Having grown up in Church all of my life, and having a fairly heavy exposure to Mainstream Christianity, and having familiarity with the Bible, possibly you like I noticed that Mainstream Christianity often de-emphasizes the Old Testament and puts a disproportionate amount of emphasis on Paul's epistles. I would hesitate to say that any part of the Scriptures can be overemphasized. However, if we give uncalled-for weight and emphasis on certain parts of the Bible (like the New Testament), and neglect what the rest of the Scriptures teaches about an issue (especially the Old Testament), we will probably develop an unbalanced view of that particular issue which will lead to a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Thus our obedience and conduct will be incorrect and possibly sinful because we only looked at a small part of Yahweh's revelation in the Bible. What is most troubling is that often parts of the New Testament which contradict the teachings of Moses and the Prophets are emphasized over the Old Testament .....the only Bible Yeshua knew!
By volume, Paul's epistles make up approximately 5% of the Bible. Paul's writings are considered holy Scripture by Mainstream Christianity, but neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit expected us to give more weight and authority to these epistles than we do to the Old Testament or to the rest of the New Testament, for after all, in Acts 28:23 it is recorded that the Apostle Paul taught "Jesus" as being the Messiah from out of the Law of Moses and the Prophets in the Old Testament.
Answer for yourself: Do you not find it interesting that over 35 years since the cross of Christ we find the Apostle Paul teaching out of the Old Testament and not using his personal letters as Scripture?
By putting a disproportionate amount of emphasis on these letters (only 5 % of the whole Bible) that Paul sent to various churches, we fail to follow the example of Paul, who told the Ephesians, "I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL the counsel of God" (Ac.20:27). By neglecting certain parts of the Bible (95% of which lies outside the Pauline epistles), we ignore Paul's declaration that ''all Scripture is inspired and is useful'' (2 Tim.3:16). Dear believer when Paul uttered this often quoted saying that "all Scripture is inspired and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction" the bulk of his writings had not even been written yet, and without a doubt, he was referring to the Bible used by Jesus which is the Old Testament which is tragically so overlooked in the churches that bear his name today. In fact the vast majority of churches that bear his name teach just the opposite of what Jesus taught in that they teach the Law (Torah=instruction) has passed away and has been replaced by "grace."
Christianity's strong emphasis on Paul's writings, and lack of emphasis on so much of the rest of the Bible, is puzzling, no only to me but to the many who study the Scriptures in detail. It is especially puzzling when we consider Peter's warning about Paul's writings: ''His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet.3:16).
Answer for yourself: Now don't you think it ironic and puzzling that Christianity today primarily focuses on that 5% of the Bible that even the Apostles who lived with Jesus and headed up his Church found unsettling, difficult to understand, and easily misunderstood?
Answer for yourself: Possibly have we, with all our good intentions, also been misled by what we hear today from those who themselves have misunderstood the often contradictory passages in our Bibles written by Paul? Let me give you one for instance:
Paul states in Romans 2:13 that: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
Then we see that Paul states in Romans 3:20 that: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
There you have it. Paul states in Romans 2:13 we are justified by deeds of the Law then he contradicts himself in Romans 3:20 by saying that none will be justified by the deeds of the law.
Answer for yourself: Which are we to believe? Are you confused? Is Paul confused? What are we to believe?
Answer for yourself: Is faith without confirming obedience enough for eternal life?
If it was NOT easy for Paul's contemporaries to understand his epistles, we can be sure that it will be even HARDER FOR US to do so, with our limited knowledge of the times, situations and problems Paul was addressing when he wrote to these various churches. Yet some Christians, perhaps unknowingly, are more intent on following the easy-to-misunderstand teachings contained in Paul's letters than they are on following the plain teachings of the Messiah Jesus contained in the Gospels.
Answer for yourself: Who is responsible for putting together such conflicting writings and passing them off as an authority for faith and practice, let alone a replacement for the Old Testament?
Answer for yourself: How did this shift of focus come about?
Answer for yourself: What caused the Church to begin paying so much attention to Paul and so little attention to the Law and the Prophets and other parts of the Bible which to Jesus was his whole Bible?
To discover the answer to this question, we must go all the way back to the Second Century. After all the original Apostles had died, other people took on the responsibility of continuing the Church's work. The original Apostles were all Jews, who had been exposed to the teachings of the Law and the Prophets since their childhood. The leaders who replaced the Law and the Prophets with the Pauline epistles were mostly Gentiles from pagan backgrounds, who had comparatively little understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures (who previously were Gentiles in the flesh...being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world). We can read about these people in various documents from the Second Century.
