The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations

The Organized Kashrus Laboratories

Star-K Kosher Certification

Star-D

KOF-K Kosher Supervision

The Heart “K” Kehila Kosher

The “RCC” Community Kashrus Division of the Rabbinical Council of California

Vaad Harabanim of Greater Seattle

Kosher Supervision of America

Vaad Hoeir of Saint Louis

The Vaad Hakashrus of Denver

The Texas K & International Kosher Supervision & the Chicago Rabbinical Council have merged into one company.

Vaad Hakashrus of Dallas – The “DK”

K’hal adath Jeshurun (Breuer’s)

Atlanta Kashruth Commission

National Kashrut

The “MK” Manchester Beth Din

Montreal Vaad Hair

Vaad Hakashrus of Massachusetts

Kashruth Council of Toronto

Tri-State Kashruth, Vaad Hoer of Cincinnati

The “CHOF KOSHER”

Vaad HaRaBONIM of Florida

Orthodox Vaad of Philadelphia

The California “K” Kehilla Kosher (Igud Hakashrus of Los Angeles)

Rabbinical Council of Orange County & Long Beach

Vaad HaKashrus of the Five Towns

Rabbinic Administrator of Upper Midwest Kashrut

The “K-COR” Vaad Harabonim of Greater Detroit & Merkaz

The “Sefer Torah-Kasher” The Vaad Harabbonim of Flatbush

Bais Din of Crown Heights

Kashruth of The Central Rabbinical Congress

Orthodox Rabbinical Council of British Columbia

aGUDaH The Beth Din Zedek of agudath Israel

The London Beth Din Court of the Chief Rabbi

KEDaSSIa Kedassia, The Joint Kashrus Committee of England

Glatt Kosher &endash; Nevei Achiezer

Bais Din Tzedek of the Eida Hachareidis of Jerusalem

BELZ The Bais Din Tzdek of K’hal Machzikei Hadas

Rabbi Moshe Y.L.Landa(Ravof Bnei-Brak)

Rabbi Nuchem Efraim (Noam) & Teitelbaum (Volver Rav)

Rabbi Shlomo Stern (Debraciner Rav)

Rabbi M. Weissmandl (Rav of Nitra-Monsey)

H.K.K. Kosher Certification Service of Hong Kong>

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.

We also have the Apostle Paul’s witness; Col.1:18 – “that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Yahshua had to be the firstborn from the dead; the first to be resurrected unto eternal life; the first to ascend into heaven and stand before Yahweh. If anyone preceeded him then he wasn’t the firstborn from the dead. Since some people believe Enoch and Eliyah did not die, but that Moses did die, then that would mean Moses had the preeminence over Messiah.

In light of these two powerful verses, Jn.3:13 and Col.1:18, how can we explain what happened to Enoch, Eliyah and Moses? Let’s begin with Moses;

Duet.34:5,6 – There cannot be any doubt that Moses died and was buried. Therefore, for him to be in heaven, he had to be resurrected from the dead. According to I Cor.15:52 that will not occur until the last trumpet sounds.

What about Michael and Satan disputing about Moses’ body? Jude 9 does not say Michael won the dispute and then took Moses to heaven. Since there is no mention of heaven here we should not assume he was taken there.

Mt.17:1-9 – Notice verse 9 says, “Tell the vision to no man.” a vision is not reality. The same Greek word for “vision” was used of Peter’s vision of the abominations on the cloth in Acts 10:17. They were not real but a supernatural picture. In the case of the transfiguration it was a prophetic vision which would take place in the distant future.

Mt.16:28 – This was quoted by Yahshua six days before the transfiguration. He was speaking to the disciples, but what did he mean? Surely he didn’t mean they would live for almost 2,000 years until his coming at the last trumpet. Those that would not “taste of death” were Peter, James and John who saw the Son of Man glorified in the Kingdom through a prophetic vision.

Heb.11:23-28 – These verses talk about Moses living by faith. Verses 39,40 – Moses did not receive the promise of a resurrection unto eternal life and perfection.
What about Eliyah? We have already seen that the transfiguration was a prophetic vision which does not prove that he was in heaven.

Heb.11:32 – Here we read about the prophets who lived by faith and died without receiving the promise. Eliyah was surely one of those prophets. But to be certain let’s look at what happened to him in 2 Kgs.2:1,11 .

If Yahshua the Messiah said “no man has ascended to heaven,” then what heaven are these scriptures talking about? The Bible mentions three heavens. The first heaven is Earth’s atmosphere where birds fly (Gen.1:20); The second heaven is outer space where the planets and stars exist (Gen.1:16,17); The third heaven is what the Apostle Paul calls “paradise” in II Cor.12:2-4. It is where Yahweh and the heavenly sanctuary exist.

Eliyah was caught up to the first heaven where birds fly and was transported to another location on Earth. Notice vss. 15 & 16; the sons of the prophets, who knew Eliyah would be taken away (vss. 3,5), believed that Eliyah was taken to another location. They didn’t think he went to the third heaven.

A similar incident to Eliyah’s took place in Acts 8:39,40 – Phillip was caught up into the first heaven, as Eliyah was, and was transported to another location approximately 3o miles away. Eliyah may not have been found because he was transported further away than the fifty men searched (vs. 17).

Proof that Eliyah did not die, but was transported, is found in II Chr.21:12-15 . From the wording of this letter it is clear that Eliyah wrote it after the events occurred for he speaks of them as past events, and of the disease as a future event.

This letter was written by Eliyah more than four years after his being taken up to the first heaven (see attached chronology). The Bible does not reveal how much longer Eliyah lived after writing the letter but it does say in Heb.9:27 that it is appointed unto men to die once.

Heb.9:27 would also include Enoch among the dead. Based on that verse and Yahshua’s statement in Jn.3:13, “no man has ascended to heaven”, how are we to understand the account of Enoch?

Gen.5:21-24 – These verses do not tell us much except that Enoch’s days, alive on Earth, ended at 365 years old. The question is, did he die, was he taken to heaven alive, or was he transported to another location on Earth as Eliyah was?

Consider Ps.37:35,36 and Ps.39:12,13;

“I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.”

“Hear my prayer, O Yahweh, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were. O spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more.”

