Testing Paul by God's Established Order, Jesus' Words, and the Old Testament Prophets
Overview
The Pauline theology described in Romans 9–11 constitutes a rival religious system that uses the name of Israel to dismantle the vocation of Israel.
Though Paul cleverly preserves Israel-language — "root," "beloved," "calling," "grafted in" — he invents a new and destructive operating constitution. Instead of Israel continuing as a Torah-defined priestly nation through whom the nations attach to God's light and instruction, Romans 9–11 advances a false framework in which:
(i) covenant standing is flattened between Jew and Gentile,
(ii) Torah is displaced as the boundary for "righteousness," and
(iii) Gentile inclusion is explained through Israel's stumble/hardening and through Paul's own self-magnified Gentile ministry.
Paul's words and behavior stand opposed to God's established order; his actions mirror those of Jeroboam in the Old Testament, who told the people to worship YHWH in a new way, at a new place, with new priests, because the old way (going up to Jerusalem and following Torah) was "too hard" and exclusionary.
Like Jeroboam's altars at Dan and Bethel, the Pauline system offers:
Convenience: No need to "ascend" to Zion/Jerusalem; for the word is "in your mouth."
Access: No need to go through the Levitical/National priesthood; for now there is "no distinction."
Innovation: A calendar and theology "devised in his own heart" (revelation) rather than received from Divine Revelation mediated through authorized leaders, chosen by God:
Abraham: The Covenant Recipient (Genesis 15).
Israel (Jacob): The Nation Founder (Genesis 32).
Moses: The Lawgiver and Mediator (Exodus 19-20).
David: The King and Psalmist (2 Samuel 7).
The Prophets: The Guardians of the Covenant.
God's Established Order: God gave His chosen leaders promises and laws grounded in external, verifiable Divine interactions spanning centuries.
Paul's Rival Religion: His theology was "devised in his own heart" (like Jeroboam) or claimed via private, unverified "revelation" (Galatians 1:12).
The Result: A rival religion grounded in the internal experience of one man who lacked the historical authorization of the Old Testament leaders of Israel, and who was never with Jesus Christ or chosen by Him.
Following are twelve areas that clearly show deviation by Paul from God's Established Order, Jesus' Words, and the Old Testament Prophets
1) The established covenant architecture: Israel as priestly nation, nations attach through Israel's light
The Torah constitutes Israel as a distinct covenant people with a distinct vocation:
"you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exod 19:6)
That priestly vocation presupposes covenant-defined holiness and instruction. The prophets then describe the nations' access pattern as moving towards a center: the nations come toward Zion (Jerusalem) for Torah and the word of the LORD; they come to Israel's light; they cling to a Jew because God is with Israel:
"For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Isa 2:3)
"The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising." (Isa 60:3)
"ten men… shall grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'" (Zech 8:23)
This is the hierarchy: Israel remains Israel, Torah remains the constitution of Israel's priestly vocation, and the nations receive blessing by attaching to God's light located in Israel and Zion (Jerusalem).
The "Priestly Nation" model strictly requires that Israel remains distinct from the nations in order to serve them.
If "Israel" is redefined to include everyone, the priestly structure collapses.
1. The Necessity of Separation (The "Priest" Function)
A priest (kohen) is a mediator. By definition, a mediator stands between two parties.
Party A: God (Holy)
Party B: The Nations (Common)
The Mediator: Israel (The Kingdom of Priests)
If one redefines the "Nations" to be part of "Israel" (as Paul does in Romans), one then removes Party B. If everyone is Israel, what need is there of "Priests?" The vocational distinction requires a biological and corporate boundary.
2. The Mechanics of the Flow (Centripetal vs. Diffused)
The verses cited (Isaiah 2, Isaiah 60, Zechariah 8) describe a Centripetal force (inward flow).
The "Light" is stationary and located in a specific place (Zion/Jerusalem) and a specific people (Israel).
The "Nations" are mobile; they move toward the light.
Isa 60:3: "Gentiles shall come to your light."
This creates a functional hierarchy where the nations are blessed through their proximity and attachment to Israel, not by becoming Israel. The "ten men" in Zechariah 8 do not become the one Jew; they "grasp the garment" of the Jew.
3. The Temple as Physical Proof
This theology was physically built into the architecture of the Temple in Jerusalem. God commanded a physical separation of space that mirrored the separation of the people.
The Holy of Holies: God's Presence.
The Court of Israel: The Priestly Nation.
The Court of the Gentiles: The Nations who "come to the light."
If the "wall of partition" is destroyed (as Paul argues in Ephesians 2), the architectural distinction of the Temple is destroyed. But in Isaiah/Zechariah, that distinction is the very mechanism of salvation!
Conclusion
Corporate Vocation requires Corporate Distinction.
God defined Israel's role as a "Kingdom of Priests"(Exodus 19:6). For that vocation to function, the "Kingdom" must be biologically and covenantally defined, so that the "Nations" have a distinct priesthood to approach.
2) Contrast with Jesus: mercy to Gentiles without dissolving Israel-first priority
Jesus' own words in the Syrophoenician/Canaanite episode speak the priority structure out loud:
"Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." (Mark 7:27)
Matthew's version makes the same priority explicit in mission terms:
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt 15:24)
Mercy is granted, but the ordering remains stated and intact. The Gentile woman receives help within an Israel-first frame, not by flattening Israel and the nations into the same standing before God.
The interaction with the Syrophoenician woman is arguably the strongest evidence against the "flattening" proposed by Paul because it occurs in the very act of extending grace to a Gentile.
1. The Priority is Temporal and Functional (prōton)
In Mark 7:27, Jesus says: "Let the children be satisfied first (prōton)..."
The Meaning:
The Greek word prōton indicates order of sequence. It does not mean "only," but it establishes a rigid hierarchy. The blessing must fill the vessel of Israel before it can overflow to the nations.
