Expert: Clifford H. Readout, Jr. - 4/9/2008

Question
I would like your thoughts about Paul in regards to early Christian Jews and how Paul tried idealistically to change the laws both of God and the social laws to sway the Christian Jews to listen to authorities because they were acting on the behalf of God. So by this it was said by Paul that making the rich richer by exploiting the poor was the correct way. And when the Jews did not agree and he met up with resistance, he took his ministry to the Gentiles "Who did not know about Jewish Christian ways and/or laws." How creditable does this make Paul in regards to his works in the Bible? Is this not blastomy against what God wanted for his people?

Also in regards to the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke.  disciples, all witness to the same things with Jesus however when written you get three somewhat different versions that has different perceptions of what happened? How is this? Example- Matthew 19 Verses 16-30---Mark 10 Verses 17-31 and Luke 18 verses 18-30. To me, Matthew is the one who offers a possibility for a person like myself to have eternal life. Why not Mark and Luke writings by them gave no help for the search of eternal life. Are they not disciples of Jesus? If so why would they not write the "whole Truth"?

Answer
Dear Lorena,

Your combination of questions are complex, but related. It has taken some time to answer so many questions. Please allow me to respond to each of your thoughts as you wrote them.

1. You wrote: “Paul tried idealistically to change the laws both of God and the social laws to sway the Christian Jews to listen to authorities because they were acting on the behalf of God.”
There are three components in this premise that are erroneous.
A. There is neither Scriptural nor historical evidence that Paul tried “to change the laws … of God.”
However, it is obvious from the Scriptural record of Paul’s ministry that he pointed out some of the ways in which Judaism misrepresented what God’s Word actually says. Rather than attempting to change the laws of God, he attempted to change the misunderstandings and misapplications of it that were practiced in that day. “Idealism” played no part in his ministry. He insisted on obedience to God’s Word as it was demonstrated by The Lord Jesus Christ. For him, it was not idealism but necessity.

B. Neither is there evidence that he tried “to change … the social laws.”
Paul was obedient to the laws of the empire in every case they did not contradict the Word of God. He openly taught submission to governmental authorities (Romans 13). However, again, his ministry encouraged all people to abandon the commonly accepted social hypocrisies and conform their lives to the higher standards contained in the Word of God.

C. Additionally, the idea that Paul’s intent, for any of his teachings, was “to sway Christian Jews to listen to authorities because they were acting on behalf of God” is a bit too narrowly focused.
Certainly, Paul taught that men must submit to divinely appointed authorities, both sacred and secular (again, Romans 13), but it is apparent that this teaching was most needed by the Gentiles (which may explain why it was written to the church in Rome rather than in Jerusalem). The Jews, including those who became Christians, had always known that God establishes the authorities. They expected Yahweh to come as Messiah to deliver them from the oppression of Rome as His response to their righteousness during the occupation.
I cannot find evidence that Paul’s teachings concerning God’s Law and man’s laws was motivated by an intent to sway the thinking of men concerning authorities. He had one driving purpose, which he specified in Acts 26:18.

2. You wrote: “So by this it was said by Paul that making the rich richer by exploiting the poor was the correct way.”
Paul never made such a statement. Nothing he taught even suggested such a thing. I do not know where this idea originated, but it does not come from someone who has actually read the Biblical record of Paul and his teachings.

3. You wrote: “And when the Jews did not agree and he met up with resistance, he took his ministry to the Gentiles ‘Who did not know about Jewish Christian ways and/or laws.’”
Acts 13:14-51 records the whole reason why Paul “took his ministry to the Gentiles.” Pay close attention to verse 46 in the context of the earlier verses. Paul had two reasons for turning to the Gentiles. First, the physical offspring of Abraham deserved to be the first to whom the Word of God was preached, but they were consistently rejecting the Gospel of their own salvation. Second, The Lord Jesus Christ commissioned him to be His witness to the Gentiles.
Paul’s turning to the Gentiles had nothing to do with financial considerations.

4. You asked: “How creditable does this make Paul in regards to his works in the Bible?”
Erroneous contentions cannot affect Paul’s credibility, neither can they affect the credibility of the Bible. They can only affect the thinking of people who give them credence by not paying attention to what the record actually does show. No one is freed from the bondage of belief without coming to know the truth, and the truth cannot be known “second hand.” Go to the source and find out for yourself what Paul taught, and you will utterly reject the premises of these questions.