The Hebrew for the phrases in bold is the same Hebrew as Gen.5:24; “And Enoch walked with Elohim: and he was not; for Elohim took him.” As in the Psalms, the phrase means the person “passed away” or would eventually die. Consider also Gen.42:13 and Gen.44:20;

“And they said, Thy servants are twelve brethren, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and, behold, the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not.” This was spoken of Joseph by his brothers. What did they mean by “is not”?

“And we said unto my lord, We have a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a little one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loveth him.” Here the brothers recount their previous discussion about Joseph with Pharoah. When they first said, “and one is not,” they meant Joseph “is dead.” Finally, consider Mt.2:18;

“In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.” Where are Rachel’s children? Dead.

Heb.11:5 – Does the phrase “should not see death” mean Enoch never died? Let’s read the first three words of Heb 11:4,5,7,8,11 and 13 . Everyone mentioned in the previous verses died including Enoch. But not only that, verse 13 goes on to say that they did not receive the promises. One of the promises was a heavenly country (vs. 16). If Enoch were in heaven, wouldn’t he have received that promise? The fact is, Enoch is not in heaven but is dead in the grave awaiting his resurrection along with every other saint.

Ps.89:47,48 – Why would the Psalmist ask such a question concerning physical death if he believed Enoch did not see a physical death? The fact is, the Psalmist believed Enoch was in the grave and therefore asked the question.

So what does the phrase “should not see death” mean? In Lu. 2:25-29 we see that phrase to mean that Simeon would not die a physical death or what is known as “the first death.” Without any further Bible study we would be led to believe Enoch never died and is still alive in heaven. But let’s look at Jn.8:51 . Here the phrase “shall never see death” must mean “the second death” since all the Apostles, including Paul, kept Yahshua’s sayings and yet died the first death.

Now we must decide whether the phrase “should not see death”, as it applies to Enoch, means the first or second death. Based on Heb.9:27 and Heb.11:13 we must conclude that he died the first death prematurely so that he should not see the second death. To believe Enoch did not die is to deny the plain word of many other scriptures as well. For example, Rom.5:12,14 says all men die because all have sinned. Are we to believe that Enoch did not sin or that the curse for sinning did not apply to him? Are we to believe that a man who was not yet cleansed of sin by the blood of Messiah could enter heaven and dwell in Yahweh’s presence?

Heb.11:5 – If Enoch did not die and was not taken to heaven then where was he translated to and what does “translation” mean? According to Strong’s, Thayer’s and Bullinger’s Greek Lexicons, “translate” means “to put or place in another place, to transport, to transfer.” The same Greek word was used in Acts 7:16 where Jacob’s body was “translated” or “carried over” to Sychem to be buried. Yahweh took Enoch and buried him somewhere so as not to be found just as he did with the body of Moses in Deut.34:6. Moses’ body was never found and neither was Enoch’s because Yahweh hid them for reasons known only to Him.

I Cor.15:20-23 – All die and all shall be resurrected, but Messiah must be first in the order. Enoch could not possibly precede him, especially if he were still flesh and blood as it says in verses 49-52. To be able to dwell in heaven we must be changed from a flesh and blood natural body to a spiritual heavenly body. That change does not take place until the last trumpet.

In conclusion, let’s turn to Jn.3:13 . Are we going to believe Yahshua based on the evidence just presented or are we going to hold onto a false doctrine? The choice is yours.

Chronology of Eliyah’s Translation and Letter

B.C.E …………Judah………………………………. Israel

821…………………………………………………………. 1 Ahab (IKgs 16:29,30)
820 ………………………………………………………….2
819 ………………………………………………………….3
818 …………..1 Jehosaphat (IKgs 22:41,42) …4
817………….. 2 ………………………………………….5
816 …………..3 ………………………………………….6
815 …………..4 ………………………………………….7
814 …………..5 ………………………………………….8
813 …………..6 ………………………………………….9
812 …………..7 …………………………………………10
811 …………..8 …………………………………………11
810 …………..9 …………………………………………12
809 ………….10 ………………………………………..13
808 ………….11 ………………………………………..14
807 ………….12 ………………………………………..15
806 ………….13 ………………………………………..16
805 ………….14 ………………………………………..17
804 ………….15 ………………………………………..18
803 ………….16 ………………………………………..19
802 ………….17 Jehoram-Jehosaphat ………….20….1 …….Ahaziah (IKgs 22:51)
801 ………….18 co-regency begins …………….21 …2…1 Jehoram (2Kgs 1:17;3:1)
800 ………….19 ……………………………………….22 ……..2 Eliyah (2Kgs 2:1-18)
799 ………….20 …………………………………………………….3 Alliance (2Kgs 3:5-7)
798 ………….21 …………………………………………………….4 Elisha (2Kgs 3:10-12)
797 ………….22 ….1 Jehoram’s reign ………………………5
796 ………….23 ….2 begins (2Kgs 8:16,17) …………….6
795 ………….24 ….3 ……………………………………………..7
794 ………….25 ….4 Jehosaphat dies(2Chr 21:1-5) ….8
793………………… 5 Eliyah’s letter(2Chr21:10-17) …9
792 ………………….6 Jehoram sick (2Chr 21:18) ………10
791 ………………….7 ………………………………………………11
790 ………………….8 Jehoram dies,Ahaziah begins- …..12 …..1 Jehu begins
789 ………………….9 (2Kgs 8:24) ……………………………………..2

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.

1) Clarify whether or not there are two “gospels”, one for Jews and one for Gentiles.

2) What, exactly, is the “gospel”?

The word “gospel”, as used throughout the King James Version, will be translated “good news” throughout this study as that is what the correct meaning is.

Let’s begin by identifying the main preacher and subject of the good news.

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of Adonai Yahweh is upon me; because Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Yahshua, the Messiah of Israel, quoted this passage as pertaining to himself before a synagogue full of Jews (Luke 4:16-21). Preaching the good news was a major part of his mission. The following verse shows that he did indeed preach the good news and he did so to the Jews who were present at the temple that day.

Lu 20:1 – And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the good news, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,

Yahshua did not limit his preaching of the good news to just Jerusalem. He preached in many other cities as well.

Mt 9:35- And Yahshua went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

The above verse identifies what that good news was. It was the good news of the “kingdom”. After empowering his disciples, Yahshua sent them out to preach the good news as well.