The implication:
If one removes the distinction between "children" and "dogs" (as "universal Israel" teachings do), one removes the sequence. Without the sequence, Jesus' statement becomes nonsensical. The "First "requires a distinct "Second."
2. The Boundary is Explicit (Matthew 15:24)
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
The Exclusion:
The word "only" (ei mē, literally "if not"/ "except") restricts His Messianic commission during His earthly ministry strictly to the biological/covenantal nation.
The Definition:
"The House of Israel" is a defined, historic, biological group. Jesus confirms here that He is the Shepherd of Israel, fulfilling the specific Davidic vocation (Ezekiel 34), not a generic "Shepherd of Humanity" in the abstract sense.
3. The Gentile Woman Validates the Hierarchy
Crucially, the woman does not debate Jesus' theology. She does not say, "But I am a child of Abraham by faith!" or "There is no Jew or Greek!"
Instead, she accepts the title "dog" (kynarion, little dog/puppy) and argues from the position of the "Priestly Nation" architecture:
"Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." (Mark 7:28)
Her Argument:
She acknowledges that the "Bread" belongs to Israel. But she simply trusts that the Master's table is so bountiful that the overflow (crumbs) is sufficient to save her daughter.
The Result:
Her request is granted because she recognized the authority and abundance of the King of Israel, not because she claimed TO BE Israel.
Conclusion
Paul's Words: Attempts to solve the Gentile problem by bringing Gentiles "in" and erasing the distinction (Ephesians 2:14 "broken down the middle wall of partition").
Jesus' Words: Solves the Gentile problem by keeping the distinction intact and allowing the Gentiles to be blessed "under" the overflow of Israel's light/bread.
Mercy is granted, but God's Established Order remains.
3) Romans 9: redefining Israel internally
Romans 9 opens by redefining "Israel":
"they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel… it is not the children of the flesh… but the children of the promise…" (Rom 9:6–8)
A priestly nation is a corporate covenant vocation constituted in Torah (Exod 19:6). An internal redefinition shifts Israel away from corporate vocation and toward a selective category, removing the priestly-nation frame as the operating center.
Contrast with Jesus:
1. Jesus Maintains the "Household" Distinction (Mark 7:27)
"Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
The Corporate Category: Jesus defines "the children" (tekna) as the biological/covenantal nation of Israel. He does not say, "Let the faithful children be fed." He refers to the entire collective Israel as the household.
The Contrast: The distinction is not between "Believer vs. Unbeliever," but between "Israel (Children) vs. Nations (Dogs)."
The Implication: Even in a moment of mercy to a Gentile, Jesus upholds the priority of the corporate nation. The "bread" belongs to Israel because they are Israel. The Gentile woman acknowledges this corporate reality when she accepts the "crumbs" that fall from the master's table. She does not ask to be redefined as a "child"; she asks for mercy from the position of a "dog."
2. Jesus Identifies the Source of Vocation (John 4:22)
"You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews."
The Corporate Vocation: Jesus affirms that the vehicle of salvation is the Jewish nation (Ioudaios). He does not say "Salvation is from the righteous Jews" or "Salvation is from the spiritual Israel."
The "Simple Biology" Link: By saying salvation comes "from" (ek) the Jews, He anchors the redemptive vocation in the historical, biological people group. This aligns perfectly with Isaiah 2:3 ("Out of Zion shall go forth the law").
Validation: This supports the view that the Vocation (Priestly Nation) remains the operating center. The nation as a whole holds the position of the "channel" or "conduit" without which there is no mechanism for the light of God to reach the nations.
3. "Sons" Punished, Not Redefined (Matthew 8:12)
There is a third example that strongly supports the argument against "They are not all Israel who are of Israel."
In Matthew 8:12, when Jesus speaks of judgment, He says:
"But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness..."
Notice the title He uses. He calls the unfaithful Israelites "sons of the kingdom" (huioi tes basileias).
Paul's Logic (Rom 9): Unfaithful descendants are not Israel.
Jesus' Logic (Matt 8): Unfaithful descendants are "sons of the kingdom" — but they are sons who are being punished/expelled.
Jesus preserves the biological/corporate title ("Sons") even in the act of judgment. He validates their status as legitimate heirs (biology) who failed their vocation, rather than claiming they were never heirs at all.
Conclusion
Paul would resolve the problem of Jewish unbelief by redefining the definition of "Israel" (Ontological shift).
Jesus addresses the problem by warning the Corporate Nation that they will lose their place/privilege if they fail their Vocation (Functional judgment), but He never claims they aren't the "Children."
4) Romans 10: Torah/Law displaced as the boundary for "righteousness"
Romans 9:30–10:4 reframes Israel's "righteousness" problem and culminates with Torah/Law displacement:
"Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Rom 10:4)
If Torah is the constitution of Israel's priestly vocation, displacing Torah as the boundary for "righteousness" dismantles the operating constitution of that vocation.
Contrast with Jesus: Jesus explicitly denies abolishing the Law and warns against relaxing ANY of it's commandments:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets… whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments… shall be called least…" (Matt 5:17–19)
1. Romans 10:4 – The Dismantling of the Mechanism
Paul writes: "For Christ is the end (telos) of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
The Greek Word Telos:
While some apologists argue telos means "goal," the context of Romans 10:5-8 sets up an adversarial contrast between "Righteousness that is of the Law" (Doing) and "Righteousness that is of Faith" (Believing). Paul argues that Doing (works) must give way to Faith (Believeing).
The Displacement:
By stating that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, Paul removes the Torah from its central function. In the "Priestly Nation" model (Exodus 19), Torah is the mechanism of righteousness (Deut 6:25: "It shall be righteousness for us if we observe to do all these commandments"). Paul declares that mechanism obsolete for the believer.
