactic” and “extortive threat tactics” that are “not the words of God”. Let’s look at some of the words of Yahweh Elohim throughout the Old Testament and see if we can detect any similarities.

Lev 26:14-18 – “But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursues you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.”

Yahweh goes on to instill fear in the hearts of all Israel by listing many other judgments that shall befall them if they refuse to obey Him.

Yahweh says the following about stubborn and rebellious children:

De 21:21 – “And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

The man who transgresses Yahweh’s commandments and is found worthy of death will be “accursed” of Elohim.

De 21:22-23 – “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of Elohim;) that thy land be not defiled, which Yahweh thy Elohim gives thee for an inheritance.”

The three passages given above certainly sound like fearful warnings, but Yahweh doesn’t stop there. In Deuteronomy 28:15-68, Yahweh instills more fear into the hearts of Israel culminating in these fearful words:

“And Yahweh shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other mighty ones, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but Yahweh shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would Elohim it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would Elohim it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. And Yahweh shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spoke unto thee,Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” (De 28:64-68)

These are definitely “fearful warnings”, but are they “repulsive tactics” or “extortive threat tactics”? Are they not the words of Yahweh Elohim? The reason the book of Hebrews uses such fearful warnings is because the same Spirit that inspired the Old Testament passages above moved in the author of Hebrews. He was undoubtedly filled with that same Spirit, a Spirit that will warn people of impending judgment if they transgress a certain boundary.

Argument #3

“Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. HEB 9:1-5

There is a problem with this passage. Some say it is a translation problem.

And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense…

This part is not correct as written. The altar of incense is in the first sanctuary with the lampstand and table, not in the Holy of Holies with the Ark of the Covenant. Some commentators on Hebrews argue that the Greek word for “altar” here should be translated as “censor.” They say that the writer was really referring to the High Priest’s censor (a device carried by the priest with coals and incense) that was carried into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. To their support, the writer of Hebrews does reference later, several times, the elements of the Day of Atonement. However, if he was really referring to the censor then he made another equally grave mistake. He forgot to describe the altar of incense in the holy place. In either case, his explanation of the earthly sanctuary is not correct.

But the passage in Revelation 8:3-5 sheds more light on the matter. That passage contains both the words “altar” and “censor” together. The Greek word for “altar” (thusiasterion #2379) is the same word used in Hebrews 9:3. The Greek word used for censor (such as a portable censor for incense) is entirely different; it is libanotos #3031. This evidence suggests that the writer of Hebrews was referring to the altar of incense, not the censor used by the high priest. Therefore, we are back to the original error. He has placed the altar of incense in the wrong chamber.” 2

Defense

The writer above quotes from the New American Standard Version. However, at least eight other versions translate the Greek as “censer”. Actually, the Greek word in question is not “thusiasterion”, but “thumiaterion”. That is the same Greek word used in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) for “censer” in 2Ch 26:19 and Eze 8:11.

2Ch 26:19 – “Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of YHWH, from beside the incense altar.”

Eze 8:11 – “And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.”

2Ch 26:19 uses “thusiasteriou ton thumiamaton” (altar of the incense) which was translated “incense altar” in the KJV. The altar is “thusiasteriou”, the incense is “thumiamaton” and the censer is “thumiaterion”.

Since the writer of Hebrews was about to expound upon the Day of Atonement, he obviously had in mind Lev 16:12 when he wrote of the censer in the “Holy of Holies”. It reads:

“And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before YHWH, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail:”

As for why the writer of Hebrews does not mention the altar of incense in the “holy place”, we can only assume. However, neglecting to mention the altar of incense does not prove the writer was ignorant of it or it’s location. Perhaps his thoughts were primarily focused on the Day of Atonement, in which case he would give more detail of the Holy of Holies since that is where most of the high priest’s activity took place. We cannot know the writer’s motives in presenting the information he did. Therefore, to assume he made a mistake, thus causing the Book of Hebrews to be unacceptable for the Canon, is a grave mistake itself.

Argument #4

“Then in the 7th chapter, the author begins his new-priesthood argument by stating Yahshua is like Melchizedek in some rather strange and abstract ways. For instance, Yahshua and Melchizedek supposedly had neither genealogical record, nor beginning or end of days!

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem ,É without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”  Hebrews 7:1-3 

This certainly qualifies as “hard to explain”! The author is correct in determining from Psalm 110:1-4 that Messiah is like Melchizedek, but the connections he draws are bizarre and extremely weak arguments from silence. Does he seriously want us to believe that because we don’t have Melchizedek’s genealogical records, parent’s names, date of birth, or date of death written there in the book of Genesis for usÉ he had none?!” 3

Defense

The particulars mentioned in verse 3 ( without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life) are not ways in which Yahshua and Melchizedek are alike. They are simply things said of Melchizedek based on the fact that Scripture does not record that information. The writer of Hebrews knows full well that Yahshua had a genealogy based on his words in Hebrews 7:14.

“For it is evident that our Master sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.”

He also knew full well that, since Yahshua sprang from Judah, it had to be through his mother or father. It is safe to assume that all followers of Yahshua knew of his virgin birth, including the writer of Hebrews, which would necessitate his knowing Yahshua had a mother.

The likeness that the writer of Hebrews is pointing out is that they are both priests continually. Verse 3 says Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of Elohim (Yahshua). How can that be if Melchizedek existed first? Yahshua existed in Yahweh’s plan of salvation long before Melchizedek came on the seen. Therefore, Melchizedek is the archetype of Messiah Yahshua of whom it was prophesied and foreordained before the creation of the world that he would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This is not to say that Melchizedek never literally died or that he has been literally ministering as priest since Abraham’s day, but only as a type of the everlasting priest to come, Messiah Yahshua.

Argument #5

“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law.”  Hebrews 7:12        

Question: Where is this supposed fundamental truth written? Granting as hypothetical for a moment that the priesthood has indeed changed, we have to ask; why must the Law change if the priesthood changes? Is it the priests who determine the Law? Or is it God?   If there were a new priesthood to serve the same God, reason would assume the new priests would continue to abide by the established Laws of that God. But if any priesthood old or new served a new god, then it would logically flow that a new god would dictate a new law. The author’s logic simply does not flow… yet it should be evident that this presupposition is fundamental to his ongoing argument.” 4

Defense

The logic of the writer of Hebrews flows smoothly. It is the misinterpretation of those opposed to Hebrews that causes the problem. They believe the phrase “change of the Law” means the Law of Moses is abolished and a new law has replaced it. The fact is, he is referring to a change only in the law concerning the high priest being a son of Aaron.

As for where this fundamental truth is written, look to Psalm 110:4.