One Church historian has this to say about these documents: "Many stories come in versions so distorted that it is hard to decide whether the principal characters were worthy successors to the apostles, or the devil's own agents. Perhaps their contemporaries were as uncertain as we are.'' (Smith, M. A. From Christ to Constantine, London: Intervarsity Press, 1971, p.14).
There is one character, however, which was undoubtedly one of the greatest adversaries to maintaining the faith once given to the saints.... the heretic Marcion. Marcion lived in the second half of the Second Century and it was he who was the first to collect and alter the writings in existent at that time from the followers of Yeshua. Marcion taught that the entire Old Testament should be rejected because it belonged to an evil, inferior God, and not to the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth. With such an attitude it is easy to understand why his "First New Testament" was an aberration of truth which in reality was founded upon anti-Semitism.
Marcion was very anti-Jewish; therefore he also rejected any New Testament writings which appeared to speak favorably of "Jewish practices" (i.e., keeping the laws and commandments of the Old Testament, keeping the Festivals and Holy Days of the LORD, keeping the Sabbath, etc.). As one writer notes, "Marcion started the trend which has had many followers right up to the present -- if it doesn't suit the theory excise it as spurious or an interpolation." (Smith, M. A. From Christ to Constantine, London: Intervarsity Press, 1971, p.53).
By the time Marcion finished editing the existing writings from the Yeshua's followers, Marcion's ''Bible", or should I say New Testament, consisted of nothing more than Luke's Gospel (minus the "Jewish" elements…including the infancy narratives) and ten of Paul's epistles (many of which were added to and altered by the Monks until the completion of the Canon). That is all that was there. What is important for you to realize is that Marcion's "skeleton" would be adopted, added to, and deletions made by Irenaeus in 180 C.E. Now we have the New Testament which will become the foundation for the Catholic Church in years to come.
Answer for yourself: Did you notice that the infancy narratives, especially Luke chapter 1-3 were not in there?
Answer for yourself: Were you also aware that Romans chapter 9, 10, and 11 were not in Marcion's First New Testament?
Answer for yourself: Do you realize that for one who was opposed to Law and partial to grace, and who would have loved to use for his polemic against the Jews such a passage as Romans 10:9-10 (9. That if you shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.) could not because it was not written yet nor was it available to be included in his canon?
Answer for yourself: As a Christian don't you find that more than problematic considering it did not exist in 140 C.E. but was added by others before 180 C.E. when we now find it in the Romans collected by Irenaeus?
Paul, Marcion taught, was the only apostle who could be trusted. In reality I found it to be just the opposite after 15 years of in-depth Biblical research.
Marcion's anti-Jewish, pro-Paul churches spread throughout the Roman Empire and soon became a major threat to the Messianic faith. According to historians, Marcion's heresy continued to spread until it finally died out sometime around the Fifth Century.
Answer for yourself: We who claim to believe the Bible must ask ourselves an important question: Did Marcion's anti-Jewish, anti-Old Testament, pro-Paul heresy really die out?
Answer for yourself: Or did the Church simply succumb to it and accommodate it and incorporate it, in a subdued form, into Mainstream Christianity?
Answer for yourself: Of course our Bible, unlike Marcion's, includes the Law and the Prophets, but how much do we heed their instruction?
Answer for yourself: When was the last time your church preached out of the Old Testament?
Answer for yourself: How many classes in your church's educational program is devoted to the Old Testament?
Answer for yourself: When you read the Bible for yourself do you find that you read the New Testament more than the Old Testament?
When we examine the average Christian's attitude to the Law and the Prophets, it is obvious that the influence of Marcion is very much alive in the church today and actually determines what is being taught and what is not being taught.
Although the Church pays lip service to the inspiration and authority of all the Scriptures, the Church's de-emphasis of the Law, the Prophets, and anything "Jewish," and its heavy emphasis on Paul to the exclusion of other sections of the Bible, reveals that the Christian Church today is basically Marcionite in practice and that the influence of Marcion is alive in the churches of today. For those who doubt this assertion, let us examine some things that Marcion taught, and we will see that the influence of Marcion still has a very strong influence on the Church today.
Marcion's most influential writing was a work entitled Antithesis, described as "a highly competent work" which consisted of "contrasted statements arranged to prove the incompatibility of the law and the gospel." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, trans. and ed. Ernest Evans, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, p.xv). Please notice that other Gentile church fathers even were aware of Marcion's intent to contrast Law vs. Gospel, or more appropriately understood, contrast the Old Testament vs. the New Testament. Sadly this idea is prevalent in most churches today.