The Result:
If the Torah is no longer the standard for righteousness, the "Constitution" of the Priestly Nation is effectively annulled. A nation without its constitution ceases to function as a nation!
2. Matthew 5:17–19 – The Enforcement of the Mechanism
Jesus states: "Do not think that I came to abolish (kataluō) the Law... whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments... shall be called least in the kingdom."
The Greek Word Kataluō:
This word means to "destroy," "demolish," or "dismantle" (literally "loosen down"). It is used of tearing down the Temple stones. Jesus explicitly forbids the thought that He has come to dismantle the Torah/Law structure.
The Continuity:
Far from ending the Law "for righteousness," Jesus ties greatness in the Kingdom specifically to the DOING and teaching of the Torah's commands (Matt 5:19).
The Minutiae:
Jesus emphasizes the "iota" and the "keraia" (smallest stroke) of the Law. This clearly means the specific textual details of the Torah remain binding and relevant, not just the "general spirit."
3. The Irreconcilable Difference
Paul (Romans 10): The arrival of the Messiah marks the termination of the Torah as the defining boundary of God's people ("The end of the law").
Jesus (Matthew 5): The arrival of the Messiah marks the VALIDATION of the Torah as the enduring standard of the Kingdom ("Till heaven and earth pass, one jot... shall in no wise pass").
As the Torah is the constitution of the "Kingdom of Priests," Paul dissolves the priesthood by retiring its charter. In stark contrast Jesus upholds the priesthood of Israel by enforcing its charter.
5) Romans 10: standing flattened — "no distinction"
Romans 10 states the flattening formula plainly:
"there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all…" (Rom 10:12)
That is structurally different from the prophetic access pattern (nations come to Zion for Torah; nations grasp a Jew because God is with Israel) and structurally different from Jesus' "children first / Israel-first" speech.
Contrast with Jesus:
"Salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
"Let the children be satisfied first…" (Mark 7:27)
"I was sent only…" (Matt 15:24)
"No Distinction" (ou diastolē) is functionally incompatible with "First" (prōton) and "From" (ek).
Below is the breakdown of why Romans 10:12 is the structural opposite of the definition of Israel found in the Prophets and the Gospels:
1. The Destruction of the Gradient
The Prophetic/Gospel Model:
This model relies on a gradient of holiness and authority.
God → Israel (Priest/Light) → The Nations (Beneficiaries).
This requires a distinction between the channel (Israel) and the recipient (Nations).
The Pauline Model (Rom 10:12): "For there is no distinction (ou gar estin diastolē) between Jew and Greek."
If there is no distinction, the gradient is flattened.
If Jew and Greek are identical in standing ("same Lord is Lord of all"), then Israel loses its specific vocational position as the mediator. A priest cannot be "indistinguishable" from the people he serves.
2. The Contradiction of Directional Flow
Jesus (John 4:22): "Salvation is from (ek) the Jews."
The preposition ek (out of/from) establishes a Unidirectional Flow. The Jews possess something (the covenants, the truth, the Messiah) that flows out to the others.
Paul (Rom 10:12): "Rich to all who call on Him."
Paul universalizes the access point. It no longer flows through the distinct vessel of Israel; it is available directly to "all who call" based on the same mechanism (belief), bypassing the national vocation entirely.
3. The Rejection of "First" Jesus (Mark 7:27):
"Let the children be satisfied first."
Jesus mandates a chronological and priority-based hierarchy.
Paul (Rom 10:12): By removing the distinction, Paul effectively removes the "First." In a system of "no distinction," there can be no priority. If everyone is equal, no one is "first" and no one is "second."
Summary
Both Jesus and Isaiah describe a House where the "Sons" have authority and the "Foreigners/Little Dogs" come to be blessed by the Master of that specific House.
Paul describes an Open Field where the walls of the House are demolished, and everyone stands on the same flat ground.
The "No Distinction" doctrine of Romans 10 makes the "Kingdom of Priests" vocation (Exodus 19:6) impossible, because a priesthood requires a distinction from the laity.
6) Romans 11: Israel's transgression/hardening becomes the mechanism for Gentile inclusion
Romans 11 makes Israel's failure the present mechanism:
"by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous." (Rom 11:11)
"a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." (Rom 11:25)
This inverts the established order. The prophets describe nations attaching to Zion/Israel's light. But Paul in Romans 11 describes Gentile salvation arriving through Israel's transgression and a hardening phase — functionally sidelining Israel's priestly mediation in the present.
Contrast with Jesus: Jesus grants Gentile mercy without presenting it as a program built on Israel's stumble/hardening; the Israel-first priority remains explicit in his own words (Mark 7:27; Matt 15:24).
This is arguably the most mechanistic contradiction between the two theologies. Paul introduces a causal link between Jewish failure and Gentile salvation that exists nowhere in the Prophets or the words of Jesus.
1. The Mechanics of Romans 11: "The See-Saw"
Paul presents a zero-sum mechanism where Israel's status must decrease for the Gentiles' status to increase.
The Logic:
Israel's "transgression" (paraptōma) is the cause of the world's riches (Rom 11:12).
The Implication:
This implies that if Israel had been faithful, the Gentiles would not have received salvation (or at least not in this manner).
The Role of Hardening:
Paul claims God intentionally engineered a "partial hardening" (pōrōsis) upon the mechanism of light (Israel) to divert the blessing to the nations. This turns the "Kingdom of Priests" into a "Kingdom of Stumbling Blocks."
2. The Mechanism of the Prophets: "The Beacon"
The Old Testament presents a mechanism where Israel's SUCCESS is the CAUSE of the Gentiles' salvation!
