This is the series continuation of “Paul the Apostle (1) – Law and Works”, “Paul the Apostle (2) – The Chameleon?”, “Paul the Apostle (3) – Missteps”. The material in those three Parts isn’t repeated here. Those should be read first. Although I’ve defended Paul in this series, my intent is to show an objective impartial view of his writings. Here we’ll focus on Paul’s scriptural discrepancies and contradictions.
Ga.4:21-29 Paul’s allegory is flawed. Allegories convey symbolic or further meanings, without nullifying or distorting the literal plain sense. But Paul reverses the Old Testament (OT) lineage seen in both the Hebrew Masorétic text and the Greek Septúagint/LXX. In scripture, Hagar was Sarah’s Egyptian maid. Hagar and her son Ishmaél (Ge.16:1, 15) clearly weren’t the ancestors of Moses/Israel, to whom the Lord centuries later gave His covenant law at Mt Sinai. The lineage of Moses, recipient of the law, was: Sarah – Isaac – Jacob/Israel – Levi – Koháth – Amrám – Moses. Connect Ge.21:3, 25:26, 29:21, 34, 46:11, Ex.6:18-20, 19:20-ff. God told Abraham the covenant wouldn’t be through Hagar – Ishmael, Ge.17:18-21. But in Ga.4:24-25, Paul wrote that Hagar represents “Mt Sinai in Arabia”. He contrasts Sarah & her son Isaac to Hagar. Yet Sarah & Isaac were the literal ancestral predecessors of God’s Mt Sinai law, not Hagar & Ishmael! Paul, being advanced in Judaism (Ga.1:14), would’ve known OT Genesis lineages. Moses the lawgiver descended from Sarah, not Hagar!
David A. Brondos The Parting of the Gods, p.43 “Paul associates the Sinai covenant and the present Jerusalem with slavery and the sending away of Hagar. It is difficult to imagine other Jews in antiquity associating the covenant given at Sinai with a life of slavery.” Ishmael wasn’t Jewish, nor would he be a slave. Ishmael the ‘gentile’ would be as a “wild donkey” (Ge.16:11-12), roaming free. Dr. Steve Moyise Paul and Scripture, p.45 “His [Paul’s] identification of those [Jews] insisting on circumcision with Ishmael must have been shocking.” The Lord freed ancient Israel from slavery in Egypt; they were free at Mt Sinai and then in the Promised Land. Ga.4:24 but Paul indicates the Sinai covenant begets/engenders (gennáo Strongs g1080, Greek), causes, bondage! Paul’s take is noted in Meyer’s NT Commentary Ga.4:24. “This covenant…a state of bondage, namely through subjection to the Mosaic law.” Paul’s (allegorized) view of the Sinai law is contrary to the OT.
Paul’s reversed allegory perhaps swayed pagan gentile converts in Galatia; many or most weren’t well-versed in the OT. But today we have access to complete Bibles and the lineages therein. We can verify whether or not New Testament (NT) writers, like Paul, were at variance with the (OT) scriptures.
Paul misquoted the OT in Ro.3:10. “As it is written, There is none righteous [díkayos g1342], not even one.” But there were/are righteous men! e.g. Noah, Abraham, Job, Daniel, John the Baptizer (Mk.6:20), Joseph of Arimathéa (Lk.23:50). For Ro.3, Paul used the Greek OT (now our LXX). Pulpit Commentary “Verse 10-18 [Ro.3] quoted from the LXX, though not all accurately.” Cambridge Bible Ro.3:10 “The [quoted] words of Ro.3:10 are not found in the OT.” Yet Ec.7:20 LXX “There is not a righteous [g1342] man in the earth who will do good and not sin.” If Paul had written, Ro.3:10 ‘There is none sinless’ or ‘There is no righteous man who is sinless’, that would’ve echoed Ec.7:20. But he didn’t. Also in Ro.3:9-12, “There is none who does good [g5554]”. Likely Paul had in mind Ps.14:1 LXX. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. There is none who does good [g5544].” However, Ps.14 is about wicked infidel fools who don’t call on God and devour His people Israel (v.4). Cambridge Bible “foreign oppressors” too. If Paul was using Ps.14 as a basis to argue for ‘universal depravity’, he disregarded that it’s pointedly about anti-theists (atheists). Whereas Ps.14:5 “God is with…the righteous [g1342]”! Ps.14:1-5 doesn’t back Paul’s inclusion of every man, all mono-theist Jews too (and Greeks, Ro.3:9). Nor does it back his assertion that there is “none righteous”.