“Yahweh has sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

If we say this verse refers to either David or Messiah Yahshua, then how can either be a priest since they are both from the tribe of Judah?

There are only three resolutions.

1) The promise/oath was made to a Levite.

2) The promise/oath was made to a man from both Judah and Levi.

3) A change in the law/Torah had to occur to allow someone from Judah to serve as high priest.

#1 cannot be true since the context of Psalm 110 says nothing about Levites. Also, Levites were not to rule Israel from David’s throne. Yet, the subject of Psa.110:4 is to rule from Zion. If we say the future Messiah must be a Levite, then we create another need for a change in the law to allow a Levite to sit on the throne of David to rule from Zion.

#2 cannot be proved and will be explored under the next argument.

#3 is the only logical solution. The law pertaining to the Aaronic priesthood had to change to allow for a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Yahweh Himself made the change in Torah the moment He spoke the oath in Psa.110:4.

Argument #6

“The author of Hebrews argues that because Yahshua is supposedly not from the tribe of Levi, there is therefore a change of priesthoods and subsequent change of the law. But God had said the Levites had and “everlasting” priesthood. The only way God could fulfill these promises He made to David and the Levites is if the Messiah was from both tribes. What our author obviously did not know is that Yahshua is exactly as God had prophesied the Messiah would be. Yahshua is descendant of both David and Levi! He is simply wrong on a number of levels. Both in the logic that a change of the priesthood demands a change of the law, and that there had been any change of the priesthood in the first place!” 5

Defense 

A change in the law to allow for a Melchizedekian high priest does not negate the everlasting priesthood of Aaron and his sons. Messiah did not need to be from Levi in order to fulfill Psa.110:4. That is why he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and NOTafter the order of Aaron. It is pure assumption to believe Messiah Yahshua is from the tribe of Levi and such a reckless interpretation would cause the less studious among us to abandon trust in the valuable Epistle to the Hebrews as the author above has done.

Let’s examine his position on why he believes Messiah Yahshua is from Levi. He writes:

“In the book of Luke it is recorded that Yahshua’s mother Mary was a “cousin” (KJV) to Elizabeth who was “of the daughters of Aaron”. (Luke 1:5,36) The Greek word translated “cousin” literally means close blood (genetic) relative. The genetic connection can easily be seen by English speaking people in the Greek word “sungenes”. This literally means close kin (See Strongs 4773) This word could just as easily mean Elisabeth was Mary’s aunt. Considering Elisabeth was much older than Mary, this would appear to be more likely the case, but it is a moot point in light of the fact that it doesn’t make a difference either way as you will see.

In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13) Levite women on the other hand were permitted to marry outside the tribe. We know that Mary’s father Heli was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:23. Many scholars agree that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law.) So if Mary was either a cousin ,or a niece to Elisabeth, it must mean that Mary’s mother had to have been either a sister or aunt to Elisabeth, which means that Mary’s mother had to have been a “daughter of Aaron” as well! Here is the breakdown. If Mary and Elisabeth were cousins, as it says in the KJV, then Mary’s mother was a sister to one of Elisabeth’s parents, both of whom had to have been full-blooded Levites for Elisabeth to be called a “daughter of Aaron” and be legitimately married to Zacharias the priest. If Elisabeth was Mary’s aunt, as is more likely the case, then Mary’s mother was a sister to Elisabeth. No matter how one works it, it comes out the same. Mary’s mother was a full-blooded Levite. She was then one of those who married outside the tribe when she married Heli of the tribe of Judah. Now it also logically flows perfectly well that if Yahshua had no earthly father, no new genetic material was introduced at his conception. Therefore his physical bloodlines must have been identical to his mother’s bloodlines.  Mary was a perfect blend of both tribes Judah and Levi!” 6

Here is Strong’s definition of “sungenes”:

4773. suggenes ‘; from 4862 and 1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:– cousin, kin(-sfolk, -sman).

Here is Thayer’s definition of the same word:

4773 suggenes

from 4862 and 1085; TDNT – 7:736,1097; adj

KJV – kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1; 12

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood

2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

As you can see, the word can apply to a “fellow countryman” and is not necessarily limited to one’s own tribe. All Israelites are related by blood and by genetics through a common ancestor, Jacob/Israel. Therefore, every tribe is related by blood and genetics to every other tribe. We will see how Miriam’s relation to Elizabeth could have come about later. First, let’s examine the following statement:

“In Leviticus, God commanded that Levite men were to marry only Levite women. (Leviticus 21:1,13-14, 22:12-13)”

Is that true? Here are the references in full.

Lev 21:1 “And Yahweh said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:”

Lev 21:13-14 – “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.”

Lev 22:12-13 – “If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.”

What does the phrase, “his own people” mean? Is it a reference to the tribe of Levi, the family of Aaron, or all Israelites?

Yahweh provides the answer through Ezekiel.

“But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, says Adonai Yahweh:

They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.

And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.

They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causes sweat.

And when they go forth into the utter court, even into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.

Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court.

Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.” (Ezekiel 44:15-22).

Zadok is of the house of Aaron, but we see here that his sons are permitted to marry any maiden (virgin) from the whole house of Israel and not just from the tribe of Levi. Therefore, the phrase, “of his own people” in Lev.21:14 refers to all Israel.

Additionally, according to the Mishnah, even the daughter of a Proselyte father can marry a priest, provided her mother is not also a Proselyte.

Mishnah 5. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says:

A woman who is a daughter of a Proselyte may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite woman. [this law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: ‘Which thou, O God, hast given unto me’.(Mishna Mas. Bikkurim [First Fruits] Chapter 1)

To further support the belief that Yahshua was from Judah and Levi, a genealogy is presented by the author of, “The Problem With Hebrews.”.

Here are his concluding statements based on the evidence he presented.

“The fact that Yahshua is indeed a descendant of the tribe of Levi, as God had promised the Messiah would be, is enough in itself to completely discredit the book of Hebrews. Hebrew’s assertion that Yahshua was not of Levi is a fundamental premise of the author’s ongoing argument. . . . Nothing more really needs to be said concerning the credibility of the author of Hebrews! We should discard the book as a nice-try of purely human effort on this basis alone.” 7

In reality, it is this author who is making a “nice-try” at discrediting the Spirit filled author of Hebrews. We have already seen how his primary premise is faulty, that is, that a priest MUST marry a Levite. Now we will look at an alternate genealogy in which Miriam can still be a “cousin” to Elizabeth, but not from Levi.

St. Hippolytus (in Nicephor II.iii – an apocryphal writing) recorded the following information:

Matthan had 3 daughters -

1) Mary (not Yahshua’s mother)    2) Soba      3) Ann

1) Mary – married a man of Bethlehem, and was the mother of her daughter, “Salome”.