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), there are no known copies of Antithesis in existence. What we know about Marcion's teachings comes mainly from the writings of those who opposed his heresy. The one to write the most about Marcion was Tertullian, a church leader who wrote a lengthy work called Against Marcion. Tertullian describes Antithesis as "a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lends its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to Antithesis." (Tertullian, IV.1)
No real Christian today would admit to believing in two gods, of course. Yet many believers make such a division between Old Testament Law and New Testament grace; they view the Law as something opposed to grace (its not). Because of the influence of Marcion the Law is seen as something obsolete and of little use to a Christian today. Such a warped view of God's Law will carry over into our view of God Himself. If God's Old Testament Law is opposed to God's New Testament grace, we end up with either a schizophrenic God, or Marcion's two gods.
''Marcion sets up unequal gods," Tertullian writes, ''the one a judge, fierce and warlike, the other mild and peaceable, solely kind and supremely good." (Tertullian, IV.1.6)
Answer for yourself: Is this not exactly what many Christians do?
They shun the "Old Testament God" because He is too stern and fierce. They focus instead upon the ''New Testament God," who, in their minds, does not expect obedience to His laws. Listen to Tertullian's description of Marcion's God, and see if it is not a description of the god presented by the Church today: Marcion's god "displays neither hostility nor wrath." He ''neither condemns nor disdains" and "does not punish." "A better god has been discovered," Tertullian sarcastically writes, "one who is neither offended nor angry nor inflicts punishment...he is merely kind. Of course he forbids you to sin -- but only in writing. It lies with you whether you consent to accord him obedience." (Tertullian, IV.1.26f).
"To what purpose does he lay down commands?" Tertullian asks. ''This god is exceptionally dull-witted if he is not offended by the doing of that which he dislikes to see being done." (Tertullian, IV.1.26f).
We should ask ourselves the same question about the God we worship.
Answer for yourself: To what purpose does God lay down commands which He never expected to be obeyed by his people?
We are certainly not justified by keeping the Law without faith. We are justified by faith first.
Answer for yourself: But after we are justified, what are we to do with God's commandments? Are we to put them into practice, or are we to ignore or disobey them?
One thing that has helped the influence of Marcion to thrive so well in the Twentieth Century Church is the popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible. Even Christians who have never seen a Scofield Bible have probably been affected by it indirectly, through preachers and teachers who have been influenced by it. The Scofield Bible contains many excellent study notes and aids to understanding the Scriptures. Several of Scofield's notes, however, strongly suggest a Marcionite view of Law and Grace. A reader of Scofield's notes is left with the impression that Law and Grace are mutually exclusive and are opposite forces that continually oppose each other. Scofield's anti-law bias has fed and nurtured and sustained the tares of nomophobia (fear of the law) that Marcion sowed in the Church nineteen centuries ago. As the end of the age approaches, God is sending forth His messengers to uproot these tares, so His wheat can mature and bring forth the fruit of obedience to God's laws.
Sadly a spirit of lawlessness (rejection of Law with a replacement of grace only) has been hanging over the Church for most of its history. Some Christians have been influenced by it more than others, of course. It may be hard for you to understand this, but Paul saw this same insidious thing beginning in his lifetime. Second Thessalonians speaks about "the secret power of lawlessness'' which was ''already at work" when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. Paul told the Thessalonians that before the Messiah returned, there would be a "falling away" (apostasy, 'departure from truth'). Notice this was written about "religious people." This departure from "the truth" would then open the door for something called ''the man of lawlessness" to come forth. This "coming of the lawless one" would be accompanied by "all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders" which would "deceive those who are perishing."
"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved," Paul writes. "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." In preparation for the coming of the Messiah, God is also sending a powerful revelation to graciously expose the ancient lie, so that those who love the truth can depart from error and be freed from the bewitching influence of the spirit of lawlessness.
In 1989, Ted Turner of CNN declared the Ten Commandments obsolete, and offered his own "Ten Voluntary Initiatives" as an alternative to God's outdated laws. No one should take Turner seriously, of course, but he did make one comment that deserves our attention. "Nobody around likes to be commanded," he said. ''Commandments are out." (Turner's Commandments,'' Peoria Journal Star, 27 Oct., 1989, section D, p.22).