Lu 9:1-6 – Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of Elohim, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house you enter into, there abide, and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the good news, and healing every where.

In the above passage, the Jews were expected to embrace the good news of the kingdom of Elohim.

Was Yahshua’s message of a coming kingdom something new to Israel? Not at all. Mk.15:43 tells us Joseph of Arimathaea “waited for the Kingdom of Elohim.” This was a common hope among the Jews. They knew the Kingdom was taken from them and they awaited its return to them. It was that hope that prompted the disciples to ask Yahshua the following question;

“Master, will you at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6.

Hundreds of years before Yahshua was even born, the prophets declared a future king would reign over Israel. They understood that King to be the promised Messiah.

“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 the Yahweh of hosts will perform this.” Isaiah 9:7.

“Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, 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.” Jeremiah 23:5.

 

Mt 12:28 – But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of Elohim, then the kingdom of Elohim is come unto you.

It is said that the kingdom had come to them, not in its fullness, but by virtue of the fact that its King was standing before them. The same is true of the following verse:

Lu 17:21 – Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of Elohim is among you.

Mt 24:14 – And this good news of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The same good news of the kingdom that Yahshua preached to the Jews will be preached by his followers throughout the world.

Mt 26:6-13 – Now when Yahshua was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. When Yahshua understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble you the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For you have the poor always with you; but me you have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this good news shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

What “good news” was he referring to in verse 13 that would be preached in the whole world? The good news that the King among them would die and be buried (vs.12). How can that be good news? Because without his death our sins would still be upon us.

Lu 24:44-47 – And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Messiah to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The above passage begins to define more clearly the good news that was to be preached; that is, remission of sins through Messiah’s sacrificial death, as well as his ensuing resurrection. This is the same message that was written in the OT Scriptures, especially in types and shadows throughout the “law of Moses”, Isaiah 53 (the prophets), and Psalm 22 (the Psalms). They were written there so that all Israel would know the good news that was to come.

Here is an example of where the good news was preached in the “law of Moses” (Torah).

Gal.3:8 – And the scripture, foreseeing that Elohim would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the good news unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

John Gill’s commentary reads, “The passage referred to, is in Ge 12:3 and is repeated Ge 18:18 and in Ge 22:18 is thus expressed, in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; which shows, that this is not to be understood of Abraham personally, but of his seed; and which cannot intend Isaac, the immediate seed of Abraham, in whom it was never verified; and besides, is carried down to his seed, Ge 26:4 as not terminating in him; and for the same reason it cannot design Jacob, the immediate seed of Isaac; see Ge 28:14 nor the whole body of the Jews, the posterity of Jacob, in whom it never had its completion; for when and how have the nations of the earth been blessed in them? either whilst in their own land, when they would have no conversation with them, neither on a civil or sacred account, unless they conformed to their rites; or since their dispersion, so far from it, that their name is used by way of reproach, and as a proverb, a taunt, and a curse everywhere; but it is to be understood of the Messiah, . . .”

The following words were spoken to Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. They set forth the requirement for entrance into the kingdom that Yahshua preached about. Therefore, they are part of the good news of the kingdom of Elohim.

John 3:5 -Yahshua answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Elohim.

John 3:16 – For Elohim so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Here is another example of the good news being preached to a Jew (Martha).

John 11:25-26 – Yahshua said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

After Yahshua resurrection and ascension, the responsibility for continuing to proclaim the good news was passed on to his disciples. Peter was the primary preacher of the good news to the Jews (the circumcision).

Ga 2:7 – But contrariwise, when they saw that the good news of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the good news of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Let’s take a look at what Peter proclaimed to the Jews.

Acts 2:22-24 – You men of Israel, hear these words; Yahshua of Nazareth, a man approved of Elohim among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which Elohim did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know: him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of Elohim, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom Elohim hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

He proclaimed the same message that Yahshua proclaimed; the good news of Yahshua’s death and resurrection.

Converts that had embraced the good news as delivered by Peter began to preach the good news outside the borders of Israel, but onlyto the Jews in those areas.

Acts 11:19-21 – Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Master Yahshua. And the hand of the Master was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Master.

That the good news was preached only to Jews agrees with Paul’s statement in the following verse.

Ro 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the good news of Messiah: for it is the power of Elohim unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The “good news of Messiah” not only means the good news about Messiah, but the good news as preached by Messiah.

The good news was eventually embraced by Saul of Tarsus, better known as the Apostle Paul. His custom was to visit synagogues in order the preach the good news to the Jews first. One of his opportunities to preach the good news to the Jews is found in the following account.

Acts 13:14-16 – But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, You men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and you that fear Elohim, give audience.

Acts 13:23-33 – Of this man’s seed hath Elohim according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Yahshua: When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think you that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose. Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you fears Elohim, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But Elohim raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, Elohim hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He has raised up Yahshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee’.

Acts 13:43-46 – Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of Elohim. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of Elohim. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of Elohim should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

So, Paul preached the good news of Yahshua’s death and resurrection to the Jews just as Yahshua did. The Jews, however, rejected their message of good news which prompted Paul and Barnabas to take that same message to the Gentiles of Antioch.

The following two passages show Paul continuing to preach the good news to Jews in other cities.

Acts 14:1 – And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Acts 17:1-3 – Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Messiah must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Yahshua, whom I preach unto you, is Messiah.

The above passage, as well as the following passage, clearly outline the good news that Paul preached.

1 Cor.15:1-4 – Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the good news which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The good news that Messiah died for our sins was indeed proclaimed in the scriptures, specifically Isaiah 53.

Isa.53:5-6 – But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa.53:8 – He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Isa.53:10-11 – Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Paul was faithful throughout his ministry to preach the same good news that Yahshua preached, that is, the kingdom of Elohim and that which pertained to its King, namely his death, burial, and resurrection..

Acts 28:23 – And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of Elohim, persuading them concerning Yahshua, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Ac 28:30-31 – And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of Elohim, and teaching those things which concern the Master Yahshua Messiah, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

This next passage is very important in showing why the Jews need the good news just as the Gentiles do. It also shows that keeping the law/Torah is not the good news.