2) Soba – married at Bethlehem also, but a “Son of Levi” by whom she had “Elizabeth” (the mother of John the Baptist).

3) Ann – married Joachim, a Galilean also, and bore “Miriam” (Yahshua’s mother).

So, Salome, Elizabeth and Mary were First Cousins.  Elizabeth was ”of the daughters of Aaron” on her father’s side, and on her mother’s side, the cousin of “Miriam”.

Here is a view of that genealogy:

This shows that it is possible for Elizabeth to be a daughter of Aaron, while Miriam is of the tribe of Judah, and yet still be cousins, as stated in Luke.

It is irrelevant whether or not this genealogy is correct. What matters is that it clearly sets forth a scenario in which Miriam and Elizabeth are cousins without Miriam being from Levi.

We are now faced with a choice. Do we believe the author of Hebrews, whose book has blessed millions throughout the centuries, when he writes that Yahshua was from Judah, not Levi or do we accept this new scenario in which Yahshua is from Levi, thus destroying the credibility of Hebrews? To me, the choice is obvious.

Argument # 7

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. “(Heb.7:12)

It is claimed that this verse contradicts Yahshua’s words in Matthew 5:17-18 and Jeremiah’s words in Jeremiah 33:18. Those verses read as follows:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mt.5:17-18)

“Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” (Jer.33:18)

Defense

I do not believe there is a contradiction. There is, however, a lack of understanding on how these verses harmonize. Let’s begin by examining Jer.33:18.

Reading Jer.33:18 in context, including verses 17-21, aids our understanding.

For thus says YHWH; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;

Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

And the word of YHWH came unto Jeremiah, saying,

Thus says YHWH; If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.

Verse 17 does not mean David will always have a son sitting on the throne day after day without interruption. It means, if a king sits on the throne, he will be a son of David.

Hosea 3:4 reads;

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:

Here we see a prophecy stating there will be a time when a son of David will not be sitting on the throne because Israel will not have a king. Therefore, Jer.33:17 cannot mean David’s sons will reign without interruption.

The same holds true for the Levites of Jer.33:18. It does not mean the Levitical priesthood would serve uninterrupted forever. It means, as long as there is day and night and as long as David’s son sits on the throne, the Levites will minister. However, Yahweh Himself has brought about an interruption in the Levitical system by allowing the temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed. No Levites have ministered and no sacrifices or offerings have been made since 70 C.E. This is in keeping with Hosea 3:4 as well;

“abide many days . . . without a sacrifice”

Yet, this verse implies that the period of time without a king and without a sacrifice will end and they will receive both back.

Now we can try to understand Hebrews 7:17-21.

For he testifies, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto Elohim.

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto him, YHWH swore and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek:)

Yahweh made a promise/oath to someone in Psalm 110:4.

Who is the subject of Psalm 110:4? It obviously cannot pertain to David since verse one pertains to David’s “adoni” (master) who Yahweh continues talking to in verses 2-4.

Zechariah 6:11-12 tell us the “Branch” (Messiah) will be a priest and a king. The “Branch”, by the way, cannot be David based on Jer.23:5 and Zech.6:12-13.

“Behold, the days come, says YHWH, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” (Jer.23:5)

“And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaks YHWH of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of YHWH:

Even he shall build the temple of YHWH; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zech.6:12-13).

David was not permitted to build Yahweh’s temple because of all the blood he shed (1 Chr.22:18; 28:3). Yahweh’s promise that David’s son would build His house (2 Sam.7:13) was fulfilled in Solomon, however, the temple of Zech.6:12-13 would be built by the “Branch” which is a reference to Messiah.

The writer of Hebrews knew exactly what he was writing about and he wrote the truth. A change (transfer) in the law pertaining to the selection of a high priest had to occur and that change was authorized by Yahweh Himself by virtue of the promise He made in Psalm 110:4.

The high priest’s office was transferred from the Aaronic priesthood to a Melchizedekian priesthood.

Heb.7:18 reads:

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

This does not mean the Levitical priesthood was disannulled. Nor does it mean the Levites would no longer minister before Yahweh. Jer.33:18 makes it clear that the Levites will minister as long as there is day and night and as long as David’s son sits on the throne. Yahshua (the son of David) is now sitting on that throne and will continue to sit at least until the end of the millennium when he turns the Kingdom over to his Father (1 Cor.15:24). Jer.33:18, however, does not exclude a non-Levitical high priest from ministering as well.

Heb.7:18 is referring only to the command found in Ex.28:1-3 that requires the high priest be a son of Aaron.

And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons.

And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.

And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. (Ex.28:1-3)

When the temple is rebuilt and sacrifices resume, the majority of the Levites will be excluded from serving in the sanctuary due to their iniquity. That honor will go to the Sons of Zadok who are of the line of Aaron.

And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity.

Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.

Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, says Adonai YHWH, and they shall bear their iniquity.

And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.

But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein.

But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, says Adonai YHWH:

They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge. (Ezek.44:10-16).

What Heb.7:18 means is that the commandment which designates the Aaronic line to be high priest was weak and unprofitable not only because it was dealing with mortals, “They were not suffered to continue by reason of death” (vs.23) and “the law makes men high priests which have infirmity” (vs.28) (they eventually died and were weak in that they were subject to sin -Rom 8:3), but because it did not allow for Yahweh’s chosen priest/king after the order of Melchizedek.

By making an allowance in Torah to permit a Melchizedekian high priest/king, Yahweh made those offices even better by designating a person who cannot die and who never sinned.

Such a person was needed to minister in the heavenly sanctuary (which the earthly sanctuary was patterned after; Ex.25:40; 26:30). No earthly high priest would have sufficed seeing he could not survive in heaven in the flesh. Nor could he stand in Yahweh’s presence in his sinful state.

The bringing of this high priest/king before Yahweh is pictured in Dan.7:13-14.

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

No earthly king could have fulfilled this calling either. A king who would live forever in order to have dominion forever was needed.

This King/Priest that Yahweh made His oath to in Psalm 110:4 can be none other than Messiah Yahshua. He will rule forever over Yahweh’s kingdom and he will minister to Yahweh forever as His high priest.

How does all this harmonize with Mt.5:16-17?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It was not Yahshua who changed Torah to allow for a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but Yahweh Himself. Yahweh made the oath in Psa.110:4. When it was time for that priest to arise and fulfill the oath, Yahweh transferred the high priest’s order from Aaron to Melchizedek. He made it possible for a man from Judah to serve as high priest simply by making such an oath in the first place.

Some would say such a change by Yahweh would be a transgression of Deut.4:2:

You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your Elohim which I command you.