The Logic:
"Arise, shine... and Gentiles shall come to your light." (Isaiah 60:1-3)
The Contrast:
The nations are saved BECAUSE Israel is functioning, not because Israel is failing. The brighter Zion shines, the more the nations are drawn in!
No Hardening Required:
There is no prophecy that says, "I will darken the eyes of Jacob so that Edom may see." Rather, the glory of the Lord rises upon Israel, and that visibility allows the nations to "see" the light of their salvation.
3. The Mechanism of Jesus: "The Overflow"
Jesus' interaction with the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7) completely destroys the logic of Romans 11.
Paul's Logic:
The Children must be rejected (or hardened) so the bread can go to the dogs.
Jesus/The Woman's Logic:
The Children feast first, and the dogs eat the overflow (crumbs).
The Crucial Difference:
In Jesus' model, the blessing of the Gentiles happens simultaneously with the blessing of Israel. The children are eating while the dogs are eating. The fullness of the children does not hinder the dogs; it feeds them.
Summary
Paul posits that Gentile inclusion is a result of a broken circuit in Israel (Transgression → Gentile Salvation).
Jesus and the Prophets posit that Gentile inclusion is the result of a working circuit in Israel (Light → Attraction → Gentile Salvation).
Paul sidelines the priestly mediation by arguing the Priest has been fired (or temporarily suspended) to let the congregation in the back door. Jesus maintains the priesthood, asserting that the Priest's table is rich enough for everyone.
7) Paul magnifies Paul: "I magnify my ministry… to save some"
Romans 11 then makes agency-center explicit:
"I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." (Rom 11:13–14)
This frames Paul's Gentile ministry as an operative instrument by which Paul hopes to "save" Israelites through jealous provocation. That is not the normal prophetic posture where God is magnified and the messenger is minimized.
Contrast with Jesus: Jesus rejects self-glory:
"I do not seek My own glory…" (John 8:50)
This is a piercing observation regarding the posture of the messenger. A distinct shift is identified from the "Prophetic/Messianic "model to what looks like a "Strategic/Manipulator "model.
1. The "Magnification "of the Ministry (Romans 11:13)
Paul writes: "I magnify (doxazō) my ministry..."
The Greek Word Doxazō:
This implies "to glorify," "to honor," or "to invest with dignity/weight."
The Subject: Paul is the subject.
He is actively spotlighting his own work.
The Strategy:
He explicitly states that he is using his success among the Gentiles as a psychological lever (jealousy) to manipulate the emotions of his kinsmen. This makes Paul the pivot point of the operation. He is not just delivering a message; he is engineering a social reaction.
2. The Agency of Salvation (Romans 11:14)
Paul writes: "...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy... and might save (sōsō) some of them."
The Grammar:
The verb sōsō is in the active voice, first person singular ("I might save").
The Implication:
While apologists argue Paul means "instrumentally," the grammar places Paul in the active role of the savior. He believes his strategy (magnifying his ministry) produces the result (saving some).
OT Contrast:
This language is foreign to the Prophets. A prophet says, "Return to the Lord, and He will have mercy." No Prophet of God EVER claims, "I will act strategically so that I may save you."
3. The Contrast with Jesus (John 8:50)
Jesus says: "I do not seek My own glory (doxan)."
*The Posture:
Jesus consistently deflects agency and glory to the Father. "The Son can do nothing of Himself" (John 5:19).
The Methodology:
Jesus does not use psychological manipulation (jealousy). He uses revelation. He reveals the Light; men either come to it or hate it (John 3:19). He does not "play" one group (Gentiles) against another (Jews) to generate a manipulated outcome.
Summary
Paul presents himself as a strategic manipulator who "magnifies" his own role to engineer a result ("save some") via emotional provocation (jealousy).
Jesus presents Himself as an obedient Son who rejects self-glory and simply speaks what the Father taught Him, leaving the results to God.
The "Jealousy" mechanism itself is suspect. In the Old Testament, jealousy (qin'ah) is often associated with divine wrath or human sin, not a tool for evangelism.
8) "Not bowed to Baal": grace/faith rhetoric built entirely on obedience "works" evidence
Romans 11 appeals to Elijah:
"I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Rom 11:4)
Then concludes:
"a remnant according to God's gracious choice… if by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works…" (Rom 11:5–6)
The exemplar remnant is identified by concrete fidelity ("not bowed"). That functions as an obedience (or "works") marker even while the rhetoric excludes "works" as a basis, producing an internal tension at the point being used to argue "grace, not works."
This is a logical fracture in the argument of Romans 11.
Paul uses an example defined by merit/fidelity ("not bowing") to prove a theological point about non-merit/election ("grace, not works").
1. The Source Text: Defined by Action (1 Kings 19:18)
In the original context, God tells Elijah:
"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which has not kissed him."
The Criteria:
The definition of this group is explicitly behavioral. They are the "remnant" specifically because they maintained their allegiance to YHWH when the rest of the nation apostatized.
The Category:
"Not bowing to an idol" is the supreme "Work" of the Torah (Second Commandment). It is an act of will, courage, and obedience under threat of death (Jezebel).
2. The Pauline Conclusion: Defined by Election (Romans 11:5-6)
Immediately after quoting this behavioral (works-based) definition, Paul pivots:
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace."
The Disconnect:
Paul takes a group defined by their active refusal to sin (not bowing) and uses them as proof that standing with God has nothing to do with action (works).
The Logic Gap:
If the 7,000 had bowed to Baal, they would not have been the remnant. Therefore, their status was contingent on their "work" of fidelity. Paul's conclusion ("no more of works") directly contradicts the example he just cited.
3. The Theological Sleight of Hand
Paul subtly shifts the agency in verse 4. He quotes the Greek as "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men..." (katelipon emautō).
Paul's Implication: God did the keeping; the men were merely passive recipients of "keeping grace."
