If Yahshua was referring to Paul as a false apostle and liar in the book of Revelation, how is it he was a liar? The claim of apostleship itself might be considered a lie... but in my thinking, the label "liar" implies a person who uses conscious intent to deceive. When Paul called himself an apostle, I believe he thought he was one. Therefore, I would have a hard time actually labeling him as a liar on those grounds alone. I would call him conceited and self-deceived. Interestingly enough, just by the way Yahshua states it, he appears to make the same distinction.
"And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2
Notice that the idea of apostle is completely negated first and then the idea of liar appears to be in addition to the fact. So if Paul was the one Yahshua was referring to, I would expect him to be guilty of using conscious intent to deceive. Here again I would draw a distinction and not include the many errors he had in his doctrines because Im sure he thought he was right. What I am looking for are outright bold-faced lies.
If Pauls letters are the inspired and infallible word
of almighty God, breathed through Paul by the Holy Spirit as Christian doctrine asserts,
would it have been possible for Paul to have told an outright lie in them? I think
not. So if he did, what would that by itself directly imply concerning the notion that his
words are Gods words? Consider the following.
Paul and the Jerusalem Council
In the book of Acts, Luke records two separate trips Paul made to Jerusalem to discuss doctrinal matters with the head Messianic leaders Peter and James. The first incident is recorded in Acts 15. Here, as the story goes, there had been a disagreement as to whether the Gentile believers needed to be circumcised, so Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to find an answer to the question. When they came to Jerusalem, the elders received them, and Paul told them of his work among the Gentiles. At this point, a group of believing Pharisees stated that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and require them to keep the Law. This must have been the hot topic of the day, because it was just what Paul and Barnabas had been sent there to discuss. And it says there was "much dispute" among those who were at the conference. Then Peter speaks and makes reference to an event where he had been sent to the Gentile Cornelius, and he goes on to say these words.
"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers or we were able to bear?" Acts 15:8-10
Here Peter is referring to the Gentiles and appears to be calling the Law an unbearable burden. Before going on to the subject of Paul, a couple of things need to be addressed in this quote because there are those in the Jewish community who cant believe Peter or James would ever call the Law an unbearable burden. Some would rather charge Luke with dishonest reporting. As mentioned before, I see no reason to accuse Luke of malice. I believe Luke accurately recorded what he saw and heard. The people he quotes may have been in doctrinal error, and his own commentaries may have been made in Paul-induced ignorance, but I personally have a hard time with the notion that Luke was part of a grand conspiracy to destroy the Law. I see Luke as a very typical everyday person, a Gentile with honorable intentions. He also records events which end up convicting Paul as well as support him! When he is discredited as a reporter, nothing he says is reliable anymore.
The key to understanding Peters quote which appeared to call the Law an unbearable burden is to remember who started the argument and who he is addressing... the Pharisees. (see previous three verses. Acts 15:5-7) Even Yahshua called their idea of the Law a burden. He said:
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do. But do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens hard to bear, and lay them on mens shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:2-4
These words must have been echoing in Peters ears when he heard the Pharisees demand that the Gentiles keep the Law. He knew what their idea of the Law was... with all its added oral traditions a burden! Yahshua kept the whole Law as found in Moses, and yet said these words.
"My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt.11:30 NKJV
Here is what the apostle John said about God's Law.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:3
The true unadulterated Law of Moses is not unbearable. But Peter and James did not want the Pharisees dictating to the Gentiles their idea of the Law with all its traditions, additions and amendments. This is what Peter was referring to when he called the Law an unbearable yoke.
As the story continues, Paul and Barnabas tell of "the many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles". Then James begins to speak, and after a short speech says:
"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21
Here James is endorsing dietary and sexual purity laws along with Moses in general. It is reasonable to assume that James intended for the four laws he outlined to be a kind of stop-gap measure, to keep the new believers from defiling themselves before they could receive the rest of the Law through the reading of Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. The continued hallowing of the Sabbath is evident in that James uses the present tense word "being", and the attendance of the new Gentile believers to synagogue on the Sabbath is obviously assumed. The idea of "troubling" the Gentiles is his way of saying the Pharisaic laws were too much of a burden. The issue of circumcision is left up in the air. Again, it appears that James intended the new believers to be convicted when they heard Moses read in the synagogues and as a result, follow through with the rest of the Law including circumcision. This was his way of trying to keep as many of the factions together without unduly reproaching the believing Pharisees, and allowing for the Gentiles to receive a more unadulterated version of the Law.