Yahweh is saying, “You shall not add” meaning “Man shall not add”. It does not say Yahweh could not make an addition/change to His own Torah. When was that change made? It was made when Yahweh made the oath which was prior to Yahshua’s day. So when Yahshua said those words in Mt.5:17, the change had already been made. From the time Yahshua spoke those words onward, not one jot or title would pass from the law until all was fulfilled.

Argument # 8

The writer of Hebrews is teaching that a new covenant has come, and with it a new law, thus abolishing the Law of Moses. However, the new covenant is made with Israel only and not with Gentiles.

Defense

The writer of Hebrews does not teach about a “new law”. This argument is based on the previous misunderstanding that “a change of the Law” means the Law of Moses is abolished and a new law put in its place (See my defense of argument #4). This argument is also based on a misunderstanding of the following verse:

In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away. (Heb.8:13)

The words “decays” and “waxes” are in the present tense in Greek. The old covenant is in the process of decaying and waxing old, but has not been abolished yet. It is “ready” to vanish away. In other words, its abolishment is close at hand, but is not yet.

There is a transition period between the start of the new covenant and the end of the old covenant during which both covenants function at the same time, but for different people (no one can be under both covenants at the same time). When Yahshua said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you”, he was teaching us that after his blood was shed, anyone who becomes his disciple and partakes of his blood through the drinking of the cup would enter into a new covenant. Yet, the writer of Hebrews does not teach that the old covenant ended at Yahshua’s death. Writing many years later, he still says the old covenant is in the process of vanishing away.

Those that have been living under the old covenant will continue to do so until they choose to enter into the new covenant through faith in Messiah Yahshua and his shed blood for the remission of their sins.

The writer of Hebrews quotes Jer.31:31-34 in Heb.8:8-12:

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, says Yahweh.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them an Elohim, and they shall be to me a people:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Does this prophecy exclude Gentiles? It depends on whether or not you believe Paul’s writings. The anti-Paulist would say it excludes Gentiles, but Paul says no. Gentiles are grafted into the natural olive tree of Israel through faith in Messiah Yahshua (Romans 11:17-24). At the same time, the natural branches are cut off in unbelief and blinded by Yahweh for a time (Romans 11:7-16). Once Israel’s blindness is lifted, they, too, will turn to Messiah Yahshua and be grafted back into the olive tree of Israel.

Paul teaches that Gentiles were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”, but now, through Messiah Yahshua, “are made nigh by the blood of Messiah” (Eph.2:12-13). He also teaches that Gentiles become “Abraham’s seed” through Messiah Yahshua. Therefore, Gentiles are also of the seed of Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

As engrafted Israelites and of the “house of Israel”, Gentiles are NOT excluded from the new covenant, but can enjoy it through faith in Messiah Yahshua. The natural branches of Israel can enjoy it as well upon faith in Messiah Yahshua, but the majority will not enter into it until Messiah Yahshua returns and the blindness is lifted. That is what Micah 5:2-4 refers to. It reads:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel [Messiah]; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Therefore will he [Messiah] give them up [Israel], until the time that she which travails has brought forth [the resurrection of the saints]: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel [to preach Messiah to them at which time they will believe].

And he shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his Elohim; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. [Brackets mine]

It has been almost 2,000 years since Messiah Yahshua gave up Israel. Since then the Gentiles have been entering into the new covenant through their grafting into Israel. After the woman of Revelation 12 gives birth to the resurrected saints in Messiah, those that are alive and remain (the remnant of her seed) will preach the true evangel (good news) to Israel. With the blindness lifted, they will see Yahshua as never before and receive him as Yahweh’s chosen Messiah. Their time to enter the new covenant will have arrived as well.

Conclusion

The Epistle to the Hebrews has blessed many people since it’s writing because it is full of truth and guidance for mankind. There is nothing in it that transgresses Torah or that is untrue. The attacks that are being levied against it are based on assumption and misinterpretation. If there are other arguments that I failed to address, you can rest assured that they, too, are faulty arguments.

Blessed be Yahweh who has power over all things, including Torah, and who has given His people Israel a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant, and a better King sitting upon the throne of the Kingdom of Yahweh.

1. The Book of Hebrews, Scott Nelson, www.judaismvschristianity.com

2. The Paradigm of Hebrews, Monte Judah, www.lionlamb.net/Yavoh/2005/print/Nov2005PN.htm

3. The Problem With Hebrews, Scott Nelson, www.judaismvschristianity.com

4. ibid.

5. ibid.

6. ibid.

7. ibid.

The Ebionite teaching that the Apostle Paul is a false apostle is being revived. If it hasn’t touched you yet, it will. This study is actually a refutation to an article entitled, “Paul, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly”, as well as other accusations not found in that article. Hopefully, this refutation will prepare you to discern the truth of the matter.

The foundation of the belief that Paul is a false Apostle lies in the inability to harmonize Paul with the rest of the Bible. Rather than waiting on Yahweh to provide understanding concerning Paul’s writings, the anti-Paulists prefer to simply dismiss his writings as those of a false teacher. Peter warned us that this would happen.

2 Peter 3:15,16 reads, “And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Conveniently, however, anti-Paulists would say that the second epistle of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter and therefore should not be part of our current New Testament canon. This reveals the extent that they will go. They would discard the entire epistle in order to get rid of two verses in support of Paul. The fact is that no one knows for sure that Peter did not write this second epistle. At this point in time it is simply a theory. I offer two sources which defend Peter as the author of the second epistle; 1 , 2.

Historical Arguments

Anti-Paulists have no choice but to discard “The Acts of the Apostles” as well because it, too, contains pro-Paul statements. Luke, for example, calls Paul an “apostle” twice in one chapter (Acts 14:4, 14). The anti-Paulist says of those two verses;

“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. 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 as recognizing his apostleship!”

Luke is also the only one in the Bible who goes on record to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Weeks). Should we doubt that account because only Luke records it? Of course not.

According to Yahshua’s words to Ananaias, Paul was specifically chosen by Yahshua to bear his name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15). In other words, he was sent by Yahshua which is what the word “apostle” means. We see Paul’s actual separation as a sent one (apostle) in Acts 13:1-4 where the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets and teachers in the Antioch congregation.

“Now there were in the assembly that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Master, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.”

It was actually the Holy Spirit that separated Barnabas and Paul for the work. Was the Holy Spirit incorrect in doing that?

Anti-Paulists will attempt to discredit Luke and Paul by showing how the three accounts of Paul’s conversion differ from one another. Acts 9:7 says the men traveling with Paul “heard a voice”. Acts 22:9 says of those same men, “they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me”.