Ro.3:9-28 – What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after Elohim. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of Elohim before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before Elohim. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of Elohim without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of Elohim which is by faith of Yahshua Messiah unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of Elohim;Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Messiah Yahshua: Whom Elohim hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of Elohim; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Yahshua. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Jews will not automatically be saved simply because they are Jews. They need to embrace the good news of the kingdom of Elohim and the death, burial and resurrection of its King just as Gentiles do.

When Ro.11:26 says, “And so all Israel shall be saved . . .”, it does not include those that were cut off in unbelief and who continue to abide in it. Nor would “Israel” that is saved include such Jews as Messiah rebuked in the following passage.

Mt.23:33-35 – You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you slew between the temple and the altar.

In conclusion, the good news of the Kingdom of Elohim (Yahweh) and the good news that the King of that Kingdom (Messiah Yahshua) died, was buried, and has resurrected from the dead to live and reign over that Kingdom during the millennium, and that all mankind can live forever in that Kingdom, is for both Jews and Gentiles. Jews must embrace that good news now or after their blindness has been lifted. If not, they will remain cut off in unbelief. May Almighty Yahweh grant them and the Gentile nations ears to hear and eyes to see the glorious good news proclaimed to them.

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith Yahweh: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Is.1:18).

Friend, if you have not had your sins forgiven yet, Almighty Yahweh, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, is offering to cleanse you, forgive you, and make you as pure as snow. So please stop for a moment and reason with Him.

He says in His Word, the Bible,

“There is none righteous, no not one. . . For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of [Yahweh].” (Romans 3:10,23).

You are included among the “ALL” in this verse. You are a sinner because you have broken Yahweh’s laws throughout your life. What will your payment be for living a life of sin?

“For the wages of sin is death;” (Romans 6:23a).

You have an appointment with death; not just a physical death, but what the Bible calls “the second death,” an eternal death.

“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev.20:14-15).

You are not without hope, however. If your name IS found written in the book of life, you will not face the second death. There is only one way to assure your name will be written there.

“Yahshua saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Jn.14:6).

Yahshua, the only begotten Son of Yahweh is THE WAY.

Romans 6:23 in its entirety reads,

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of [Yahweh] is eternal life through Yahshua Messiah our Master.” (Rom.6:23).

Yahweh has provided a way for you and all sinners to avoid the second death in the lake of fire. He sent His only begotten Son, Yahshua the Messiah, to die for the sins of the world, including yours, no matter how bad they are!

“But [Yahweh] commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Messiah died for us.” (Rom.5:8).

“For [Yahweh] so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For [Yahweh] sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”(Jn.3:16-17).

Yahweh, your Creator, loves you. He loves you so much that He allowed His Son to die so that your sins could be forgiven and so that you could receive eternal life. He does not rejoice over the death of sinners, but longs for them to receive His unmerited love. Would you like to receive His love, forgiveness, and salvation? Then follow His instructions in Romans 10:9,10 and Acts 2:38.

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Master Yahshua, and shalt believe in thine heart that [Yahweh] hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”(Rom.10:9-10).

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahshua Messiah for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38).

I invite you to say this short prayer, or something similar, and receive Yahshua as your personal Savior;

“Almighty Yahweh,

I admit that I am a sinner in need of your salvation. Please forgive me for all the sins I have committed and purify me through the shed blood of your only begotten Son, Yahshua the Messiah. I ask that Yahshua become the Master and Savior of my life.”

If you are hesitant about receiving this free gift of salvation and eternal life, please reply to this post and we’ll talk. If you have accepted this gift, may you grow in grace and truth and in the knowledge of our Master and Savior, Yahshua the Messiah.

Exo 12:1-2 – And Yahweh spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,  This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

Exo 12:3 – Speak you unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

Exo 12:6-7 – And you shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Exo 12:11 – And thus shall you eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh’s passover.

The first month of the year occurs at the time of Passover.  The next new year will begin on March 23, 2012 with Passover on April 6. The true New Year does not begin in the dead of winter. It begins in the spring when new life begins to bud. It also does not begin in the dead of night at 12:00 midnight, but at sundown. All Biblical days begin and end at sundown.

Here is a short article from U.S. News and World Report, December 23, 1996, concerning the origin of January 1 as the new year.

“In 46 B.C.E. the Roman emperor Julius Caesar first established January 1 as New Year’s day. Janus was the Roman god of doors and gates, and had two faces, one looking forward and one back.  Caesar felt that the month named after this god (“January”) would be the appropriate “door” to the year.  Caesar celebrated the first January 1 New Year by ordering the violent routing of revolutionary Jewish forces in the Galilee.  Eyewitnesses say blood flowed in the streets.  In later years, Roman pagans observed the New Year by engaging in drunken orgies—a ritual they believed constituted a personal re-enacting of the chaotic world that existed before the cosmos was ordered by the gods.

As Christianity spread, pagan holidays were either incorporated into the Christian calendar or abandoned altogether.  By the early medieval period most of Christian Europe regarded Annunciation Day (March 25) as the beginning of the year.  (According to Catholic tradition, Annunciation Day commemorates the angel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary that she would be impregnated by G-d and conceive a son to be called Jesus.)

After William the Conqueror (AKA “William the Bastard” and “William of Normandy”) became King of England on December 25, 1066, he decreed that the English return to the date established by the Roman pagans, January 1.  This move ensured that the commemoration of Jesus’ birthday (December 25) would align with William’s coronation, and the commemoration of Jesus’ circumcision (January 1) would start the new year – thus rooting the English and Christian calendars and his own Coronation).  William’s innovation was eventually rejected, and England rejoined the rest of the Christian world and returned to celebrating New Years Day on March 25.

About five hundred years later, in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII (AKA “Ugo Boncompagni”, 1502-1585) abandoned the traditional Julian calendar.  By the Julian reckoning, the solar year comprised 365.25 days, and the intercalation of a “leap day” every four years was intended to maintain correspondence between the calendar and the seasons.  Really, however there was a slight inaccuracy in the Julian measurement (the solar year is actually 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds = 365.2422 days).  This slight inaccuracy caused the Julian calendar to slip behind the seasons about one day per century.  Although this regression had amounted to 14 days by Pope Gregory’s time, he based his reform on restoration of the vernal equinox, then falling on March 11, to the date had 1,257 years earlier when Council of Nicaea was convened (March 21, 325 C.E.).  Pope Gregory made the correction by advancing the calendar 10 days.  The change was made the day after October 4, 1582, and that following day was established as October 15, 1582.  The Gregorian calendar differs from the Julian in three ways:  (1) No century year is a leap year unless it is exactly divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600, 2000, etc.); (2) Years divisible by 4000 are common (not leap) years; and (3) once again the New Year would begin with the date set by the early pagans, the first day of the month of Janus – January 1.

