Second Peter warned Paul says many things difficult to understand and many thereby fall from their steadfastness in Christ. Jesus' Words on Salvation


A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us




Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"


Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me



Reformation Doubts About Paul

1. Youthful Luther Feels Free To Reject Paul


Paul Unaware Seed is Collective Noun for Descendents.


Luther early on expressed criticism of Paul, emphasizing our freedom to reject Paul's 'unsuitable' reasonings when present. Schaff points this out in History of the Christian Church (Scribner: 1888), Volume 1 at 37 where Luther discusses Paul's contention in Galatians 3:15-16 that in God's promise to Abraham's "seed" in Genesis 15:5 that the word "seed" (Paul uses Greek root word sperma)  had a singular meaning -- Jesus. Paul said God chose deliberately not to use a plural so as to make the singular ("sperma) meaning clear that Jesus was in view.  Paul wrote:


Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises spoken. He has not said 'and to his seeds,' as to many [i.e., Gen. 15:5 supposedly was singular rather than plural], but as to one [i.e., spoke of a singular seed], which is Christ." (Gal. 3:16 KJV.)   


Paul uses the plural spermasin of seed in Greek when he says "and to his seeds." See Bible Hub Greek tab on Gal. 3:16. 



Indeed, the Hebrew word is singular. But it also has no plural form, like sheep in English has no plural of sheepsAs conceded by Paul defenders,  the Hebrew is a "collective singular noun" -- and thus even though "singular, it refers to the entirety of Abraham's offspring." ("Galatians 3:16, Was the Seed Singular or Plural?" Evidence Unseen. Tovia Singer, a Jewish Rabbi, likewise confirms there is no plural form of the word for seed in Hebrew; you cannot say "seeds" in Hebrew as you can in English, just like it is improper in English to say "sheeps" to refer to more than one sheep, as "sheep" is both singular and plural, depending on context. See YouTube at this link.


Thus, one must read the context to know if it God's word speaks of a single seed or a collective seed -- a plural in meaning. So we can only know if Paul is correct or wrong if we read the context of where he is drawing from. Necessarily, it must be Genesis 15:5-6 - the passage upon which he has in Galatians thus far built the faith alone argument.  So what does Genesis 15:5 say? 


5 And he [YHWH] brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. (Gen. 15:5 KJV)


This context of the stars of heaven as equal to the number of seed is identically present in the Septuagint Greek of Genesis 15:5. Thus although the Septuagint uses the singular for sperma - seed -- in Gen 15:5, the context in Greek is still that God equates the number of seed with an unfathomable number like the stars. Hence, seed in singular in Greek in this context has a plural meaning as well, See Septuagint link 


To this Luther originally said of Galatians 3:16 in his Preface to the New Testament - later suppressed:

My dear brother Paul, this argument won't stick. (Scaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, supra, Id., at 36-37 viz. 37, from Luther's Preface to the New Testament 1522 which was "supressed" in later editions of Luther's Bible.)


Luther was correct.


If one even just looks at Greek, Paul was wrong in his grammatical proof that the promise of Abraham was to a single seed. The People's New Testament recounts that the Greek word Paul used for seed -- although technically singular -- is a collective noun:

Many have thought that Paul made a grammatical mistake. Even Luther says: "My dear brother Paul, this argument won't stick.'' The criticism is that sperma, the Greek word rendered seed, is a collective noun and may include all Abraham's descendants. (Link.)


How do Paul defenders grapple with this? The author of the Evidence Unseen article spins Paul to be giving a "Messianic interpretation" of these passages in Genesis. That evades the fault of Paul for Paul clearly says it does not say "many seeds" but "seed" and thus had a singular meaning. Luther originally called a foul to any such notion. Luther is correct.  Paul is not providing a Messianic "interpretation." Rather, Paul is stating that the word at issue itself means a singular person. Luther knew both Greek and Hebrew. Luther knew it does not have a singular meaning. As Luther said, "My dear brother Paul, this argument will not stick."


Incidentally some Jewish observers have asked whether Paul was an "ignoramus" (not my words) for such a blunder of understanding those texts. Indeed, Jewish observers are justified wondering how all the benefits that Jewish people would bestow on humanity were wiped out by a grammatical error of someone claiming to have studied under Gamaliel. Tovia Singer correctly muses whether Paul is a complete "ignoramus" for such "mistakes." See YouTube link. Luther was initially observing the same thing, in effect, although more kindly. 