I offer three possible reasons for this difference;

1) One voice spoke to Paul while a different voice spoke to the rest saying something like, “Fear not”

2) They heard the same voice, but could not hear the actual words that were spoken

3) They heard all the words, but did not understand. The Greek word for “hear” can have the meaning of “understand” as in Jn. 8:43,47. The NIV uses the word “understand” in Acts 22:9, basing it upon the Greek text which reads differently.

9:7 - akouontes men tes phones

22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi

Here are the notes from Dr. James R. White (a Greek scholar) in his book entitled, “Scripture Alone“, pg.160:

“First, in 9:7 akouo, the verb that means “to hear,” is a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb.

Second, in 9:7 phone, a “sound” or “voice,” is a singular genetive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun.

Third, in 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object. Fourth, in 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by “of the one speaking to me.”

Finally, in 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew or Aramaic . . .”

The context of Acts 22:9 suggests that the reason the men did not hear the voice is because the voice was speaking to Paul in Hebrew, which they did not understand. Remember, Paul said they did not hear the voice and then says, “of the one speaking to me.”

That either Paul or Luke was lying is not a valid choice.

Acts 29:9-18 is the third conversion account wherein Paul goes into greater detail as to what Yahshua said to him. These differences in Paul’s conversion account lead anti-Paulists to doubt his apostleship.

I don’t know about you, but when I give my testimony to people, it never comes out the same. I share more info with certain people than with others based on who I’m talking to and how much time I have to give my testimony. To accuse Paul of lying to King Agrippa when giving his testimony for the third time is outrageous to say the least.

Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying in Acts 23:6. It reads as follows:

“But when Paul perceived that the 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: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.”

They contend that he was not called in question over the resurrection, but simply lied in order to save himself. Let’s look back and see what the original cause was. In Acts 21:28, Paul was falsely accused of bringing Greeks into the temple. I say “falsely” because his accusers only “supposed” that Paul brought Trophimus into the temple (Acts 21:29).

As Paul was being led away, he asked to speak to the people. He then began to recount his conversion in which he told them the resurrected Savior spoke to him. This speech took place in Jerusalem where everyone was well aware of the events that took place in putting Yahshua to death. By saying Yahshua spoke to him after his death, Paul was confirming his resurrection, through which all believers have hope in a future resurrection. Is that not what Paul said in Acts 23:6: “of the hope andresurrection of the dead I am called in question”? Eventually, the mob cried out, “Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live” (Acts 22:22).

Paul is then taken before the Sanhedrin where he makes an honest mistake in rebuking the high priest out of ignorance of his identity (Acts 23:2-5). Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying here as well. They say he had to know it was the high priest because he knew he was his judge and he knew the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul, however, had been absent from Jersualem for quite a while, during which a change in the high priest may have been made. High priests at that time were set up at the whim of the Roman government for political reasons. Additionally, any number of other circumstances may have led to Paul’s ignorance in this matter.

What saddens me is that the anti-Paulists do not give Paul the benefit of the doubt in anything. They are so quick to condemn Paul in every little point they can dig up.

Paul’s ensuing comments in verse 6 were perfectly true, for that is the real reason why any believer is persecuted. That is why they falsely accused Stephen in Acts 6:11-12 as well as Paul in Acts 21:28.

The Sanhedrin were well aware of that because they were guilty of such persecution for that very reason. Acts 22:4-5 read as follows:

“And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.”

Paul was commissioned by the high priest and the council of elders to imprison as many of Yahshua’s followers as he could find. See also Acts 9:1-2.

Anti-Paulists continue their attack on Paul by showing how he fulfills Mt.10:16-18. It reads,

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.”

The accounts of Saul’s persecution of believers certainly seem to fulfill those verses, but does Paul’s actions prior to his conversion really matter? What about the prediction Yahshua made in Mt.26:34?

“Yahshua said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”

Should we also consider Peter a false apostle based on his actions prior to conversion? What about each of us? Were we not forgiven of much at our conversion? So, too, should Saul of Tarsus be forgiven.

Paul is also accused of lying to the Galatians. To understand this false accusation, we need to first read Acts 15:19-29;

“Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to [Elohim]; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Master Yahshua Messiah.”

Please note that James calls Paul and Barnabas “beloved”. Do the anti-Paulists seek to throw James out of the NT canon as well?

“We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare you well.”

Here is what the anti-Paulists then say;

“There are actually several things going on here but first I want to focus on the instructions of the council. They instruct Paul to write to the churches that they avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from meat with blood, and from fornication (or idolatry). This is very clear. So what did Paul write to the churches about his instructions from Jerusalem?”

Galatians 2:7-10 (NASB95)

7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do.

WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here? Again, we will note that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem but he actually taught the OPPOSITE to the churches (that is that it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols).”

There are actually several accusations here. I’ll address the last one first. They said, ” Again, we will note that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem . . .” Is that true? One need only continue reading Acts 15:30-31;

“So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.”

Acts 16:4-5 read as follows:

“And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the assemblies were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.”

So was Paul actually lying? No. It’s the anti-Paulist’s who have grossly erred in assuming and falsely accusing Paul.

The other false accusation of Paul lying concerns the reference to Gal.2:7-10. Paul said, ” They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do” (vs.10). The anti-Paulist responds with,

“WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here?”

The answer to the last question is no, he did not lie. Paul was writing a letter to the Galatian assembly. The council never said their decrees were for all Gentile congregations, but only for the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Paul had no reason to give those decrees to the Galatians because the council never told him to. I mention more about this later.

Anti-Paulists also use Gal.2:6 to show Paul’s supposed lack of respect of the other twelve apostles and how they have no authority over Paul. Gal.2:6 reads thusly:

“But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: [Elohim] accepts not man’s person)–they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:”

One anti-Paulist then says,

“Here Paul goes full board in his lack of respect for the twelve. Paul says of the twelve that they seem to be important but that it makes no difference to me. In other words the twelve apostles aren’t important to Paul despite their apparent positions of authority. He then brags again that they ADDED NOTHING to his message. Paul wants to really drive the point home that the apostles mean little to him and wants his audience to know that he does not take direction from them nor has he been taught anything by them.”

These remarks are based on divorcing verse 6 from the context which includes verses 3-5.

“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

Paul was not attacking the other twelve apostles. He was referring to false brethren that snuck in to teach their doctrine of salvation by works.

To further compound their error, the anti-Paulists fail to cross reference properly. They say,

“There is one other point often overlooked in the decision of the Jerusalem council and that is that the apostles apparently didn’t have full trust in Paul and thought it necessary to send someone along with him as a witness to what he was teaching. In the letter which the council drafts they say:

Acts 15:24-27 (NASB95)

24 “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 “Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.