On New Years Day 1577 Pope Gregory XIII decreed that all Roman Jews, under pain of death, must listen attentively to the compulsory Catholic conversion sermon given in Roman synagogues after Friday night services.  On New Years Day 1578 Gregory signed into law a tax forcing Jews to pay for the support of a “House of Conversion” to convert Jews to Christianity.  On New Years 1581 Gregory ordered his troops to confiscate all sacred literature from the Roman Jewish community.  Thousands of Jews were murdered in the campaign.

Throughout the medieval and post-medieval periods, January 1 – supposedly the day on which Jesus’ circumcision initiated the reign of Christianity and the death of Judaism – was reserved for anti-Jewish activities: synagogue and book burnings, public tortures, and simple murder.

The Israeli term for New Year’s night celebrations, “Sylvester,” was the name of the “Saint” and Roman Pope who reigned during the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.).  The year before the Council of Nicaea convened, Sylvester convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem.  At the Council of Nicaea, Sylvester arranged for the passage of a host of viciously anti-Semitic legislation.  All Catholic “Saints” are awarded a day on which Christians celebrate and pay tribute to that Saint’s memory.  December 31 is Saint Sylvester Day – hence celebrations on the night of December 31 are dedicated to Sylvester’s memory.”

I hope you will put away man-made traditions and turn to the truth of the New Year as decreed by your Creator, Almighty Yahweh. He  created the heavenly bodies and set them in motion to determine the first day/month of the year. All of Yahweh’s Holy Days throughout the year are based on the first day of that new year. All of man’s man-made holidays are based on their man-made new year of January 1. Who will you follow, your Creator and His days or man and his days?

The mind boggling amount of survival supplies and techniques available today coupled with the seemingly unlimited amount of choices we must make for our own and our family’s survival can be overwhelming. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to fully equip one’s self with the necessary (and sometimes unnecessary) supplies and skills for physical survival, especially when you don’t know exactly what you are preparing to survive! Do we prepare for a coming flood from a tsunamis or swollen river, famine from a collapse of the economy, self defense for times of mass civil unrest, polar shifts, meteor showers, radiation, chemical warfare, fleeing into the wilderness … and the list goes on.

We can become so busy preparing to physically survive in an uncertain future that we forget to prepare for our spiritual survival. The Savior of the world, Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) said;

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Mark 8:35-38

Are you busy preparing to save your physical life at the risk of losing your own soul? It is certainly not wrong to physically prepare for life’s storms as long as you have first prepared for your eternal future. What good will it do you to survive an economic collapse and thereby prolong your life by a few more years and yet, be rejected by the Savior when he returns because you put your trust in yourself to save your life rather putting your trust in him?

What will it profit you if you prepared so well that you are the last survivor of mankind on earth and yet, spend eternity separated from your Creator, Almighty Yahweh (God), because you did not receive His Son as your Savior? 

For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 MKJV

Unlike the plethora of physical survival choices we are confronted with, the choices for spiritual survival unto eternal life are few in number. Here are the main three:

1) Self preservation

2) Faith in material goods

3) Faith in Yahweh through Messiah Yahshua

Choice #1 seems like a good choice to many. After all, shouldn’t we be looking out for #1, ourselves? This choice elevates you to the position of Savior of your life and demotes Yahshua from being your Savior to having no place in your life. The very reason Yahshua died on the tree was to save you from your sins. He took upon himself the sins of the whole world so that the whole world through him might be saved. If you do not need him to save you, then he died for you in vain and you will die in your sins.

You may be able to save your life from famine for a while longer, or survive out in the wilderness a while longer, but how will you survive the coming judgment of mankind.

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15

You are powerless to save your soul, because you are powerless to forgive your own sins. However, Yahshua was sent for that very reason.

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14

“You know of [Yahshua] of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.

“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,

not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Acts 10:38-43 NASB

Choice #2 was addressed by the Savior in the following parable:

And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man was very productive.

And he began reasoning to himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?’

Then he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.

‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry.”‘

But [Yahweh] said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?’

So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. Luke 12:16-21

Is your storehouse well stocked with all sorts of survival goods that will last you for years to come? Do you feel content and secure in the knowledge that you have provided well for yourself? Are you rich toward Yahweh? I hope so friend. Because, if you’re not, you may lose your life tonight in a car accident or any of the thousands of other ways one can lose their life. Then what? Your survival storehouse will be passed down to perhaps your son. Is he rich toward Yahweh? The cycle will continue until one of your descendants entrusts his life to Yahweh and His Son Yahshua.

Choice #3 is your only viable option. It is the “How to” of spiritual survival. Only your Creator can forgive your sins through the shed blood of His Son Yahshua. Putting your faith in him is the only way you will survive “the end of the world as we know it” (TEOTWAWKI) and enter into the world to come. Your physical survival is only temporary; a mere prolonging of the inevitable death that befalls all mankind. Your spiritual survival, however, is far more important and has eternal benefits.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Yahshua Messiah our Master. Romans 6:23

And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36

All who believe on the Son will be resurrected from the dead and given the gift of eternal life. They will enter into life on a new earth under the benevolent rule of King Yahshua. There will be no more death, pain or sorrow in the Kingdom of Yahweh for those who believe. There will be no need for physical or spiritual survival skills or supplies in the world to come. Their will be no need for firearms, food storage, gas masks, iodine, or any of the other items you may be stockpiling now for you will no longer be a mortal being, but immortal, never to lose your life again.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Revelation 21:3-5

If you haven’t already realized it, I have been quoting from Yahweh’s ultimate survival guide, the Bible. In its pages are found not only key spiritual survival skills, but prophecies telling us exactly what calamities will befall our planet before the end comes. The discerning reader will not be fearful or worried about the future. He will be prepared to face those calamities by not only knowing the future as revealed by Yahweh through prophecy, but by knowing Yahweh Himself. When one has the Creator of the heavens and the earth as one’s protector and provider, facing the future becomes much easier.