Answer for yourself: Christians may scoff at Turner's idea of replacing God's laws with human ideas, yet is this not the very thing the Church has done with some of God's commandments?
We have replaced the 24-hour, seventh-day Sabbath with an hour or two of Sunday morning worship; we have replaced the Biblical holy days with holidays of pagan origin; we have replaced God's dietary guidelines with our own ideas about what we should eat, and we have replaced giving the tithe to places ONLY where God has placed his name to the general fund of churches who use the LORD'S moneys in any way they desire. For your information the tithe in the Bible is to go to ONLY three categories or receptacles: 1) the widows, orphans, sick, lame blind, etc., 2) you are to keep part of your tithe to celebrate the LORD'S Festivals, Sabbaths, and help the poor to observe them with you, and 3) to the Levite or the "teacher" (not the preacher..for once you are taught, then it is you in the pew who are to preach to the world) who teaches the truth of God's Word and not the by-laws of your particular denomination.
Answer for yourself: Do you not realize that if your church does not distribute the LORD’S tithe accurately then you are a party to "robbing God" and you have placed yourself and your family "under a curse?"
Having said that you can now better understand the following question.
Answer for yourself: After a person has been forgiven and justified by faith, where should he look for moral instruction?
Answer for yourself: Should he look to God's commandments to tell him how to live the Christian life, or should he ignore God's commandments and live according to man's suggestions, denominational guidelines, or other's religious recommendations which often contradict Scripture?
Even Scofield, in spite of all his anti-law bias and nomophobia, concedes that the Old Testament commandments "are used in the distinctively Christian Scriptures as an instruction in righteousness." (The Scofield Reference Bible, ed. C. I. Scofield, New York: Oxford University Press, 1917, p.l245).
In Against Marcion, Tertullian accuses Marcion and his followers of "forbidding what [God] commands and commanding what he forbids.'' (Tertullian, IV.1). The influence of Marcion continues to do this very same thing in the Church today. Mainstream Christianity has criticized believers for keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, for celebrating the Biblical holy days like Passover instead of Easter, for practicing the dietary laws (which is taught by James for all Gentile believers in Jesus in Acts 15 as he quotes from the Laws of Noah for believing Gentiles), for placing one's tithe in other places than the local church (the storehouse which was to receive "all the tithe" is a food barn...none of the tithe was every allowed by God to be used for church building payments or administration), and for refusing to shave their beards...all things that God has commanded. And, like Marcion, Mainstream Christianity often commands what God forbids: "Forget the Sabbath. Ignore the holy days and dietary laws, bring your tithe to the storehouse for the church is "the storehouse" (which it is not!). And shave that beard, so you'll look like a Christian!" Many Bible colleges and seminaries command their students to shave the beard, in spite of God's command in Lev.19:27.
Marcion, like many church leaders today, misused the words of Jesus and the words of Paul to support this nomophobic, anti-Jewish, pro-Paul gospel. Tertullian rightly points out that Jesus' verbal attacks upon the teachers of the Law were not aimed at the Law itself but man's perversion and misuse of God's Law. "He is not criticizing the burdens of the law," Tertullian writes. The burdens Jesus criticized were, according to Tertullian, "those which they piled on of their own, teaching for precepts the doctrines of men." (Ibid., IV.27). You only have to review the previous paragraph to reacquaint yourself with several examples where by religious men have substituted church programs, denominational structures, and the commandments of well-intentioned religious men for the commandments of God.
Tertullian shows the importance Jesus attached to keeping the commandments when he writes about the rich young ruler who approached Jesus: "So when he is asked by that certain man, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?', he inquired whether he knew --which means, was keeping -- the Creator's commandments. Come now, Marcion, and all you dear brethren who find yourself immersed in the offensiveness of that heretic, will you be bold enough to say "Did Christ here abolish those former commands...?" No way!
Tertullian opposes Marcion's misuse of Paul's writings by pointing out the "Jewishness" of Paul's faith, and then asking, "What had (Paul) still to do with Jewish custom, if he was the destroyer of Judaism?" (Ibid., V.5).
He also refers to Romans 7:7 to combat Marcion's hatred of the Law: "What shall we say then? That the law is sin? God forbid." Shame on you, Marcion. When Paul states "God forbid" the apostle expresses abhorrence of those who were complaining against the law...Yet he adds even more: "The law is holy, and its commandment is just, and good." (Ibid., V.14). As Tertullian points out later, ''you cannot make a promoter of the law into an opponent of it." (Ibid., V.17). This correct view by this Gentile teacher has, for the most part, being completely overlooked and replaced by a faith that rejects the Law that Jesus accepted.