5. You asked: “Is this not blastomy [blasphemy] against what God wanted for his people?”
It would have been, if it were actually what happened. Even a cursory examination of Paul’s teaching reveals how mistaken those premises are (2 Corinthians 8, especially verses 12-15).


6. You asked: “Also in regards to the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. disciples, all witness to the same things with Jesus however when written you get three somewhat different versions that has different perceptions of what happened? How is this?”
I wonder if you are reading from one of the rather dubious versions of the Bible. Not all “translations” are worthy of the name, and not all “versions” follow the rules of translation required to bring an accurate rendering of the text.
Do you expect three different witnesses to use exactly the same words when they write about what they witnessed? Do you expect all three of the witnesses to see only what the others did? Is it unreasonable for one of them to see something the others did not see? Is it reasonable for each witness to emphasize that part of what he saw that is most significant to him?
I have been convinced by my thirty-eight years of studying the Bible that it is a divinely inspired book. Each writer’s words were God-breathed, and absolutely correct in the original writing. Yet God did not choose to ignore the personality and vocabulary of the men He used to write His Word. So it is that we have four Gospel accounts, each with a different purpose, and each intended for a different audience. Mark was the first written, and obviously intended for a Gentile audience. It makes no mention of the Law, or other specifically Hebrew considerations. Matthew was the second written, and obviously intended for a Jewish audience. He consistently establishes the prophetic importance of the events, and expresses the relevance specifically to the Jews. Luke was the third written, and was written to one individual (obviously intended to be shared with any and all who would receive it). It’s purpose was to establish a chronology of the events and supply details not included by the other writers. John was the last written, and may even have been the last New Testament book written (though few scholars like the idea). John was written to a general audience, and gives a detailed doctrinal perspective of the Christ of the Gospel, as well as an intimate look at His relationships with friends and foes. Knowing these facts makes it easy to understand an important rule for studying the Bible: make no determinations based on the partial testimony, but combine the whole teaching of the Scriptures on a subject before drawing conclusions or establishing a doctrine.

7. You wrote: “Example- Matthew 19 Verses 16-30---Mark 10 Verses 17-31 and Luke 18 verses 18-30. To me, Matthew is the one who offers a possibility for a person like myself to have eternal life.”
What kind of person is “a person like myself”?
Why would you think only Matthew “offers a possibility for a person like myself to have eternal life”? Mark and Luke record the same possibility for all men, regardless of their financial status:
Mark 10:26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Luke 18: 26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? 27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Matthew 19: 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Remember, the disciples were not wealthy men. It seems that they shred the common belief that wealth was an advantage, making it easier to “qualify” for salvation. When they heard what their Master said to the rich young man, and about the rich in general, they were very disturbed. Two things bothered them about His words. First, if the advantage of wealth makes salvation harder to receive, it must be much more difficult for the poor! Second, applying the same standard to themselves as the Lord did to the rich would equally make it difficult for them to enter the Kingdom!
More about this follows.

8. You asked: “Why not Mark and Luke writings by them gave no help for the search of eternal life. Are they not disciples of Jesus? If so why would they not write the ‘whole Truth’?”
Mark and Luke were indeed disciples of The Lord Jesus Christ, and their writings gave the same hope for all men. They wrote the truth, but no one of them wrote every detail of the truth. The whole of the Bible gives the whole of the Truth that God has revealed concerning Himself, creation, angels, demons, and man.
I have written and copyrighted three studies related to these passages and your question. I would like to send them to you. I cannot include them in this answer and preserve the copyrights. If you email me directly at <readout@earthlink.net> I will send them to you as an Adobe PDF files, which you can open with Adobe’s free Reader software. It will explain what this incident in the Scripture was about, and answer your question, I think. Here is the opening paragraph of the first of these three studies:
“There is an elegance and beauty in the record of each event that is only visible when one observes the whole picture. As rich as the individual brush strokes may be, their true significance cannot be seen until put into proper relation to all the others, creating the image the Artist intended them jointly to reveal.”
Please take advantage of this offer. Ask for these studies:
“The_Rich_Young_Man”
“The_First_and_the_Last”
“Hearts_and_Treasures”
There will be no cost to you, other than the direct contact with me by email, and you can establish a “front” email account if you want to. I just cannot include the copyrighted material in an answer posted on this website. I will also ask you to honor my copyright by not making copies for other people. If you know someone else who would benefit from having a copy, please ask for my permission first.

I pray that this will assist you in your search. I would happily help you.  Please write to me directly. There are other studies I would freely give you that can help you find your entrance to the Kingdom of God.

Yours for Truth,

CR