May the Almighty grant you wisdom in your physical and spiritual preparation for TEOTWAWKI!

Many of the arguments for Christmas are not historically based and have few proof texts.  On the other hand, the arguments and documentation against Christmas are very numerous as can be seen in the quoted references below.

Being that there are so many arguments for and against Christmas, can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is right?  Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong?  With something so cloudy and controversial, why participate at all?  There is no wrong committed in avoiding this holiday.  If we avoid Christmas and are wrong, then we lose nothing.  If we avoid Christmas and are right, we prevent ourselves from being united with and engulfed in a sinful religious holiday during that time of the year.

Christmas, its origin found nowhere in scripture and surrounded by pagan worship and rites, has no place in the congregation of our Master.  We cannot separate a religious holiday with its past or its origins.  We can’t say, “Well, that was then, and this is now.”  We are told in Deuteronomy 12:29-30 – “When Yahweh your Elohim cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?,’ and 18:9 – “When you enter the land which Yahweh your Elohim gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. “

If we can see that there is even a chance, of which there is much more than that, of Christmas being pagan, should we still seek or find justification in participating?  We would only succeed in being ensnared to follow pagan gods in the same way that the pagans did.  The rites performed during Christmas today are those that were done to glorify their false gods in the past.  Do we want to give those gods any glory whatsoever?  If those things are detestable to Yahweh, should we not stay far, far away to avoid even the appearance of evil?

The statements and quotes from reputable sources below should provide plenty enough proof that Christmas has a pagan past.  We cannot “Christianize” something that was theirs first, just like they can’t “Paganize” something that was ours first.  They can’t take Passover and dance around snakes and sacrifice children and it be pleasing to Yahweh, so how can we imitate the rites of those pagan celebrations and honor Yahweh or Yahshua?  If they offered gifts to a tree representing their god (by putting them under the tree), how can we do the same and separate the paganism from that?  That is the same as playing with a wee gee board and asking Yahshua to guide our hands.  We cannot bring Yahshua into that pagan practice. Is it a sin to give gifts to one another?  No.  But when it is done in the same manner, at the same time of the year as the ancient pagans did it, we should run away from it to avoid association with the world in it.  We have had this in our past for so many hundreds of years that it seems normal.  But normal doesn’t always mean right.  Did Yahshua observe it?  Did Yahshua instruct it to be observed?  Did any of the apostles teach or observe it?  Did the early church fathers observe it?  The answers to these are obvious.  Why should we unite our festivities with those rooted in or imitative of pagan rites and rituals?

Date of the birth of Yahshua Unknown

There is probably a good reason as to why the exact date of Yahshua’s birth is not known.  Not even the devout followers of him, in all of their research and attempts, were able to ascertain that date.  Simply put, “Not mentioned, not important.”  There is no instruction to observe the day of the birth of Yahshua as a religious holiday.  If Yahweh thought that would be important he would have said so.  The lack of a specific date being even slightly alluded to should actually keep us on our guard against it.

The facts presented in scripture that do give some information regarding the season of Yahshua’s birth contradict what is currently practiced.  First, a census was ordered, which brought Joseph and Miriam there to begin with.  Any king, including Herod, who wanted to get any type of accurate numbering of the people in his kingdom, would not have done it during the dead of winter when traveling was difficult.  Second, the inn was full.  This was probably due to the ongoing or up and coming Feast of Tabernacles in the fall.  Many people would have been making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem at that time for that feast.  Third, the shepherds were sleeping and staying in the fields.  They would not have been doing this in winter.  Fourth, Zacharias, John the Baptist’s father, was of the priestly order of Abijah, which served twice a year.  The course of Abijah was the eighth course which was approximately three months after the start of the priestly cycle in March/April. This would place Elizabeth’s conception around June or, if it was Zacharias’s second yearly turn, around December.

The Bible does not specify which of the two courses it was. Nine months after one of the two courses John the Baptist was born. This would place his birth in March or September. Six months later, Yahshua’s birth would have been around September or the following March. Either way, according to the time of the course of Abijah, a December birth for Messiah Yahshua is out of the question.

- “The exact date of Yahshua’ birth is entirely unknown, as all authorities acknowledge—though there are indications that it was in the early fall—probably September—approximately six months after Passover,” Catholic Encyclopedia.

- “Inexplicable though it seems, the date of the [Christ’s] birth is not known. The Gospels indicate neither the day nor the month,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 656.

- “It was a custom among Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts about the Passover [early spring], and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain,” Clarke’s Commentary by Adam Clarke, vol. 3, p. 370. He adds, “As these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Savior was not born on the 25^th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields …the flocks were still in the fields BY NIGHT. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up.”

Celebrating our Savior’s birth on December 25 and teaching others to do so is to live and teach a lie. Some will say, “We know he was not born on December 25. We simply choose that day to remember his birth.” Of all the days in the year to remember his birth, why that day? History has shown, as we will see below, that  that day was chosen by the Roman church in order to assimilate pagans who were celebrating their gods and goddesses on the same day. If Christians know Messiah was not born on December 25, then why not move the celebration of his birth to a different day, one that is closer to the approximate time of his birth (September/October)? Since we are not commanded to celebrate Yahshua’s birth and since we do not know the exact date of his birth, the prudent course of action in dealing with such a holiday stemming from paganism is to abandon it.

Intimately related to pagan celebrations

There is plenty of evidence supplied below to bring the celebration of Christmas as relating to Yahshua into question.  From many of the reputable sources here, as well as the sheer volume of documentation by so many different sources on this subject, it is most apparent that Christmas was wholly derived from and/or strongly related to paganism.  With such a “shady” background, these questions should come to mind, “Are the presents, trees, carols, candles, feasts, holly and mistletoe, stockings, and other material things, used during this time of the year, really necessary to celebrate Yahshua’s birth?  Why do we hold so closely and tightly to a man-made tradition, surrounded by and engulfed in pagan rites, with no biblical sanction and no apostolic exemplification?  Is it really important, or are we just fearful of what others would think if we ceased from observing it?”  If there is no instruction to participate in or an example of participation in scripture of a certain religious holiday or feast, we should not participate.  All others can be assumed to be man-made traditions with potentially dangerous backgrounds.