Paul often misquoted or misapplied OT passages. NT Professor Moyise op. cit., p.126 “Of 23 Isaiah quotations in Paul, only 4 can be said to be literal translations (no italics). About a dozen others have either additional words or significantly different words, while in 6 the meaning of the whole verse is different.” Paul sometimes bent the scriptures.
Paul wrote in 2Co.13:1, “This is the 3rd time I am coming to you. In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established.” Here Paul quoted De.19:15 LXX. But De.19:15 means 2 or 3 separate individuals as witnesses! In Mt.18:15-17 and Jn.8:16-18, Jesus’ reference to 2 or 3 witnesses meant testimonies of 2 or 3 different persons. Not the same one person witnessing on 2 or 3 occasions! But Paul equated his own 3 visits as 3 witnesses. Gill Exposition 2Co.13:1 “They were to look upon his [Paul’s] several comings as so many witnesses.” Pulpit Commentary “St Paul is representing his separate visits as separate attestations….” At times, Paul slanted OT meanings.
David Woodington Paul’s Use of the Law of Witnesses in 2 Corinthians 13:1 “His subsequent visit will act as the 3rd and final witness against their wrongdoing…validating the testimony of a single witness on three occasions. Paul employs the well-known principle of De.19:15 in a new way [rabbinic]. ‘Every other incidence of this principle in action involves multiple witnesses, but Paul thinks that he alone is sufficient to accomplish this (Dr. Margaret Thrall The Second Epistle).’ After all, we see him taking similar liberties elsewhere in his writings. He is often imaginative in his reading of the Scriptures. This extends even to the laws of the Torah. 1Cor.9:8-12 If Paul can adapt a statute concerning muzzling oxen into a lesson about the material support of an apostle, surely it would be little problem for him to turn human witnesses into his own visits.” Paul wasn’t always forthright. (Jacob neither, Ge.27:19.)
Parts of Romans 7 are incoherent. Ro.7:1-6 “We have been released from the law, so that we serve in the newness of the spirit, not in the oldness of the letter.” Ellicott Commentary Ro.7:4 “The argument can hardly be said to have a logical cogency.” NT Professor Heikki Raisanen Paul and the Law, p.46, 61 “Rom 7:1-6…a rather tortured allegory, the application of which is lost in internal contradictions….The allegory is simply confusing; it suits neither the opening statement (v.1) nor the conclusion (v.4).” Then Ro.7:12-14 “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good. The law is spiritual.” It seems also Paul contradicts himself regarding ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’, v.6 and v.14. (Aside: The temple, with its Mosaic regulations, is still standing when Paul wrote Romans ca 57 AD.)
In the gospels, zero red-letter words of Jesus are rendered ‘grace’! (In Lk.6:32-34, 17:9 the Greek term cháris g5485 is rendered “thank, credit, favor”.) Many Bible historians think Paul’s gospel promoted a new ‘law vs grace’ dichotomy, as Jews/Israel vs gentiles. Yet God rescuing His people from slavery in Egypt was an act of unmerited grace…in the OT (ref De.4:7-8). The Lord didn’t rescue Israel from Egyptian bondage to then sadistically subject them to a (misperceived) ‘bondage’ of His holy law!
Moyise op. cit., p.61 “In the Old Testament the law was viewed as a gift from God. Ps.19:7-9 ‘The law of the Lord is perfect’…He [Paul] is quite happy to live like a Jew in order to reach Jews, and live like a Gentile in order to reach Gentiles (1Cor.9:20-22).” Did Paul customarily do what he basically rebuked Peter for doing in Ga.2:11-14, both trying to be “all things to all men”? see “Paul the Apostle (3)”.