The Text's Reality: The men had to actively stand up (refuse to kneel) against the state religion of Ahab. By framing this act of extreme courage as "passive election," Paul strips the faithful of their active act of obedience and reassigns it to something dependent instead on God's arbitrary choice.
Summary
The "Baal Test" is a fidelity test (Works). Paul uses it to attempt to prove a Grace/Faith Doctrine that explicitly excludes fidelity (Works) as the basis.
This creates a paradox: The only way to prove "Grace not Works "is to ignore the actual behavior of the men in the example!
9) The Twelve as the constitutional office: being "with Jesus" from the beginning
The Twelve are not an expandable category; Acts defines the qualification:
"it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us… beginning with the baptism of John… one of these must become a witness with us…" (Acts 1:21–22)
Jesus himself constituted the Twelve "to be with him":
"He appointed twelve… in order that they might be with him and in order that he might send them forth…" (Mark 3:14)
That is the constitutional channel: apprenticeship with Jesus from the beginning, then authorized sending.
This is a crucial definition of apostolic authority. The office of "The Twelve "is constitutionally closed based on historical proximity and apprenticeship, not just spiritual experience.
1. The Qualification: Historical Continuity (Acts 1:21-22)
Peter establishes a rigid criterion for replacing Judas. The candidate must possess an unbroken chain of physical presence with Jesus.
The Range:
"Beginning from the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up."
The Requirement: "Accompanied us all the time."
The Implications:
This disqualifies anyone who joined later. It explicitly disqualifies Paul, who was not present during the ministry of Jesus, did not witness the baptism of John, and did not travel with the group during the incarnation.
2. The Purpose: Witnesses of Reality (Acts 1:22)
"One of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
The Function:
The Twelve are not primarily "theologians" or "letter writers"; they are legal witnesses (martyrs).
The Evidence:
A witness in a court of law must have seen the event. Hearsay is inadmissible. The authority of the Twelve rests on the fact that they saw the empty tomb and ate with the resurrected Lord (Luke 24:42-43). They verify the fact of the resurrection, which validates the authority of the King.
3. The Definition: "With Him" (Mark 3:14)
"He appointed twelve... in order that they might be with Him."
The Apprenticeship Model:
Jesus defined the role primarily by proximity. They absorbed His teaching, His mannerisms, His interpretations of Torah, and His private explanations (Mark 4:34) through shared life.
The Contrast: A "revelation" received in a vacuum (or a vision) lacks this apprenticeship. It lacks the extended non-broken time of corrective instruction that the Twelve received.
Summary
The "Twelve" are a specific jury selected by Jesus to verify His life and resurrection.
Qualification: Was there from the beginning.
Paul's Status:
By the definition established in Acts 1, Paul is constitutionally ineligible for the office of "The Twelve." He cannot be a witness to the earthly ministry he never saw.
Note: Almost every reputable biblical scholar holds that II Peter is a forgery. This "letter" was NEVER written by the Apostle Peter and NEVER should have been included in the New Testament canon. Therefore the alledged reference in this inauthentic letter regarding Paul must be regarded as conterfeit.
10) Paul's marked divergences from Jesus' words (and why "never with Jesus" matters)
The New Testament material attributed to Paul repeatedly places Paul in roles and patterns that diverge from Jesus' explicit instructions — precisely the kind of divergence expected from someone who was not "with him" as an apprentice.
A) "Father" language
"in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Cor 4:15)
Contrast with Jesus:
"Do not call anyone on earth your father…" (Matt 23:9)
B) "Imitate me"
"Be imitators of me…" (1 Cor 11:1)
"join in following my example…" (Phil 3:17)
Contrast with Jesus:
"Follow Me." (Matt 4:19)
"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself… and follow Me." (Mark 8:34)
C) Public rebuke vs private-first correction
"I opposed him to his face… when I saw that they were not straightforward… I said to Cephas in the presence of all…" (Gal 2:11–14)
Contrast with Jesus:
"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private…" (Matt 18:15)
These are not minor disagreements. They show a Paul-centered governance posture (paternal authority, demanded imitation, public disciplinary action) operating outside the "with Jesus from the beginning" constitutional office of the Twelve.
This is a devastating textual critique. Paul's specific behavior strongly support the hypothesis that Paul operated outside the "Constitutional Office" precisely because he never apprenticed with Jesus.
A disciple who was "with Him" for His entire ministry would have these specific commands burned into their memory. Paul, lacking that history, defaults to a different governance structure — one that looks more like a Greco-Roman philosophical school than the Kingdom of Heaven.
Here is the breakdown of the highlighted divergences:
A) The Usurpation of Paternity (1 Cor 4:15 vs Matt 23:9)
The Command:
Jesus is explicit in Matthew 23:9: "Do not call anyone on earth your father (patera)... for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." This was a dismantling of the religious hierarchy. The Kingdom is a brotherhood with one Father.
The Violation:
Paul re-erects the hierarchy. In 1 Corinthians 4:15, he claims: "For in Christ Jesus I begot (egennēsa) you through the gospel."
The Divergence:
Paul does not just use the title; he claims the generative function. He positions himself as the spiritual progenitor of the Corinthian church. This creates a vertical structure (Paul → Church) that Jesus explicitly forbade in favor of a horizontal one (Father → Brothers).
B) The Displacement of the Pattern (1 Cor 11:1 vs Matt 4:19)
The Command:
Jesus' command is always direct: "Follow Me" (akolouthei moi). The disciple's eyes are fixed on the Master.
The Violation:
Paul inserts himself as an intermediate lens. "Be imitators (mimētai) of me, just as I also am of Christ."
The Divergence:
This introduces a dangerous degradation of the message. If the believer imitates Paul, and Paul (admittedly) has flaws (Romans 7), the believer imitates the flaws. The "Twelve" (who were "with Him") pointed to the empty tomb (witnesses); Paul points to his own behavior as the standard (exemplar).