- “This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed,” says Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons, p. 93. “And we find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of [Christ] in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the Pagans to their own superstition.” Tertullian – “By us who are strangers to Sabbaths and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to [Yahweh] – the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year’s day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar.”

- “In patristic thought [the Christ] had traditionally been associated with light or the sun, and the cult of the Sol invictus, sanctioned as it was by the Roman emperors since the late third century, presented a distinct threat to Christianity. Hence, to compete with this celebration the Roman church instituted a feast for the nativity of [the Christ], who was called the Sol iustitiae …. Usually when Christians celebrated the natalis of a saint or martyr, it was his death or heavenly nativity, but in this case natalis was assigned to be [the Christ’s] earthly birth, in direct competition with the pagan natalis,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, pp. 317-318.

- “Christmas…was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth.”  “A feast was established in memory of this event [Christ’s birth] in the fourth century.  In the fifth century the Western church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1944 ed.

- “The Feast is first mentioned at the head of the Depositio Martyrum in the Roman Chronograph of 354. Since the Depositio was composed in 336, Christmas in Rome can be dated that far at least. It is not found, however, in the lists of Feasts given by Tertullian and Origen,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 656.

- The Romans kept the Saturnalia in December, at the time of the winter solstice in honor of the returning sun. The festival lasted seven days. “All classes exchanged gifts, the commonest being waxed tapers and clay dolls,” says the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition. “These dolls were especially given to children. Varro thought these dolls represented original sacrifices of human beings to the infernal God,” vol. 24, p. 231.

- “The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence. . . . The pagan festival with its riot and merrymaking was so popular that Christians were glad of an excuse to continue its celebration with little change in spirit and in manner. Christian preachers of the West and the Near East protested against the unseemly frivolity with which Christ’s birthday was celebrated, while Christians of Mesopotamia accused their Western brethren of idolatry and sun worship for adopting as Christian this pagan festival,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 48. And so, the church established the birthday of the Savior to coincide with the heathen feast day. “…the Latin Church, supreme in power, and infallible in judgment, placed it on the 25th of December, the very day on which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess Bruma. Pope Julius I was the person who made this alteration,” Clarke’s Commentary.

- “December 25 was the date of the Roman pagan festival inaugurated in 274 as the birthday of the unconquered sun which at the winter solstice begins again to show an increase in light. Sometime before 336 the Church in Rome, unable to stamp out this pagan festival, spiritualized it as the Feast of the Nativity of the Sun of Righteousness,” New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 223.

- “That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin,” The Two Babylons, p. 93

- The decorated tree, St. Nick, yule log, wreaths, cookies, berries, mistletoe, bonfires, roast goose, roast pig, wassailing, caroling, and other familiar fixtures were added or embellished for the Christmas-Saturnalia in various countries. When the Protestant movement attempted to rid itself of the excesses and sins of Roman Catholicism, there also came an opposition to Christmas that almost obliterated it entirely in England. “In England, for example, the Puritans could not tolerate this celebrating for which there was no biblical sanction. Consequently, the Roundhead Parliament of 1643 outlawed the feasts of Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, along with the saints’ days,” Celebrations, p. 312.

- “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church . . . the first evidence of the feast is from Egypt.” “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas,” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, “Christmas”.

- “The interchange of presents between friends is alike characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the Pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows,” Bibliotheca Sacra, volume 12, pages 153-155.

- “According to the hypothesis . . . accepted by most scholars today, the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the Invincible Sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-Elohim principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967.

- “The use of Christmas wreaths is believed by authorities to be traceable to the pagan customs of decorating buildings and places of worship at the feast which took place at the same time as Christmas. The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christian Era,” Answers to Questions.

- “Christmas was originally a festival of the Winter Solstice. It was customary to hold great feasts in honor of the HEATHEN GODS. The early teachers of Christianity PROHIBITED THESE FESTIVALS as unsuited to the character of Christ. Yet the symbols and customs of the old festivals are adapted to the new, and so we find Christmas patterned with many customs of pagan origin.” “To the mind of the Puritans, Christmas smelled to heaven of idolatry… The Puritans abolished Christmas as a hateful relic of Popery.” The Customs of Mankind.

- “There were non-Christian elements present in the origin of Christmas. The giving of presents was a Roman custom. The Yule-tree [modern ‘Christmas Tree’] and the Yule-log are remnants of old Teutonic NATURE WORSHIP.” Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia.

- “Many current customs date back to pre-Christian origins: among them are Christmas decorations. The Romans ornamented their temples and homes with green boughs and flowers for the Saturnalia [Dec. 17-23] … The Druids gathered mistletoe and hung it in their homes; the Saxons used holly and ivy,” Encyclopedia Britannica.

The Christmas Tree

One of the most beloved traditions of Christmas is to cut down a tree, bring it into the house, secure it so it stands upright, decorate it, and put Christmas presents under it.

An interesting parallel to this is found in Jeremiah 10:1-5:

1  Hear you the word which Yahweh speaks unto you, O house of Israel:

2  Thus says Yahweh, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3  For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4  They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5  They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

This is referring to the idolatry into which Israel fell as a result of learning pagan ways. Those who use Christmas trees today will say, “We are not worshipping our tree as idolatrous Israel did.”  That may be true, however, what relation is there between cutting down a tree and decorating it and Messiah’s birthday? Regardless of the modern day intent, it was a pagan practice to do such things. Since there is no connection between Messiah’s birth and Christmas trees, and since we clearly see how Israel learned to do so from pagans, why would we want anything to do with such a practice?

- 2Kings 17:9-11: “And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against Yahweh their God, and they built them high places in all their cities …. And they set them up images and groves [asherah] in every high hill, and under every green tree … and they wrought wicked things to provoke Yahweh to anger.” “We can find enough instances of the use of trees, even decorated ones such as the pine tree on which images of the god Attis were hung amid rows of ribbons at a spring festival, to convince us of the ultimately pagan origin of our custom,” Celebrations, p. 331.