The council’s letter acknowledges that Paul has received no instruction from them but has been preaching on his own. Remember, Paul himself bragged about that. The council also acknowledges that what Paul is teaching has been disturbing those who hear him.”

The anti-Paulist applies verse 24 to Paul when, in reality, it is a reference to Acts 15:1, 2, 5, 6 which read as follows:

“And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” . . . “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.”

Verse 24 is referring to the legalistic Pharisees which believed in justification by works, and were teaching the same. They were of the “number” of Jews in Judea where the Apostles were from. They went to Antioch to preach their false doctrine without the Apostles instruction to do so. The council sent their “beloved” Barnabas and Paul to correct the problem.

Anti-Paulists teach that all the believers in Asia turned away from Paul and tried to kill him. They write;

“Now to the meat of the matter! First I will prove from the accepted canon and from Paul’s words himself that he was rejected in all the churches of Asia.”

Acts 19:8-10 (NASB95)

8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

Before we saw that Paul reasoned with the Jews in the synagogues but now we hear a little more of the story. Paul continued to preach in Ephesus but he wasn’t well received for long for Luke records that some there began to speak evil of the Way before the people and that they had to withdraw from them. Putting aside the good and bad for a moment the facts are that Paul preached in Ephesus but eventually had to leave as they turned against him.”

Who turned against Paul in the above passage, believers or hardened and disobedient, unbelieving Jews in the synagogue? Who was Paul reasoning with and persuading about the Kingdom of Elohim? Believers were already persuaded and embraced the Kingdom through Yahshua. It was the unbelieving Jews who needed persuading and who turned against Paul.

The anti-Paulist continues;

“2 Corinthians 1:8-10 (NASB95)

8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; 9 indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us,

Paul admits that while in Asia that things got so bad they had the sentence of death put on them. In other words, the believers in Asia were going to kill Paul and his companions!”

These verses refer to the wrath of the Ephesians after Paul said their goddess Diana was no mighty one at all. Let’s pick up the account in Acts 19:28-32.

“And when they heard this they were filled with wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesus. And the city was filled with the confusion: and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel. And when Paul was minded to enter in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. And certain also of the Asiarchs, being his friends, sent unto him and besought him not to adventure himself into the theatre. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was in confusion; and the more part knew not why they were come together.”

This mob wasn’t thinking. They were wild with resentment and wrath. If the town clerk hadn’t calmed them down in verses 35-41, they may have rashly put Paul and his companions to death.

The thing that is so unbelievable to me is that the anti-Paulists read 2 Cor.1:8-10 to mean “believers” wanted to kill Paul and his companions. Would any believer go against our Savior’s command to love our enemies (Mt.5:44-48) by killing them? Can you picture any believer in Acts killing anybody? Believers are sheep to be slaughtered, not slaughterers of the sheep.

The anti-Paulist also appeals to 2 Tim.1:15. They say,

“2 Timothy 1:15 (NASB95)

15 You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.

Now Paul tells us that ALL of those in Asia turned away from him. Paul had to flee Ephesus for some reason and all the believers in Asia wanted him killed.”

We are not told why they turned from Paul. I suspect it was a result of what took place at Ephesus. The weaker believers feared for their lives and fled from Paul because he was the lightning rod of that entire wrath. Does that sound familiar? Did not all of Messiah’s disciples turn from him out of fear for their lives? Does that make Yahshua a false Messiah? Neither does it make Paul a false apostle.

The last attack on Paul from an historical perspective that I will address comes from the anti-Paulist’s pitiful interpretation of Rev.2:1-3. It reads as follows:

“To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, he that walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou can not bear evil men, and did try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and did find them false; and thou hast patience and did bear for my name’s sake, and hast not grown weary. “

The anti-Paulist then says;

Paul is the only one we know of in the accepted canon that went to Asia and specifically preached in Ephesus. Paul writes to the church in Ephesus saying that he is an apostle. . . This same body of believers in Ephesus are now congratulated for testing someone who claimed to be an apostles and were not. Could this be talking about Paul and Barnabas? Were they tested for three months and ultimately rejected as false apostles and ran out of town at threat of death? Did the church of Ephesus eventually conclude that Paul was a liar and was NOT an apostle?

Did you absorb that? Did the Ephesians run Paul and Barnabas out of town as false apostles? Let’s read Acts 20:17-22.

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the assembly. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, serving the Master with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews; how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward [Elohim], and faith toward our Master Yahshua Messiah. And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:”

Paul is about to depart for Jerusalem, but he desires one last meeting with the Elders of the Ephesian congregation. Let’s resume in Acts 20:29-38.

“I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears. And now I commend you to [Elohim], and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified. I coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. In all things I gave you an example, that so laboring you ought to help the weak, and to remember the words of the Master Yahshua, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should behold his face no more. And they brought him on his way unto the ship.”

Does that sound like they found him to be a false apostle or does it sound like they loved him dearly and couldn’t bear not seeing him anymore? He left them on very good terms. However, in that meeting he prophesied that grievous wolves would come to Ephesus and not spare the flock. Others would draw away disciples to themselves. The “apostles” Yahshua referred to were most likely these men who were grievous wolves.

Doctrinal Arguments

The anti-Paulists not only attack Paul historically, but doctrinally as well. Let’s explore some of the “heresies” that the Apostle Paul supposedly taught.

No One Righteous

In Romans 3:10-12, Paul refers to Psa.14 to prove all have sinned and no one is righteous. Anti-Paulists say Paul misquoted Psa.14. Paul wrote, “There is none righteous, no not one.” Psa.14:3 reads, “there is none that doeth good, no not one.” There are a few other differences as well. The truth is, Paul was not quoting, but paraphrasing. Even if he was quoting, there are other examples of people not quoting exactly. For example:

Psalm 53 is almost identical to Psalm 14 with the exception of Psa.53:5 and “Elohim” in Psa.53 where Psa.14 has “YHWH”. Is David misquoting his own Psalm because it is not an exact quote? Does that make David a false prophet?

In Mt.4:4, Yahshua said:

“It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” KJV

Yahshua was quoting Deut.8:3 which reads:

“And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yahweh does man live.”

As you can see, Yahshua did not quote this verse perfectly. He left out some words in the beginning and some at the end. Does that make him a false Messiah? Or should we blame Matthew for misquoting Yahshua and throw his book out along with Paul’s writings? I’m being sarcastic, of course. The truth is that the meaning and understanding of the Psalm is being carried over by Paul.

Keep in mind that believers in ancient times did not get to carry around the Scriptures wherever they went as we do. They did not have computers to instantly write out a verse stored in its memory. They had to rely on their own memories.