Paul wrote in Ga.3:11, “The just shall live by faith”. He was quoting Hab.2:4, “The just shall live by his faith”. Paul goes on to say in Ga.3:12, “The law is not of faith”. However Ps.119:86 “All Thy commandments [mitzvót h4687, Hebrew] are faithfulness.” The Lord’s commandments are integral with true faith! Pulpit Commentary Ps.119:86 “They are an expression of the character of God.” Poole Commentary Ps.119:86 “They are in themselves most just and true, and require justice and faithfulness from men.” Paul’s opinion that God’s law isn’t of faith contradicts the OT. Also Paul wrote in Ga.2:21, “If righteousness [g1343] is by the law, then Christ died in vain”. But Ps.119:172 LXX “All Your commandments are righteousness [g1343].” Gill Exposition Ps.119:172 “Being just and equitable in the highest sense.” Barnes Notes “I must praise Thee for them.” Therefore if Paul was referring to God’s written law, then his concern that Christ ‘died in vain’ is incongruous.
{Note: I won’t juxtapose Ro.3:28–4:3 against Ja.2:21-24, whether a man is justified by faith or works. It is thought Paul had in mind the DSS 4QMMT ‘érgon nómou’ sectarian works. see Paul (1).}
Had the unconverted murderer Saul/Paul himself been a past ‘child of the devil’? While at Páphos on Cyprus, Barnábas & Saul encountered Elýmas the sorcerer. Ac.13:6-11 “Saul, who also is Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, said…‘You child of the devil…the hand of the Lord is upon you and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.’ Immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.” Blindness had happened to Saul too (near Damascus)!
Saul’s conversion experience is in Acts 9. v.8-9 “Saul got up from the ground; though his eyes were open, he could see nothing. And leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. He was 3 days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.” The murderer Saul and the sorcerer both were blinded.
2Co.12:7-9 Paul was “given” [?] a continual angel/agent of Satan to afflict him. (cf. Jb.2:7, Lk.13:16.) To humble him? Paul begged the Lord 3 times that it would leave him, to no avail. But in the gospels, Jesus rescued from evil spirits and healed all who came beseeching Him! Jesus didn’t say ‘No’ to their requests! In the NT, of all those who besought the Lord for healing or deliverance…the only person named who Jesus denied was Paul! Yet Lk.11:9-12 “Ask and it shall be given you….If a son shall ask bread from any of you who are fathers, will he give him a stone? Or if the son asks for a fish will he give him a serpent?” Paul asked thrice, but still the messenger of that “old serpent called the devil and Satan” (Re.12:9) remained with him! (cf. Ja.4:6 “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”)
There are some today who believe in Jesus, but think Paul was a false apostle! Noting Le.21:16-21, an OT priest having certain physical defects/deformities or was blind wasn’t to enter the Lord’s sanctuary.
Ephesus (g2181) was located in the Roman province of Asia (g773), W Turkey today. Ac.19:1-10 Paul spent 2 ¼ years at Ephesus (ca 54-56 AD). Then Ac.20:16 “Paul decided to sail past Ephesus, so he wouldn’t have to spend [more] time in Asia.” He returned to Jerusalem in 57 AD. At the temple, Jews from Asia accused Paul. Ac.21:27-31 “This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this temple. For they had seen with him in the city Tróphimus the Ephesian.”
Later, in the 60s AD Paul wrote to Timothy. 2Ti.1:15 “This you know, all those in Asia turned away from me.” It seems that Paul had lost his following in Asia! Perhaps elsewhere too? 2Ti.4:16 “At my first verbal defense, no man stood by me, but all forsook me.” That’s unsettling. We may surmise what factors led to Paul coming into such disfavor in Asia. Jesus spoke to the apostle John in vision, Re.2:1-2 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘I know your works…you have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and have found them false”. Is that why believers in Ephesus/Asia turned away from Paul? People today who view Paul as a false apostle tie-in the above verses. Yet late in life Paul positively linked to Ephesus in 2Ti.4:12. “I have sent Tychicús to Ephesus.”
I like to believe that Paul’s sometime traveling companion Dr. Luke (Col.4:14) accurately recorded what he saw & heard (from Paul, et al.). In the NT, no apostle personally advocates Paul’s gospel!
Raisanen op. cit., p.14 “For better or for worse, Paul has become a theological authority.” But over the centuries, Paul has had many critics. Following is a sampling among well-known writers:
Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence, early-on was in the Church of England. He was baptized & went to Episcopal services. In 1803 he wrote to Benjamin Rush, “I am a Christian”. In 1813 Jefferson wrote to John Adams, “The very words only of Jesus, the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which have ever been offered to man”! He wrote to Adams of the Creator “God whom you and I both acknowledge and adore” (1823). monticello.org/jeffersons-religious-beliefs “Jefferson was a devout Theist.” But he opposed orthodox Christianity (and Calvinism). Jefferson wrote to Ambassador William Short in 1820, “Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”!