The Messianic leaders then decided to write a letter to the Gentile believers. This was to be the official position on the issue, and it was given to Paul, Barnabas, and other leading men of the congregation who went with them to confirm its authenticity and see that it was delivered properly. The part of this official decision that we will focus on is the list of four immediate requirements concerning dietary and sexual purity laws. They are listed a second time in the official letter itself:
" For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:28,29
Twice, these four requirements are listed in Acts 15. Later in the book, Paul returns again to Jerusalem, only this time he was in trouble for what he had been teaching. After a short lecture to Paul concerning what he had been hearing about him, James makes this statement.
"But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25
There they are again. The same four requirements listed a
In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem council meeting.
First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book of Galatians.
Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta of spiritual emancipation". One reference says, " it remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident to the reader of Galatians that Pauls position against the Law is quite hostile. His intention is to convince the Galatian believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including circumcision. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these quotes:
" for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified." Galatians 2:16
"But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident " Galatians 3:11
Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us."
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law " Galatians 3:13
The law is not a curse, nor does it of itself bring one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it is man and not the Law that is the problem.
"Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4
He even drops his own name as the foremost authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal lie.
"For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself". Galatians 5:14
This is only the second greatest commandment. Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Yahshua said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love God with all our heart: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."
Paul is so filled with malice toward those who preach circumcision that he wishes they would take the knife and cut their own penises off! Galatians 5:11,12 He refers to circumcision as "the mutilation" in Philippians 3:2. His attitude toward the Law and those who teach it is obviously quite hostile.
Now, keeping Paul's anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at Pauls recollection to the Galatians of his first meeting with the Jerusalem council.
"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles But from those who seemed to be somethingwhatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no manfor those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter and when James, Cephas, and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I was also eager to do." Galatians 2:1,2,6-7,9-10
This is Pauls version of what happened. When he said that the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie? Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What's more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had Jerusalems full support... in spite of the fact that he didn't think he needed it from those who only "seemed" to be something and "added nothing" to him. In light of his message, he could not afford to tell the truth, that the official edict from Jerusalem included four requirements from the Law of Moses, three of which were dietary. So he told them a lie when he said, "They desired only that we remember the poor". The official letter read that the Gentiles were to "keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." And this lie isn't just a matter of conveniently leaving some things out, he left all the commands out, and then replaced them with one that wasn't even in the official letter. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of "the poor"! And then Paul has the gall to state it like, "...and they didn't need to tell me that. I have always been eager to remember the poor. See, those who only seemed to be something can't even add that to me." What is it going to take for Christianity to see the lies and incredible arrogance of Paul? Read the passage above again if necessary.
Paul begins telling the Galatians of his contacts with the Jerusalem Messianic leaders in Galatians 1:18. Just before this, in verses 11 and 12, he had told them that his doctrine was given to him by divine revelation. In other words, it didn't come from the original apostles who had spent three and a half years with Yahshua and only "seemed" to be pillars of the church. When Paul tells of his meeting with the Jerusalem leaders, his attitude was that the original apostles were of no significance to him, but... if it mattered to the Galatians... he indicated in Galatians 2:9 that he still had Peter, James, and Johns full support anyway. This is the picture Paul is painting.
After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of the Gentiles, he says these words.
"Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie." Galatians 1:20
Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying! Yahshua had a few words to say concerning this type of oath:
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is Gods throne nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." Matthew 5:33-37
Pauls own words convict him again. He was a liar, along with being a false apostle just as Yahshua had commended the Ephesian church for exposing. He was a liar regardless of whether or not the Ephesian church was aware of this particular lie. But it is not at all unlikely that the Ephesian church was very familiar with both Pauls letter to the Galatians and the official letter from the Jerusalem council. The Jerusalem council letter would have been circulated to all the Gentile churches, and we know that Pauls letters were being copied and circulated among the churches as well . Peter makes this apparent in 2 Peter 3:15,16 when he speaks of Paul and the content of "all his epistles". Peter could not say this without being familiar with most if not all of them! One can also see from the passage that he assumes his readers are aware of them as well. (2 Peter 3:15,16 is the passage in which Peter appears to call Paul's letters Scripture. I deal with this issue in chapter 10.)
The fact that Paul lied to the Galatians is
by itself enough to establish him as a liar, but once a person crosses that
line he will likely continue the practice. His lie to the Galatians is by
no means his only lie.