I can guarantee that every anti-Paulist, at one time or another, has misquoted a verse. I wonder if they would consider themselves false brethren because of such a mistake.

Because anti-Paulist’s believe Paul falsely used the word “righteous”, they will also accuse Paul of teaching falsely because Scripture says Noah, Abraham, David and others were “righteous”. Not only does Psa.14:3 read, “they are ALL gone aside, they are ALL together become filthy, but Eccl.7:20 reads,

“Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that does good, and sins not.”

There were no righteous men on earth based on sinlessness. Was Solomon wrong? Solomon said again, in 1 Kgs 8:46:

“…(for there is no man that sins not,) …”

The fact is, all the patriarchs sinned as well and therefore were not perfectly righteous in the sense that Yahweh is. They were righteous, not because they never sinned (never transgressed any of Yahweh’s commandments), but because they lived by faith, and that faith was imputed to them for righteousness (Gen.15:6).

So why did Paul use “righteous” in Rom.3:10? Because Paul understood as did David and Solomon, that it only takes one sin (one unrighteous act) to become unjust and unrighteous. Since Paul was paraphrasing and not quoting verbatim, he understands “none that does good” to mean “every man has committed an act or acts of unrighteousness.” If none do good, none are perfectly righteous. The two words are synonymous in Pr.14:19:

“The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates of the righteous.”

Yahshua was sinless. Therefore, he is the only absolutely righteous man that ever lived. His righteousness is imparted to us through faith paving the way for our justification apart from the law.

Justifying the Wicked

In Ex.23:7, Yahweh says, “for I will not justify the wicked.” Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of teaching the exact opposite in Rom.4:5 which reads as follows:

“But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the wicked, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.”

If we read Ex.23:7 in context, including verses 1-6, we will notice that Yahweh precedes His statement in verse 7 with a list of at least ten commands. His meaning in verse 7, therefore, is that He will not justify the wicked in their wickedness. Paul teaches the same thing and intended the same meaning in Rom.4:5.

In Acts 17:30, Paul says the following:

“The times of ignorance therefore [Elohim] overlooked; but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent:”

Paul calls for the wicked to repent (turn away from their sin). In Rom.4:5, Paul is teaching that Yahweh will justify the wicked afterthey repent, believe and have faith. This is why Paul quotes from Psalm 32 in Romans 4:7 and says, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.” This is exactly what Yahweh taught in Hab.2:4, “the just shall live by faith.”

Call No Man Your Father

Paul wrote, in 1 Cor.4:15;

“For though you have ten thousand tutors in Messiah, yet have you not many fathers; for in Messiah Yahshua I begat you through the gospel.”

Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of not obeying Yahshua’s command in Mt.23:9 to call no man “father”.

However, Yahshua himself and every New Testament writer except Jude used the word “father” in reference to men. James calls Abraham “our father” in Ja.2:21 as did Stephen in Acts 7:2.Therefore, we are not to understand Yahshua’s words as anti-Paulists interpret them.

Yahweh says to “honor thy father and thy mother”. If I then say, “I would like to honor my father in a special way,” am I breaking Yahshua’s command? Obviously not, for Yahshua probably had practices similar to the Roman Catholic practice of calling their priests, “Father so and so” in mind.

Justification by Faith or Works?

Anti-Paulists are quick to bring up the supposed contradictions in Paul’s teaching of justification by faith alone and what James taught in James 2.

Paul wrote:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

James wrote:

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)

Interestingly, both apostles use the same verse (Gen.15:6) to support their position.

Paul wrote:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed Elohim, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Rom.4:3)

James wrote:

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed Elohim, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of Elohim.” (James 2:23)

To understand this seeming contradiction, we need to understand that each apostle is looking at justification from a different viewpoint. For example, two people can look at a triangle. One may only see a triangle while the other sees a square! How can that be? They were both viewing a pyramid; one from the side and the other from the top.

Paul is looking at justification in it’s initial stage (when a person first believes). James is looking at justification after one first believes. Paul sees Abraham’s faith (belief in Yahweh) prior to Abraham’s work of offering up Isaac. James sees Abraham’s works of offering up Isaac as a fruit of his faith (after he was justified by faith).

James did not say, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith” (James 2:24). He added the word “only” after “faith”. In other words, faith comes first, but it cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by good works.

In writing about justification, Paul was not addressing the believers behavior after having been justified. Had he addressed justification from James’ viewpoint, he undoubtedly would have agreed with him. Both apostles believed the words of Habakkuk 2:4b:

“but the just shall live by his faith.”

The Greek word “dikaioo”, translated “justified” in James 2:24, means “to render (i.e. to show or regard as) just or innocent.” Therefore, Abraham was “regarded” by Yahweh as being justified through faith, but he also “showed” he was justified by his works.

Paul the Hypocrite?

Gal.2:11-14 states, “But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, live as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compel thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

1 Cor.9:19-22 read, “For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to [Elohim], but under law to Messiah, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.”

1 Cor 10:31-33 read, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of [Elohim]. Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the called out of Elohim: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.”

The anti-Paulist then says:

“Why does Paul rebuke Peter for not giving offense to the circumcised and yet he himself says we should give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks and that Paul himself had become as a Jew to reach Jews and like a Greek to reach Greeks? Does Paul have a double standard?”

Is Paul being a hypocrite with a double standard? The answer is found in the motive of each man’s actions. Paul’s motive is found in 1 Cor.9:22:

“To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.”

Peter’s motive is found in Gal.2:12.

“For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.”

Paul acted out of love and Peter acted out of fear. What does the Apostle John teach about fear?

“There is no fear in love: but perfect love casts out fear, because fear hath torment; and he that fears is not made perfect in love.” 1 Jn.4:18

Peter’s fear of the Jews led to the fruit of hypocrisy and was a manifestation of a lack of love on his part. Motive is the key.

Circumcision

Now we come to the two most difficult teachings of Paul, circumcision and eating meat sacrificed to idols. First we shall consider circumcision.

Acts 21:27-28 states the following:

“And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this holy place.”

The anti-Paulist then says,

“To me it seems clear that the Jews from Asia are upset with Paul in particular for bringing uncircumcised men into the temple in violation of the words of Ezekiel. “

That is stated as fact by this anti_paulist author. However, in verse 29, Luke says:

“For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.”

In other words, Paul was being falsely accused of polluting the temple. They assumed he brought Trophimus into the temple, but they never actually saw him do that. A similar instance can be found where Naboth the Jezreelite was falsely accused of cursing Elohim and the king, and even stoned, yet he had committed no crime (1 Kings 21:5-16).The remaining seven chapters of Acts are all related to Paul’s defense against those same false accusations. It is ironic that those same false accusations are being leveled against Paul even today, and by professing brethren in Messiah, nonetheless!.