Unfortunately, the organized Church, not only would ignore men like Tertullian and other, but they also ignored Paul's positive statements about the Law and Jesus' warning about the necessity of continuing to practice and teach the Old Testament commandments. (See Matt.5:17-19.)
The Epistle of Barnabas, an influential letter written in the Second Century, indicates the general direction the Gentile Church was heading in its attitude to the Old Testament. "The main theme of Barnabas", writes one church historian, "is a spiritualization of the Mosaic law." The writer holds that the were "wrong to take the Old Testament literally." (Smith, M. A. From Christ to Constantine, Intervarsity Press, 1971, p.39). Everything in the Old Testament was allegorized to give it a Christian meaning, thus destroying the literal meaning which tells us what to do and what not to do. Even the commandments were taken figuratively, because, according to Barnabas, ''the law of Moses had never been meant to be taken literally." (Eerdman's Handbook To The History Of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977, p.102). I find it rather difficult for a Jew who grew up loving the Torah to ever express such a diabolical view of the Law of God that all Jews grew up loving. To the Gentiles the dietary restrictions were said to represent not actual food, but various kinds of sinful habits. What well meaning Gentiles fail to understand is that in Rabbinic interpretation one always begins with the "Peshat" method of interpretation which is ALWAYS the plain, ordinary and simple meaning of the verse...which is always understood in a literal understanding. So to discount the first level of Scripture interpretation is quite surprising to those who know the methods of Hebraic Scriptural Hermeneutic.
Remembering that Marcion's New Testament existed before Justin, then it is not hard to understand that Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho The Jew also shows early Christianity's negative attitude toward the Law. Trypho the Jew expresses bewilderment when he tells Justin, ''[You Christians] spurn the commands...and then try to convince us [Torah-observant Jews] that you know God, when you fail to do those things that every God-fearing person would do. If, therefore, you can give a satisfactory reply to these charges and can show us on what you place your hopes, even though you refuse to obey the Law, we will listen to you most willingly, and then we can go on and do in the same manner our other differences.'' (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch.10. Ibid., ch.ll, 14. 20Ibid., ch.47).
Justin replies by saying that the Law is "abrogated," "voided,'" and tells Trypho, "You understand all in a carnal way.'' (Ibid., ch. 11, 14).
Not all followers of the Messiah were influenced by the nomophobic, anti-Old Testament, pro-Paul gospel of Marcion. There is historical evidence of several groups of believers who practiced the Law as an expression of their faith God along with their belief in Yeshua as the Messiah.
After Trypho asks Justin about the possibility of believing in Yeshua as the Messiah and continuing to observe the commandments, Justin writes his reply: "Yes, Trypho, I conceded, there are some Christians who...desire to observe as many of the Mosaic precepts as possible...precepts which we think were instituted because of your hardness of heart...while at the same time they place their hope in Christ...'' (Ibid., ch. 47).
Answer for yourself: Dear Child of God….did you hear history speak to you through Justin and his anti-Semitism and anti-Judaic theology?
Well into the second century the Gentile Christians (believers in the God of Israel as well as believers in the Jewish Messiah) kept the Law and the testimony of Jesus (see Rev.12:17 & 14:12)! Justin, previously a pagan philosopher who was in times past a stranger to the covenant promises, alien to the commonwealth of Israel, without hope and without God and who grew up knowing no restrains to his flesh, obviously disagreed with these Law-keeping Messianic believers, but he does acknowledge their existence. Notice that the Messianic community had not discarded the Law but continued to teach all nations to observe those things commanded by Jesus! Some would obey and others, like Justin, would find excuses not to submit to the rule of God over their lives in many areas...today we call this "Salad Bar Christianity." The uninformed Christian usually "picks" and "chooses" what he will obey and what he will not submit to.
The best-known of these groups who believed in Yeshua and practiced the Torah were the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. There were other groups, more obscure and far less orthodox, such as the Elchasaites and the Pseudoclementines. (Austin, Bill R. Austin's Topical History of Christianity, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1983, p.72f).
Some doctrinal errors in some of these groups probably contributed to the decision of the Mainstream Gentile Church to adopt Marcion's anti-law, anti-Jewish attitude. One writer notes that "Jewish Christianity in various forms continued as a disturbing factor until almost the Fifth Century. (Ibid., p. 73).