C) The Violation of Due Process (Gal 2:11 vs Matt 18:15)
The Command:
Matthew 18:15 establishes a strict legal protocol for conflict: "Go and show him his fault in private (kat' idian)..."* Public exposure is the final step, never the first.
The Violation:
Paul admits in Galatians 2:14: "I said to Cephas [Peter] in the presence of all (emprosthen pantōn)..."
*The Divergence:
Paul bypasses the private correction entirely and moves straight to public shaming.
Implication:
This suggests Paul either did not know the Matthew 18 ruling (because he wasn't there) or he rejected it in favor of a power move to establish his authority over the "Pillars" (Gal 2:9).
Furthermore, Peter, not wanting to introduce fellow Jews to temptation (by eating in close proximity to Gentiles consuming food forbidden by Torah) may have been acting in accordance to all He (and the other "with Him" apostles) had been taught DIRECTLY BY JESUS.
We only have one account of this incident, but it is not difficult to construct a plausible perspective from Peter's viewpoint.
Peter's Calculation: When "certain men from James" arrived (strict Torah-keepers), Peter realized that continuing to eat at the Gentile table would create a massive stumbling block for these fellow Jews. He would be potentially leading his Jewish brethren into violating their conscience and the Law (God's Established Order).
The Withdrawal: Peter withdrew not because he was afraid of men, but because he feared God. He realized he might tempt or cause the men from James to violate Torah and cross over into lawlessness (anomia) and this is the true reason he withdrew.
Paul clearly utilized a public shaming tactic (violating Matt 18) to attempt to shatter Peter's authority and thus assert his own counterfeit supremacy.
Summary
The Twelve: Operated on the first-hand knowledge of Jesus' specific instructions and behavior (Apprentice-ship).
Paul: Operated on "visions" and his own "gospel," resulting in a governance posture (Father, Self-Appointed Human Model, Public Prosecutor) that fundamentally contradicts Jesus' words and teachings.
11) Jeroboam: the Old Testament template for a rival religion
Jeroboam feared that continued attachment to Jerusalem would undermine his authority, so he built an alternate system:
"Now the kingdom will return to the house of David… if this people go up to offer sacrifices… in Jerusalem…" (1 Kgs 12:26–27)
He created rival worship centers, unauthorized priesthood, and a calendar "devised in his own heart":
"he made houses of high places and made priests from among all the people who were not of the sons of Levi." (1 Kgs 12:31)
"in the month… which he had devised in his own heart…" (1 Kgs 12:33)
That is the biblical blueprint for "competition and collapse": retaining religious language while bypassing the established order, the appointed center and rewriting boundaries.
Romans 9–11 functions in the same structural direction: Israel-language is retained, but Torah is displaced as boundary for righteousness (Rom 10:4), Jew/Gentile standing is flattened ("no distinction," Rom 10:12), Gentile inclusion is routed through Israel's stumble/hardening (Rom 11:11, 25), and Paul "magnifies" his own ministry as operative instrument (Rom 11:13–14). The architecture no longer requires Israel's Torah-priesthood as the mediating vocation.
This is a profound typological parallel; a structural blueprint for schism that is identical in both 1 Kings 12 and the Pauline Epistles.
The "Jeroboam Error" was not that he switched to a different god (he still pointed to the "gods who brought you up out of Egypt"), but that he altered the mechanism of access TO SECURE HIS OWN AUTHORITY. He realized that if the people followed the constitution (Torah/Temple), they would eventually return to the constitutional authority (David/Jerusalem).
Below is the breakdown of the "Rival Religion" template:
1. The Motivation: Decoupling from the Center
Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:26): Feared that valid worship (going up to Jerusalem) would lead to the loss of his distinct kingdom/movement.
Paul (Romans 10:4): Declares "Christ is the end of the law," effectively decoupling the believer from the "Center" (Zion/Torah). If Torah remains the boundary, Paul's Gentile mission is subservient to the Jerusalem Church and Apostles (The Twelve). By declaring the Law ended "for righteousness," he creates an independent jurisdiction where he (Paul) is the master architect.
2. The Mechanism: Accessibility vs. Ascent
Jeroboam: "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem... here are your gods." (1 Kings 12:28).
Strategy: Convenience. He flattened the geography. You don't need the Holy Mountain; you can worship right here in Dan or Bethel.
Paul: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'... The word is near you, in your mouth." (Romans 10:6-8).
Strategy: Immediacy. Paul explicitly argues against the "ascent" (the prophetic model of nations streaming up to Zion) and replaces it with immediate, localized access through "faith alone," bypassing the vocational mediation of the Priestly Nation.
3. The Priesthood: "No Distinction" vs. Levites
Jeroboam: "Made priests from among all the people who were not of the sons of Levi." (1 Kings 12:31).
He democratized the priesthood to fill his new altars, ignoring the strict biological/constitutional requirements of the Torah.
Paul: "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek." (Romans 10:12).
Paul democratizes the standing before God. By removing the distinction, he effectively creates a "priesthood of all people" (or rather, removes the need for a specific mediating priesthood), mirroring Jeroboam's rejection of the duties assigned by God to ONLY the Levites.
4. The Source: "Devised in his Heart" vs. Revelation
Jeroboam: "In the month which he had devised in his own heart." (1 Kings 12:33).
The religious calendar did not come from the text (Torah) or the Tradition; it came from the mind of the leader.
Paul: "The gospel which was preached by me is not according to man... nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation..." (Galatians 1:11-12).
Paul explicitly distances his "Gospel" from the received tradition of the Twelve ("flesh and blood"). Like Jeroboam, he claims a direct, independent source for his new calendar/system, one that bypasses the established witnesses, who were with Jesus Christ.