1 Cor.7:17-20 read as follows:

“Only, as the Master hath distributed to each man, as [Elohim] hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the assemblies. Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of [Elohim]. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called.”

The anti-Paulist would then say,

This last statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians is particularly troubling since he clearly seems to indicate that if you are called when you were not circumcised then you should REMAIN uncircumcised. Why then, we must ask, does Paul have Timothy circumcised if, by his own instruction, a man should remain uncircumcised if he was “called” while uncircumcised?

We need to note that 1 Corinthians was written after Paul’s first visit to Corinth in Acts 18:1-17. Therefore, Timothy’s circumcision in Acts 16 and Titus’ avoidance of circumcision referred to in Gal.2:3-5 and which took place in Acts 15, where both before Paul’s statements in 1 Cor.17.

Note in Galatians 2:3-5, Paul refused to submit to the false brethren who demanded Titus’ circumcision. It reads,

“But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

This shows Paul’s consistency in his teaching that Gentile converts need not be circumcised. After the Jerusalem council’s decision, which agrees with Paul’s teaching in that circumcision was not one of the four requirements imposed on Gentiles, Paul has Timothy circumcised. Does this contradict his belief? No.

Timothy was being chosen to accompany Paul in his ministry. Had Timothy remained uncircumcised, it would have been a great hindrance to Paul’s ministry to the Jews in that area. Timothy evidently agreed to “become as a Jew to win the Jews.”

Paul was not giving a steadfast command to which there could be no exceptions. Since Timothy was not fully a Gentile, his extenuating circumstance warranted a different approach. He was not being circumcised in order to be saved, but so that others would be saved. Had Timothy not been chosen for the ministry, there would have been no need to circumcise him.

Paul was not teaching against circumcision itself, but against circumcision for the wrong reason. To be circumcised in order to be saved or justified is wrong and is a denial of salvation by grace through faith.

Meats Sacrificed To Idols

I would like to conclude this study by examining Paul’s stand on eating meats sacrificed to idols. Paul’s position is this: seeing that an idol is nothing, there is nothing wrong with eating the sacrificial meat unless it causes someone to stumble. Anti-Paulists would say that contradicts the Jerusalem council’s decree in Acts 15 and Yahshua’s words in Rev.2:14 & 20.

The Jerusalem council’s decree was that the Gentiles were to abstain from things offered to idols (Acts 15:20). The Greek reads, “to hold back from pollutions of the idols.” Acts 15:29 in the KJV reads, “that you abstain from meats offered to idols.” The Greek reads, “to abstain from idol sacrifices.” Acts 21:25 reads, “keep themselves from things offered to idols.” The Greek reads, “to keep from themselves the both idol sacrifices and the blood . . .”

As you can see, there is no reference to eating the meat of those sacrifices. We can infer that, but it doesn’t make it clear. The council may be decreeing that they simply abstain from sacrificing to idols.

Keep in mind two important points as you ponder this issue; 1) There is no direct command in Torah from Yahweh to not eat meat sacrificed to idols and 2) The Jerusalem council’s decree was never sent to the Corinthians. Acts 15:23 says,

“And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:”

Those three locations are just north of Israel. Corinth is at least 1,000 miles away in Greece across the Aegean Sea. Paul was not told to deliver the decree to any other Gentile areas. Verse 30 shows that Paul obeyed the council and delivered the decree.

Concerning point #1: Some appeal to Ex.34:12-16 for such a command. It reads as follows:

“Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goes, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other mighty one: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous El: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their mighty ones, and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their mighty ones, and make thy sons go a whoring after their mighty ones.”

Notice there is no direct command from Yahweh saying not to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. What He forbids is the making of a covenant with non-Israelites which may then lead to idolatry and idolatrous eating. When a covenant is made between two parties they become bound together in a special relationship.

Paul was in total agreement with Ex.34:12-16. He admonished the Corinthians to avoid such bonds in 2 Cor.6:14-18. It reads as follows:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Messiah with Belial? or what part hath he that believes with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of Elohim with idols? for ye are the temple of the living Elohim; as Elohim hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith [Yahweh], and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith [Yahweh] Almighty.”

However, when Paul tells the Corinthians that it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as they do not cause another to stumble, he is saying that in the context of NOT being in a covenant relationship (unequally yoked) at the time. To simply sit down and eat a meal because you are hungry is totally different than sitting down with an idolater with whom you have covenanted and partaking in his idolatry by eating his sacrifice.

Paul said:

“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Master, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Master’s table, and of the table of devils.” (1 Cor.10:20-21)

The “fellowship” comes when one places themselves in that special bonded relationship. There is no such fellowship when one simply buys a piece of meat at a meat market, even if it was sacrificed to an idol. Believers can have fellowship with each other through Messiah. We can have no fellowship with unbelievers unless we join with them through some sort of mutual bond such as a covenant, contract, sexual relations, etc.

What about Numbers 25:1-3?

“And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their mighty ones: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their mighty ones. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel.”

Notice what was done as a prelude to eating meat sacrificed to idols; they committed whoredom. In other words, they joined themselves to Moab through sexual relations. They created an intimate bond of fellowship which made their eating idolatrous.

Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 6:16:

“What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

A sexual relationship creates a bond of oneness between the two. This is why Yahweh warned Israel in Ex.34:12-16 about making a covenant, especially through marriage, with non-Israelites.

Paul was not condoning eating meat sacrificed to an idol while in such a covenant relationship whether through marriage, fornication, contract, or otherwise.

With those things in mind, how do we harmonize Paul with Rev.2:14 & 20? Theses verses read as follows:

“But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” (14)

“Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.” (20)

The key word in understanding this issue is “stumblingblock” in verse 14. Balak caused Israel to stumble by having them do something they believed was wrong. Israel believed such meat to be “common” or defiled. Jezebel did the same thing by seducing believers to do the same. The issue in Rev.2 is exactly what Paul taught in Romans 14:13-15.

“Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. I know, and am persuaded by the Master Yahshua, that there is nothing common of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be common, to him it is common. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walk thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Messiah died.”

Israel esteemed meat sacrificed to idols to be defiled. Yahweh never said it was, but Israel believed it was. They did not have the deeper understanding that Paul and the Corinthians had that an idol was nothing. So for Israel to eat such meat was to them a sin, but to Paul it was nothing.

Conclusion

In conclusion brethren, the Apostle Paul was truly that, an Apostle appointed and sent by Yahshua himself. His writings, when properly exegeted and rightly understood, were and are a blessing to millions of believers. May they continue to be so.