- “He [St. Boniface] was trying to stamp out the pagan rite of sacrificing people to the oak tree. He led his followers into a forest at yule time. Showing them a fir tree, he said it pointed straight upward to the [Christ]. ‘Take this tree into your homes,’ he said, ‘as a sign of your new worship [Christianity]. Celebrate [Yahweh’s] power no more in the forest with shameful rites, but in the sanctity of your homes with laughter and love’,” Compton’s Encyclopedia and Fact Finder, vol. 5, p. 326.

- “Now the Yule Log is the dead stock of Nimrod, deified as the sun-God, but cut down by his enemies; the Christmas tree is Nimrod redivivus – the slain God come to life again,” The Two Babylons, p. 98 .

No where instructed or exemplified in scripture

It is very clear that there is absolutely no record in scripture of anyone celebrating the birth of Messiah.  The death and resurrection are celebrated, but never the birth.  Likewise, there is no record of the apostles or early church fathers celebrating his birth.  Again, knowing this, we must ask ourselves, “Why are we celebrating this?”  Yahshua didn’t set this example or instruct it to be done before or after his resurrection.  The apostles, the people taught directly by Yahshua himself, didn’t set this example.  Shouldn’t we be following their example?

- “There is no historical evidence that our [Savior’s] birthday was celebrated during the apostolic or early post-apostolic times,” (Christmas, p. 47) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

- “The day was not one of the early feasts of the Christian church. In fact the observance of birthdays was condemned as a heathen custom repugnant to Christians,” The American Book of Days, by George W. Douglas.

- “The fathers of the first three centuries do not speak of any special observance of the nativity. No corresponding festival was presented by the Old Testament … the day and month of the birth of [the Christ] are nowhere stated in the Gospel history, and cannot be certainly determined,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 276, “Christmas”.

- “Christmas (i.e., the Mass of Christ). . . . Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1946 edition.

- “Christmas . . . was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1944 edition.

- The early Catholic Church father, Origen, acknowledged: “In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners like Pharaoh and Herod who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, Natal Day.

Conclusion

Knowing all of the facts above, we should choose to not participate in the normal activities of Christmas time.  This includes:

-Teaching others that Yahshua’s was born on December 25

- Decorating trees or aiding those who sell them

- Using other decorations linked to the Christmas holiday

- Exchanging gifts

- Participating in or going to Christmas plays, pageants, or dramas

- Participating in Christmas caroling

- Setting up Christmas lights

Yahweh seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH. A December 25^th birth of the Savior is not true. It has its origins in paganism. Believers are not to learn the way of heathens/pagans. We are to learn Yahweh’s ways and obey them. All His Holy Days are listed in Leviticus 23. Christmas is not one of them. Christmas is not found in the New Testament either.

The word “Christmas” is a contraction of “Christ” and “mass”. The “mass” is a man-made , Roman Catholic doctrine in which the Savior is sacrificed over and over again in what is called an “unbloody sacrifice.” It is taught that the true believer cannot be fully cleansed of his sins unless he partakes of this sacrifice at mass. Christmas is simply a Roman Catholic holiday that has no place in the true worship of Almighty Yahweh.

December 25th was the date of the winter solstice in ancient Rome.

December 25th was celebrated by the pagan sun-worshippers of Mithraism as the “birthday of the invincible sun” because on that day the sun began its return to northern skies.

December 25th was the date of the pagan Brumalia festival in Rome before our Savior’s birth. It was preceded by the Saturnalia festival – Dec.17-24 – in honor of the Roman god Saturn.

The Saturnalia and Brumalia festivals were so popular among the heathens and so deeply entrenched in their customs, that rather than attempt to reform the pagan populous the Roman Church chose to absorb their festivities into “Christianity.”

Christmas is a contraction for “Christ’s Mass.” The “mass” is a man-made , Roman Catholic doctrine in which the Savior is sacrificed over and over again in what is called an “unbloody sacrifice.” It is taught that the true believer cannot be fully cleansed of his sins unless he partakes of this sacrifice at mass. Christmas is simply a Catholic holiday.

Christmas trees, Yule logs, candles, bells, mistletoe, holly wreaths, ham, tinsel, lights, and Santa Claus have nothing to do with the Savior’s birth. They each have a non Biblical source. Most are rooted in fertility rites or in sun worship from a pagan past and were grafted into the so-called “Christian” church during or after the fourth century.

Instead of giving gifts to the Savior such as the gift of our obedience to Yahweh’s laws, the celebrants give gifts to each other. This creates a burden upon people each year as their Christmas lists grows and grows. Many go into great debt because of this supposed “Holy” season. Additionally, the wise men did not give gifts to the Savior because it was his birthday, but because they knew he was born to be a king. It was a common custom in the East to bring gifts to kings.

Children are being lied to concerning the date of birth and concerning Santa Claus. Is it any wonder that when they grow up and learn the truth they begin to believe Yahweh is a myth too? And who gave Santa Claus Yahweh’s right to decide who is naughty and who is nice?

Man-made “holy days,” including Christmas, are being exalted over Yahweh’s true Holy Days.

Gluttony and drunkenness are typical results of Christmas merrymaking.

Throughout the year people treat each other like dirt and then suddenly become nice for the Christmas season. It is a time of hypocrisy.

Christmas causes tremendous stress on families and individuals as they fret over what gifts to buy, fight crowds to buy those gifts, race to prepare feasts of gluttony, try to outdo each other with decorations, and fight crowds to return all the gifts that they don’t want.

Christmas is perpetuated by merchants who get rich during this season. It is based on materialism, greed, and the lust of the flesh.

“Christmas” is not in the Bible.

We are not commanded to celebrate the Savior’s birth in Scripture.

The true spirit of Christmas is a spirit of anti-Messiah and untruth.

“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables” ( II Tim.4:4).

“Thus saith Yahweh, ‘Learn not the way of the heathen . . .” (Jer.10:2).

“Lie not one to another . . .” (Col.3:9).

“Therefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor . . . ” (Eph.4:25).

“Love not the world, neither the things in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn.2:15). If December 25th were really the birthday of Yahshua, you can be sure that the world would have nothing to do with it. The very fact that the world observes it proves that it isn’t of Yahweh.

“. . . in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk.7:7).