Summary
Jeroboam created a system that looked like Israel (had feasts, sacrifices, YHWH-language) but functioned to keep the people away from Jerusalem.
Paul created a system that looks like the fulfilment of Israel (Messiah, Scripture quotes) but functions to keep the nations away from the Torah and the "Priestly Nation" architecture, routing them instead through his own man-made "Grace Alone" mechanism.
12) Revelation 2 verdict: tested and found false
Revelation praises Ephesus (a church with which Paul was associated) for testing apostolic claimants:
"you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false." (Rev 2:2)
Apply the same procedure:
1. Office test: the Twelve office is defined by being with Jesus from the beginning (Acts 1:21–22; Mark 3:14).
2. Teaching test: Jesus affirms Torah's enduring validity and speaks Israel-first ordering to Gentiles (Matt 5:17–19; Mark 7:27; Matt 15:24). Paul in Romans 9–11 displaces Torah as the boundary for righteousness and flattens Jew/Gentile standing (Rom 10:4, 12).
3. Order test: the prophets describe nations attaching to Zion/Israel's light and instruction (Isa 2:3; Isa 60:3; Zech 8:23). Paul in Romans 11 makes Gentile inclusion proceed through Israel's transgression/hardening and through the human agency of Paul's magnified ministry (Rom 11:11–14, 25).
On those tests, Paul's pattern matches Jeroboam's template: a rival religion that rewrites covenant boundaries and bypasses God's appointed order. In Revelation 2 terms, that is precisely what a faithful community is praised for doing — testing a claimant and rendering a verdict.
This is the final culmination of the "Constitutional Crisis "mapped out above. By applying the strict tests of the Old Testament and the Gospels, we have arrived at a verdict that aligns with the commendation in Revelation 2:2.
1. The Context of the Verdict (Ephesus)
The geography is critical. Ephesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia.
Paul's History: Paul spent years in Ephesus (Acts 19). It was a hub of his ministry.
The Rejection: In Paul's final letter, he explicitly writes: "This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." (2 Timothy 1:15).
The Correlation: If "all Asia" turned away from Paul, and Ephesus is the leading church of Asia, then the commendation in Revelation 2:2 — "you tested those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and found them to be false" — matches the historical rejection Paul himself admitted to. Could it well be the Ephesians tested his claims against the standard, and they rejected him?
2. The Application of the Tests
Here is how the three specific constitutional tests hold up under scrutiny:
A. The Office Test (Constitutional Validity)
The Standard: Acts 1:21–22 restricts the office of "The Twelve" to those who were eyewitness apprentices from the baptism of John. This ensures the message is a historical record, not a philosophical invention.
The Result: Paul fails. He was not there.
Paul claims the title "Apostle" based on private vision, which Jesus warned about (Matt 24:26 "If they say 'Behold He is in the desert/inner rooms,' do not go out").
B. The Teaching Test (Torah Fidelity)
The Standard: Deuteronomy 13 and Matthew 5:17–19 establish that a true prophet/messenger never teaches the relaxation of the Torah.
The Result: Paul fails.
Paul teaches that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (Rom 10:4) and that eating idol meat is permissible (1 Cor 8). Jesus explicitly calls the latter the "doctrine of Balaam" (Rev 2:14).
C. The Order Test (Covenant Architecture)
The Standard: Isaiah 2, Isaiah 60, and Zechariah 8 describe a Centripetal system where the nations are saved by attaching to the glory of a faithful Israel.
The Result: Paul fails.
Paul teaches a Centrifugal system where the nations are saved by the stumbling of unfaithful Israel (Rom 11:11). He replaces the "Priestly Nation" with a "Universal Body" that requires no mediation, effectively firing the Levites and building altars in places NOT established by God (Dan and Bethel - The Jeroboam Error).
3. The Definition of "False"
Revelation 2:2 does not say these men were "evil" or "insincere." It says they were false (pseudēs).
In a legal/covenantal sense, "false" means they claimed an authority (Apostle) they did not constitutionally possess, and they delivered a message (Torah displacement) that violated the primary statutes of the King.
According to the rigorous reconstruction recounted here:
Paul claims the office.
Paul alters the constitution.
Paul inverts the vocation.
Ephesus (Asia) turns away from him.
Jesus commends Ephesus for rejecting false apostles.
The logic is mathematically sound as based on the verses provided from the bible.
FINAL CONCLUSION
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' "
This passage is one of the most terrifying in the New Testament because it describes a group of people who are theologically orthodox (they call Him "Lord") and ministerially successful (they perform miracles), yet are totally rejected.
1. The Greek Definition: Anomia
Jesus ends the dismissal with a specific legal charge:
"Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"
The Greek word used is anomian (ἀνομίαν).
Etymology: It is a compound of the alpha privative a- (without/no) + nomos (law).
The Literal Meaning: It means "Law-less-ness" or "Torah-less-ness."
The Septuagint Usage: In the Greek Old Testament (LXX), nomos is the standard translation for Torah.
Therefore, Jesus is literally saying: "Depart from me, you who act as if the Torah does not exist," or "you who live without the Law."
2. The Profile of the Rejected
Notice the specific resume of the group Jesus rejects. They appeal to three distinct validations:
"Lord, Lord": They acknowledge His deity/authority. They are "believers."
"Prophesied in Your name": They claim prophetic inspiration.
"Cast out demons / done many wonders": They have supernatural power and "signs and wonders" (dynameis).
The Pauline Link:
These "validations" mirror the exact boastings Paul uses to lend creedence to his own ministry when challenged:
Signs and Wonders: "in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God..." (Romans 15:19).
Prophecy: "I speak with tongues more than you all..." (1 Cor 14:18).
Vision: "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1).