It is interesting that this is the same time that Marcion's heresy supposedly "died out." Once Marcion's error (in a modified, subdued form) had been fully assimilated into the Mainstream Church, "Jewish Christianity" was no longer a "disturbing factor" because the Law-keeping Christians were greatly outnumbered by those who had adopted Marcion's attitude toward the Law. The number of those who upheld both the Torah and the Messiah (see Rev.12:17 & 14:12) was so insignificant by the Fifth Century that the Mainstream Church no longer considered them a threat. But let us never forget that in obedience to the Great Commission the Jewish disciples of Jesus went into all the world (to the Gentiles) and taught them to observe those things that Yeshua taught. This is the true Great Commission.
The Good news I share with you is that "the remnant" who observed the original faith of Jesus and adhered to the faith once given to the saints exists today! For many they could now be written off as a fringe group, and conveniently ignored. Though they were few in number compared to the now-Marcionized Mainstream Church, these groups who upheld both the Torah and the Messiah continued to exist until at least as late as the Tenth Century (1000 years). (Flusser, David Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, New York: Adama Books, 1987, p.88).
While Mainstream Christianity, influenced by Marcion, de-emphasized the Law and over-emphasized Paul, groups such as the Ebionites totally rejected Paul, viewing him as an apostate and enemy of the Law.
The solution is not to reject either Paul or the Law; the solution is to view Paul's writings in a way that will allow them to harmonize with what the rest of the Bible says about the Law.
Answer for yourself: How should a disciple of Yeshua view Paul's epistles?
If you have been faithful to study our web site up to this point, then you realize that the canon of the New Testament was not recognized until 380 C.E. and the very first collection of such writing was by Marcion in 140 C.E. A lot of changes, additions and deletions occurred during this 240 year period. Much would be changed after that as well. Understand that Marcion's anti-Jewish theology was incorporated among the pages of documents which others would build upon later in the canonization of the New Testament. Of course changes, additions, and deletions were made over the years, especially in light of the successive Catholic Church Councils. This is hard fact. But what we must realize is that when we read these documents called the New Testament today that among the writing we have both passages reflecting what Yeshua both believed and practiced as well as what he opposed. Telling the difference is the hard part. But without such an awareness one is gullible to accept everything written in the New Testament without question. Such is not only unwise but foolish.
To complete answer that question the whole of this web site is dedicated. But at least let us start with some basic principles for reading the New Testament accurately in search for truth. For those who desire to be faithful and to live "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," seven guidelines are listed below. The Bible student should keep these guidelines in mind when reading Paul's writings in order to arrive at a correct Biblical understanding.
Paul's epistles, like any other part of Scripture, must be viewed in the light of the entire Bible. This means that when we are dealing with the Law, we must not focus in on a few statements Paul made, and ignore everything else the Bible says about God's Law. As pointed out earlier, Paul's writings make up approximately 5% of the Bible. Paul's writings must be understood in a way that will make them compatible with what the other 95% of the Bible says. In other words, let the other 95% of the Bible interpret the 5% that Paul wrote.
It is important to remember that for many years, the Old Testament was the only Bible the Early Church had. The New Testament writings were gradually accepted into the canon of the Scriptures over four hundred years. It was not until about the middle of the Second Century that the term "the Scriptures" was ever used in referring to the New Testament. (Smith, p.63). Therefore, when New Testament writers mention "the Scriptures" or the commandments," they are referring to the Old Testament!
The New Jerusalem Bible, in its Introduction to Paul, makes this statement: "It is important to remember that Paul's letters were not meant as theological treatises: most of them represent his response to a particular situation in a particular church....Paul's letters do not give any systematic and exhaustive exposition of his teaching; they presuppose the oral teaching which preceded them, and enlarge and comment only upon certain points of that. (The New Jerusalem Bible, ed. Henry Wansbrough, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1985, p.l852f).
Because Paul often wrote to correct particular problems in particular churches, we must have some knowledge of the situation Paul was addressing if we are to understand his writings. Sometimes the problem can be inferred from Paul's remarks, but often we are left with little or no knowledge of the situations Paul was dealing with. In reality, except for the epistle of Ephesians which was intended to be passed around among various churches, the vast majority of Paul's letters were "private mail" from one party to another. It is not out of question to even consider that we are "reading another's mail" which was never intended for us since we do not find ourselves with such unique problems that prompted the letters.
Answer for yourself: Surely we are not guilty of tampering with the mail are we?