Paul's lie before the Sanhedrin
When Paul was arrested in the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem, he had to be rescued from the Jews by the Romans. On the following day, the Roman commander allowed Paul to be taken before Ananias the high priest and the Sanhedrin to defend himself from the charges against him. During this trial of sorts, Paul makes an interesting claim.
But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:6,7
This was a divide-and-conquer ploy in which there was not one shred of truth. For Paul to say he was being judged on the issue of the resurrection of the dead was an outright lie. It had nothing to do with his arrest. The truth concerning why he was arrested is recorded a little earlier in Acts.
...the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place..." Acts 21:27,28 NKJV
The truth is that Paul was being judged on
the matter of bringing to nothing the importance of Israel, the Law of
Moses, and the temple. For Paul to suggest otherwise was a
lie. He had said earlier that he was willing to die in Jerusalem for
what he believed. The question is, when it finally came down to it, why
didn't he have the courage to stand by what he had been teaching the
Paul's lie to King Agrippa
Later in Acts, Paul lied to King Agrippa when recounting his conversion experience on the road to Damascus.
The story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is recorded three times in the book of Acts. The first is documented in the narrative by the author, Luke.
And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Yahshua, whom you are persecuting, It is hard for you to kick against the goads." So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" And the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." Acts 9:3-19
The second account is Paul's personal account of his experience as given before the angry Jews in Jerusalem.
"Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' So I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Yahshua of Nazareth, Whom you are persecuting.' ...So I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.' Acts 22:6-15
There is no significant problem or conflict in these two accounts. Even with the slight variations, the main points remain
basically the same. The fact is, they are consistent and corroborate each
The third record of Paul's conversion experience is given by Paul in his own defense before King Agrippa. Here is how the story goes now.
"While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' So I said, 'Who are You , Lord?' And he said, 'I am Yahshua, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes and to turn them from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision..." Acts 26:12-19
Now wait just a minute Paul! According to what you and Luke have previously testified, when you asked Yahshua what you were to do, he told you to do absolutely nothing other than to go to Damascus, and there you would be told "all things" you were to do! Now you want us to believe Yahshua told you all of this on the spot?
This is not just a simple case of information having been left out of the first two accounts. If in fact Yahshua had actually come out and said anything like, "Here is the reason why I have appeared to you...", what Yahshua said immediately following this would naturally be the focal point and highlight of every recollection of the encounter! But nothing of the sort can be found in the first two accounts. On the contrary, what Paul said he was told to do in the first two accounts proves that what he said in the third account was a fabricated lie. Was he told all things he was to do by Yahshua himself on the road, or did Yahshua tell him to go to Damascus where he would be told all things he was to do?
It should be apparent that Paul wanted to paint a picture for King Agrippa that he believed was his unavoidable destiny, so he embellished the account of his vision with a lie. The part of his story in bold print above is a total fabrication... sounding far more like something Paul would say than something Yahshua would say. The main purpose for Yahshua confronting Paul is obvious and found in his first words: "Why are you persecuting me?" Yahshua's purpose was to stop the persecution! The fact that Paul didn't reject Yahshua but submitted to him with the words, "What would you have me do?" is a secondary outgrowth from the event. Had Paul stubbornly tried to continue on his way to Damascus to arrest the Messianic believers, it would have been the end of him on the spot. The scene is very reminiscent of Balaam being stopped by the Angel of the Lord because he intended to curse Israel. The parallels between Paul and Balaam are striking. They both started out as enemies of God on their way to curse God's people when they were stopped by a blinding vision on the way. They both repented, converted and served God for a short while, then turned on Him and His people again. If it can happen to Balaam, why not Paul? For more details on this incredible parallel, read 'Jesus Words Only' by Douglas DelTondo.
From Paul's fabricated story, it is evident that he designed it to impress upon King Agrippa the picture that it was Yahshua's plan that he be delivered from the Gentiles by him. But Yahshua never said those words, and as proof that it was one big fat lie, Paul never was delivered from the Gentiles.
A little later in the story, Festus and Agrippa mock Paul (Acts 26:24,28) and come to the conclusion that Paul was little more than a harmless crackpot. This is when Paul opts for making an appeal to Caesar for justice in the matter. Christianity has generally thought of Paul's appeal to Caesar as a brilliant tactical maneuver. But something King Agrippa said to Festus seems to go unnoticed.
"This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." Acts 26:32
Paul's appeal to Caesar is the subject matter of the next chapter.
Return to Outline Next Chapter Input