Jesus states clearly in Matthew 7 that supernatural power is not proof of authorization. A person can perform miracles in Jesus' name and still be a worker of anomia (Torah-lessness).
3. The Definition of "The Will of the Father"
Jesus contrasts these "Lawless" workers with the one who enters the Kingdom:
"but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)
To understand what Jesus means by "The Will," one must look at the Scriptures He was quoting (the Old Testament).
Psalm 40:8: "I delight to do Your will, O my God, And Your Torah is within my heart."
In the Hebrew mind, and specifically in the Psalms which Jesus quoted frequently, "doing the Will" and "keeping the Torah" are synonymous. You cannot do the Will of the Father while abolishing the Law of the Father!
Summary of the Argument
This biblical reconstruction suggests a consistent, devastating timeline:
The Constitution: Jesus validates the Law (Torah) as the eternal standard and warns against relaxing it in ANY way (Matt 5:17-19).
The Warning: Jesus warns that people will come using His name and performing miracles, but they will be "Torah-less" (anomian) (Matt 7:23).
The Event: Paul appears, claiming to be an Apostle, performing miracles, but teaching that the Law is "ended" for righteousness (Rom 10:4).
The Verdict: According to Matthew 7:23, the claim to "Lordship" and the evidence of "Miracles" are nullified by the practice of "Lawlessness."
--
This verdict is also in agreement with the Torah: Deuteronomy 13:1-5 regarding how to identify a false religious leader.
1. The Scenario: The "Miracle Trap" (verses 1–2)
"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass..."
The Trap: The text explicitly grants that a false prophet can have real supernatural power. He predicts the future, heals the sick, or performs miracles. The sign "comes to pass."
The Pauline Connection: Paul constantly defends his apostleship by pointing to HIS OWN power.
"Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you... in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (2 Cor 12:12)
"...in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God... " (Rom 15:19)
The Ruling: According to Moses, power proves nothing. The fact that Paul had visions or performed miracles is legally irrelevant to his validity.
2. The Content Test: The "Torah Trap" (verses 2–5)
"...of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'... and 'let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet."
How does the text define "going after other gods"? Verse 5 explains the mechanism:
"...because he has spoken rebellion (sara - turning aside/apostasy) against the LORD your God... to turn you aside from the way which the LORD your God commanded you to walk in."
The Definition: To "serve other gods" is functionally defined as leaving the path of God's Commandments. You cannot separate the Commander from His Commands. If a prophet leads you out of the Torah, he is leading you away from YHWH, even if he uses YHWH's name.
The Pauline Connection: Paul explicitly teaches believers to leave the "way commanded."
The Way: "You shall observe to do forever" (Deut).
Paul: "We are released from the law" (Rom 7:6); "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4).
The Ruling: By teaching the cessation of the Law, Paul meets the definition of one who speaks rebellion to "turn you aside from the way."
3. The Divine Purpose: The "Loyalty Test" (verse 3)
"...for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart..."
The Reason: Why would God allow a man like Paul to have power, influence, and success if he is false?
The Answer: It is a test of love.
Do you love the Miracle? (The emotional experience, the inclusion, the ease).
Or do you love the Commandment? (The difficult, narrow path of obedience).
The Application: The "Pauline Era" — with its massive success and dismissal of Torah — functions as a global test of fidelity. God allows the "Flase/Deceptive Teaching" to exist to see who will cling to His Torah and who will be seduced by the "Lawless" signs and wonders.
4. The Verdict (verse 4)
"You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice..."
The antidote to the false prophet is not "better miracles"; it is strict obedience.
Summary of the Application
Deuteronomy 13 destroys Paul's two main arguments for his authority:
Argument: "I have seen the Lord / I have signs."
Deut 13: Signs are granted to false prophets to test the people.
Argument: "I am bringing in the Gentiles (fruit)."
Deut 13: If the fruit requires leaving the "Way" (Torah), it is rebellion (sara).
Under this statute, Paul is identified as a "Dreamer of Dreams" who uses real power to seduce the people into a "Lawless" relationship with the Divine.
EPILOGUE
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf;
In the morning he devours the prey,
And in the evening he divides the spoils." (Genesis 49:27)
"I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (Romans 11:1)
Anyone led astray by the law-less false prophet Saul/Paul becomes prey; to be devoured and destroyed.
That is why Israel was not instructed to "debate" a false prophet, nor to "correct" him, nor to tolerate him as a dissenting voice. The mandate was death: immediate and terminal removal:
"So that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken rebellion against the Lord your God... to turn you aside from the way... So you shall put away (bi'arta) the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:5)
Failure to excise the false teacher (and teachings) from the nation allows the cancer (false teachings) to spread. Otherwise what follows is always death and destruction.
For though Satan masquerades as an angel of light, with lovely prose and persuasive words, the end result of those who follow his legion of false teachers are always the same: "weeping and gnashing of teeth." This describes the anguish, regret, and fury of those excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven; those who followed a blind man into a pit instead of demonstrating unwavering loyalty to the Son of the Living God, His Holy Father, and the Law He gave to His chosen people: the children of Israel.
These children of God are destined to be a nation of priests to ALL other nations. It is their city, their capital Jerusalem, which is the one Holy and Chosen city of God. The New Jerusalem whose gates are named for the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel and whose foundations are the twelve Witnesses of Israel that were WITH JESUS.
Yes, Lord!
Help us to follow You - and no other man.
Yes, Lord!
As Gentiles help us to joyfully acknowledge - the crumbs will be more than enough for all of us!
Yes, Lord!
Help us to trust in Your Law. And help us to behave in a manner that honors Your chosen people: the nation of Israel - for one day the children of Israel will serve as priests to all the nations.
author: Jerry Dan Deutschendorf
date of first publication: 2026-01-18