Theologians often try to reconstruct the historical backgrounds of the epistles, and make educated guesses about the problems Paul was addressing. This can be a noble effort, if it is done in a sincere attempt to come to a clearer understanding of what Paul taught. Unfortunately, many people come to an understanding of Paul that contradicts what the rest of the Bible teaches, either by incorrectly reconstructing the historical background, or by ignoring it altogether.
It is important to bear in mind Peter's warning that Paul's letters are not easy to understand: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position (2 Pet. 3:16f).
Those with little or no knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures are especially apt to misinterpret Paul's writings to their own ruin. Notice, it is not the Law-keeping disciples of Yeshua who distort Paul's epistles -- it is "lawless men" that Peter warns us about.
Early in His ministry, Yeshua spoke this warning to his followers: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.5:17-l9).
Yeshua's warning seems plain and simple enough to understand, yet many Christians mistakenly believe that by fulfilling the Law, he thereby abolished it. This is exactly what he is warning us not to think! "I have come to fulfill the Law," he says, "but do not even think that by fulfilling it, I am thereby abolishing it."
Sometimes it is easier for people outside Mainstream Christianity to see the blindness of Christians in this area. The Jewish Encyclopedia quotes Jesus' warning of Matt.5:17, and then makes this bold statement: "The rejection of the Law by Christianity, therefore, was a departure from its Christ." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. Isidore Singer New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903, Vol.V., p.52).
In an article with the catchy title, "Jesus Was Not a Christian," the writer points out that "Jesus certainly wouldn't have been recognized as a Christian throughout his entire life." He "scrupulously adhered to the law of Moses" and "enjoined his disciples to keep every detail of the Torah." (John Murray Smoot, Jesus Was Not a Christian," A Way in the Wilderness, ed. M. G. Einspruch, Baltimore: The Lederer Foundation, 1981, p.28).
A story in the New York Yiddish Forward tells of a reporter's encounter with an old Hasidic Jew in Paris years ago. This Jew had a fervent faith in Jesus as the Messiah. When the reporter asked him about the compatibility of Orthodox Judaism and belief in Jesus, the old man replied, "Who then should believe in him -- the gentiles?" The reporter describes the old man's remarks this way: "He said that only Jews can truly accept belief in Jesus as the Messiah and regard him as the last prophet, for gentiles can never accept such a lofty faith. It is next to impossible for them to walk in his ways, for first of all, Yeshua, as he called him, commanded to observe all the Jewish laws, the entire Torah, and gentiles do not even know this." (J. Feldman, "Yozel's Hasid," The Ox, the Ass, the Oyster, ed. Henry and Marie Einspruch, Baltimore: The Lederer Foundation, 1975, p.74.
Of course it is not impossible for Gentiles to accept and practice such a lofty faith.
Answer for yourself: The question is, will they do it? Or will they continue to cling to the lies of Marcion? How about you?
Many Christians overlook or choose to ignore the positive things Paul said about the Law. He writes, for example, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Rom.7:12). Paul says, "For in my inner being I delight in God's law" and "I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law" (Rom.7:22,25).
He tells Timothy, "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly" (1 Tim.1:8). To the Corinthians he writes, "Keeping God's commandments is what counts" (1 Cor.7:19). Even when explaining the righteousness that comes by faith, Paul is careful to make sure his readers know that their faith does not give them an excuse to ignore God's Law: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law" (Rom.3;31).
Paul, in his negative statements about the Law, was not criticizing the Law itself, but man's misuse of the Law.
The Law was meant to be a moral guide for a people already justified by faith, but some people in Paul's day were depending on their Law-keeping as the means of their justification before God. What Paul criticized was not Law-keeping itself, but making Law-keeping the basis of one's justification before God.
Between the Babylonian Captivity and the time of the Messiah, Israel developed an erroneous understanding of the Law's purpose. The Jews who first returned from Babylon knew that their exile had been the result of the breaking of God's laws; therefore, they put a heavy emphasis on the Law when they returned to their homeland. Unfortunately, this new emphasis eventually developed a theology that caused some people to erroneously view Law-keeping, rather than faith, as the key to their justification. Paul's negative statements about the Law were simply his attempts to correct this erroneous use of the Law.
One writer puts it this way: "Paul, in his epistles, affirms the law, yet condemns the wrong emphasis men place upon it. In this sense he is turning believers back to the original intent of the law, it being a rule for godly living for those who are already redeemed. He rejects the later shift towards making it a means of salvation." (Michael Schiffman, A Pauline Understanding of the Place of the Law for New Covenant Believers," The Messianic Outreach, 7:3, Spring 1988, p.9).