Historian Will Durant Caesar and Christ (1944). “In essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent picture of Christ. Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. Paul replaced conduct with creed as a test of virtue.”
Jewish philosopher Martin Buber Two Types of Faith (1951), publisher’s Summary. “He [Buber] offers a sincere and reverent view of Christ and of the unique and decisive character of His message to Jew and gentile.” Buber wrote, “Not merely the Old Testament belief and the living faith of post-Biblical Judaism are opposed to Paul, but also the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount [too reflects opposition].”
Danish theologian/philosopher Soren Kierkegaard The Journals (1849-1855). “When Jesus Christ lived, He was indeed the prototype. Imitate Christ, become a disciple. Not Christ, but Paul…threw Christianity away, turning it upside down.”
Leo Tolstoy My Religion, chap. 11 (1884). “The doctrine of Jesus is to bring the kingdom of God upon earth. Paul, who knew but imperfectly the ethical doctrine set forth in the Gospel of Matthew, preached a metaphysico-cabalistic [hidden/occult] theory foreign to the doctrine of Jesus.”
Lutheran Professor Brondos wrote of how some view Paul’s doctrine. Op. cit., p.2 “Paul had regarded life under the Jewish law as ‘loss’ and ‘rubbish’ [Php.3:4-9]. Believers in Christ had been redeemed from their slavery and subjection to the law, which only brought death and condemnation. Any who rejected Paul’s gospel and insisted on clinging to the law were denying God’s grace and remained under His wrath & curse [Ro.4:15 & Ga.3:10]. How easily these negative portrayals fed into the conclusion that Jews should be eradicated, as the Nazi regime sought to do. Martin Luther [German theologian] had advocated violence toward the Jews of his day based on the same type of portrayal of Judaism.”
Paul wrote in 1Th.2:14-16, “The Jews…are not pleasing to God, and are hostile to all people. But God’s utmost wrath is come upon them.” Noted evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce saw Paul’s passage as “an indiscriminate anti-Jewish polemic”. (However, Paul’s tone re Jews sounds much different a few years later in Ro.9:1-3.) Christian poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote, “How dearly Martin Luther loved St Paul. How dearly St Paul would have loved Martin Luther!” Martin Luther On the Jews and Their Lies “Venomous beasts, disgusting scum, devils incarnate….We are at fault for not slaying them.”
Patrick Gray Paul as a Problem in History and Culture, p.123-4 “It is more common to hear him [Paul] described as a renegade Jew. ‘Jesus was a good guy, Paul was a bad goy’ expresses a view widely held. The Nazi horrors led many to find Christianity complicit in the murder of Jews. For many Christians as well as Jews, Paul’s comments about the law of Moses deserve the blame for centuries of anti-Semitism that came to fruition in Auschwitz & Buchenwald.” Others tie back the Inquisitions too to Paul’s letters.
Brondos op. cit., p.41 “In Jewish thought, the [written] law didn’t kill people [2Co.3:6] or hold them under a curse. Nor did it restrict people as a disciplinarian kept a child under restraint [Ga.3:23-25], increase trespasses [Ro.5:20], or place those committed to living in conformity to it under God’s wrath. On the contrary, the law promised life to those who kept it [De.30:14-20]. Yet Paul repeatedly states this is precisely what the law did not and cannot do.” Lutheran Pastor Raisanen op. cit., p.269 “Paul didn’t [?] realize that Scripture was not on his side.” Zero NT verses show apostles preaching ‘Paul’!
Gray op.cit., p.203 “Exasperating is his [Paul’s] inconsistency between his words and his deeds. His chameleon-like flexibility in becoming ‘all things to all men’ (1Cor.9:22) which results in egregious instances of hypocrisy is not excused by his critics on the grounds that he thereby saves some of his listeners.” Yet Gray’s bottom line, p.123 “Without Paul, history might have taken a turn for the worse”. Yes, overall a world without Paul’s letters could conceivably be worse.
The old Greek version of the OT (now our LXX) was completed by 132 BC. The scriptures were known in Paul’s homeland of Cilicía (Ac.22:3), SE of Galatia. Possibly the epistles bearing Paul’s name did quote the OT accurately, but decades later a corrupt monopolistic church altered some words of his epistles? At this point, that’s merely speculation, unproven. However, centuries earlier Jeremiah wrote, “the lying pen of scribes has produced falsehood” (Je.8:8).
Dionýsius bishop of Corinth Letter to the Romans (ca 180 AD). “I wrote [my] letters when the brethren requested me to write. These letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is, then, not to be wondered at, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s [NT] writings.” Dionysius thought some NT verses had been altered.
Origen (185-253 AD) Commentary On Matthew, Book 15.14 “It is clear that many differences in the copies [NT manuscripts] have come about either from the lazy indifferences of certain scribes, or the misguided daring of some of the correction of the things written, who…added or subtracted those things according to their own opinions.” Copyists had played loose with some original NT verses.
Judging from those statements by early church ‘fathers’, possibly Paul’s letters too contain alterations made by others?
In the NT, 13 epistles bear Paul’s name. However, today NT scholars & critics attribute only 7 to him – Romans, 1Corinthians, 2Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1Thessalonians, Philemon. They think Ephesians, Colossians, 2Thessalonians, 1Timothy, 2Timothy, Titus, Hebrews weren’t written by Paul. If that’s the case, then some variances & discrepancies (vis-á-vis the OT) aren’t from Paul’s pen. I still go by the assumption that 13 epistles were written by Paul, until they’re definitely proven otherwise.
The quandary remains regarding some of Paul’s views & teachings…in our Bible canon there’s no ‘2nd or 3rd witness’ validating them or his theology! Which contradictions are we to believe, and which disbelieve? The opinions of NT readers & Christians vary. We may also ponder, ‘What separate 2nd or 3rd witnesses validated some of the tenets of Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mary Baker Eddy, or Sun Myung Moon’? Zero witnesses! Or of dubious televangelists? Paul’s writings aren’t infallible. He acknowledged, not all early Christians were in the ‘church of Paul’, so to speak. 1Co.1:12 they were saying “I am of Paul’, and ‘I of Apollos’, and ‘I of Cephás”. Yet a slanted ‘Paulinism’ is popular today.
Some evangelical Christians see several inconsistencies in Paul’s writings. Gregory Robbins Paul On Trial “Paul was by his own admission all things to all men [1Co.9:20-22]. In his epistles, you can find a very large variety of doctrines, many of which contradict each other. Sinless perfection? It is there. Not yet perfect? It is also there. Free from the law? You will find it. You will also find that Paul both quoted & commanded verses from the law. Works not necessary? You will find it. Works ARE necessary? You will find that too. Eternal salvation? Yes, it’s there. You can lose your salvation? Yes, it’s also there. Paul was all over the map on his doctrine, and his actions.” It can be perplexing for Bible readers.
Yet our faith is in God, not in Paul or in the vicissitudes of his writings! Raisanen op. cit., p.268 & 228 “Paul gets involved in self-contradictions. In sum, I am not able to find any conception of the law which involves such inconsistencies or arbitrariness as does Paul’s.” Paul the ‘chameleon’; see Paul (2).
Perhaps Paul was somewhat confused in his own mind, as he proceeded on his journey with the Lord? Maybe the “angel” of Satan which tormented or harassed him (2Co.12:7) garbled his thinking to an extent? It’s been conjectured that Paul possibly suffered from mood or bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, epilepsy, or even psychopathy. 1Ti.1:15 Paul, a past murderer, later said he’s the “foremost of sinners”.
We’re all imperfect, including Paul (Peter too). I think the good Paul did and the good that has resulted from him outweighs the bad via his flaws & missteps. e.g. Ga.5:22-23 Paul’s pen lists the figurative fruit of the Spirit! Conceivably, he compromised or doctored actual meanings of OT passages so that his mission would sound more attractive to pagans. The Bible is gradually being translated into all dialects. Though Paul has caused skepticism and division too, the church at large has surely grown.
Many readers feel inspired by chapters of Paul’s writings. I especially like Ro.8, Ro.12, Ro.16, 1Co.2, 1Co.12–13, 2Co.5, 2Co.10, Col.3–4, the books of Ephesians & Philippians! I feel that the positive admonitions and instructions in Paul’s letters outweigh the discrepancies and contradictions which cause head-scratching among NT readers and Christian brethren.
Bible Topic Exposition 