Another author says basically the same thing when he writes, "Paul rejects the law as a method of salvation but upholds it as a standard for Christian conduct." (Bacchiocchi, Samuele The Sabbath in the New Testament, Berrien Springs, MI: University Printers, 1985, p.101).
If we ignore this fact, we will twist the writings of Paul to our own loss, as Marcion and other lawless men have done throughout the centuries.
Actions speak louder than words, the well-known proverb says. If we truly want to understand Paul's attitude towards the Law, we must look at his actions as well as his words.
Even in Paul's own lifetime, false rumors were circulating that Paul taught people "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:21). To dispel these false accusations, the elders of Jerusalem had Paul go with four men who had taken a vow (a Nazarite vow), telling Paul that in this way "all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law" (Acts 21:24).
To his Jewish accusers from Jerusalem, Paul said, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple" (Acts 25:8). To the Jews in Rome, he repeated this same testimony: ''Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people, or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered prisoner into the hands of the Romans" (Acts 28:17).
Paul's Law-Keeping included worshipping on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 16:13;17:1f,10; 18:4,19), celebrating the Biblical holy days (Acts 20:6,16), and taking a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18) in which he was to bring blood sacrifices and sin offerings after the cross of Yeshua no less (Num. 6). Paul did not do away with the Law as you have been told.
It is very clear that Paul continued to keep the Law after he met Yeshua whom he believed to be the Messiah. The only thing that changed was Paul's reason for keeping the Law. Before, he had kept it in an effort to be justified before God. After meeting Yeshua, he found the justification he had sought through his Law-keeping. Paul was justified through faith, and the Law was internalized, "written upon the heart," as Jeremiah prophesied it would be (31:31-34). Now he desired to obey God's commandments because of the inward impulse of his new nature. His obedience was no longer the result of an external compulsion to justify himself before God by Law-keeping. Thus, he was free to obey "in the way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom.7:6).
By keeping the Law, in the right way and for the right reasons, Paul left an example for all disciples to follow, Jew or non-Jew. Some people seem to think that only Jewish believers were expected to continue practicing Torah. The so-called "Great Commission" rules out this possibility. When Jesus instructed His Jewish disciples to go to "all nations [Gentiles]," he told them to teach the Gentile nations "to obey ever thing I have commanded you [My Jewish disciples]" (Matt.28:18ff). He commanded his Jewish disciples to obey the Torah (Matt.5:17-19 & 23:1-3), and they were to teach the Gentiles to do it.
The key to godly living is not to ignore the Law and elevate Paul, as Marcion did. Nor is the solution to overemphasize the Law and reject Paul, as the Ebionites and others did. The solution is to do what Paul said to do: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Messiah" (1 Cor.11:1). If we truly follow Paul's example, as he followed the example of Messiah, we will begin to practice the Old Testament commandments that the Church has ignored or changed.
A. W. Tozer wrote, "Probably no other portion of the Scriptures can compare with the Pauline epistles when it comes to making artificial saints. (Gems From Tozer, England: Send the Light Trust, 1969, p.18). Let us avoid artificial sainthood by keeping in mind the above-mentioned seven guidelines for understanding Paul's epistles: 1) over-all Biblical context, 2) historical context, 3) Peter's warning, 4) Jesus' warning, 5) Paul's positive statements about the Law, 6) Paul's negative statements about the Law, 7) Paul's example.
As we let the naked truth of Holy Scripture renew our minds and change our thinking, the sunlight of God's Word will dispel the mist of the ghost of Marcion. We will find ourselves transformed as the fog lifts, and as we see the Law as God always meant it to be seen: as something positive, holy, and good, "if one uses it properly" (1 Tim.1:8).
Let those who wish to wholeheartedly follow the Messiah begin to learn the commandments, practice them, and teach them to others, for "whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.5:l9). As we banish the legacy and influence of Marcion, the "spirit of lawlessness" from our theology, we will see the commandments not as a yoke of bondage, but as a moral guide by which we can joyfully live a life that is pleasing to the Heavenly Father. Then we will be able to rejoice in God's commandments as the psalmist did: "I will praise You with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws...I rejoice in following Your statutes as one rejoices in great riches...I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on Your laws. I hold fast to Your statutes, 0 Lord; do not let me be put to shame. I run in the path of Your commands, for You have set my heart free...I will always obey Your law, forever and ever. I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out Your precepts...Great peace have they who love Your law, and nothing can make them stumble'' (Ps.119:7,14,30-32,44f,165).
Shalom.