Luther Later Reverses Himself and Accepts Paul's Grammar Mistake as Inspired Because "We Prefer It"


In 1535, Luther's Commentary on Galatians -- online at this link -- was released. Forgotten was his preface to the NT with the critique of Paul's grammar mistake rejected in Gal. 3:16. Luther now has this to say: 

VERSE 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The promises were made in view of Christ, in one seed, not in many seeds. The Jews will not accept this interpretation. They insist that the singular "seed" is put for the plural "seeds." We prefer the interpretation of Paul, who makes a fine case for Christ and for us out of the singular "seed," and is after all inspired to do so by the Holy Ghost


Luther is engaging in slight of hand, calling Paul's words an interpretation. Nope. It is a grammatical argument that "it does not say seeds" -- and thus the original text could only mean a single seed. Paul is relying upon the words of Genesis 15 to prove a point that indeed was bogus, as Luther originally conceded in the Preface to the New Testament in 1522.


Moreover, Luke teaches us in Acts 17:11 that Paul's words must comport with Scripture. Paul is not superior to Scripture. Luke teaches us that the Bereans were correct to test what Paul said against the Scripture -- the Law and Prophets. Luke says:


11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11 NIV 


This is obviously true anyway because when Paul is quoting Scripture itself is about a singular seed, Paul is quoting, and expects us to take his quote as valid only if truly in scripture. Thus, if we find Paul misquotes, or makes a grammatically incorrect argument saying a word was singular when in context it was plural, or blows up a text completely, we can deduce what he is saying is not "true." By quoting Scripture, Paul opens himself to being disproved by the same Scripture Paul quotes from.



Hagar Supposedly Can Negatively Represent The Jews.


Similarly, Luther criticized Paul's analogy of Hagar and Sarah in Gal. 4:24. Dr. F. Watson comments: "He [i.e., Luther] described the argument St. Paul derived from Hagar and Sarah as too weak to hold." (Frederick Watson, D.D., Inspiration (London: 1906) at 232-33.)


How so? In Luther's commentary on Genesis 16, Luther snipes at Paul's analogy when he says: "If anyone cares to look for allegories, let him do so." What precedes this is that Luther challenged Paul's analogy directly, and Luther says Hagar has a positive image of representing the church. Luther admits Paul has a negative image of Hagar as the Jewish people condemned to have to obey the Law. (See J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God (Eerdman's 2010) at 175.) Luther thus concludes Hagar is "saintly," representing the church, and concludes: "If anyone care to look for allegories, let him do so. I am satisfied with this literal meaning which the historical account itself represents." Id.

Thus, at complete odds with Paul, Luther concludes Hagar "symbolizes the church itself," and not the "ungodly synagogue" as  Paul had depicted Hagar to represent. (Mickey Leland Mattox, Defender of the most holy matriarchs: Martin Luther's interpretation of the women of Genesis in the Enarrationes in Genesin, 1535-45 (Brill, 2003) at 158.)

Whether Luther himself was also allegorizing is beyond the point. The conclusion of Luther was that Paul's view of Hagar was a view too weak to hold. So Luther reversed it.

Indeed, it is impossible to believe what Paul taught --- that Hagar symbolized Israel bound to keep the Law (as a negative thing) while Sarah symbolized the church freed of the Law. Sarah was the mother of Jacob, later renamed Israel. How then could Hagar symbolize Israel?


Hence, we see in these two examples that Luther twice corrected Paul, not treating Paul as always fully inspired.


2. Carlstadt Teaches Paul's Words Inferior To Those of Jesus

In 1517, Carlstadt founded with Luther the Reformation. In 1520, Carlstadt was worried Luther was putting too much emphasis on Paul over Jesus's words. So Carlstadt wrote Canonicis Scripturis. In this work, Carlstadt boldly taught that Paul's words were inferior to Jesus's words.

"The Spirit of the Apostles is not a guide equal or greater than the Lord, thus Paul within his letters does not have as much authority as has Christ." (For a complete discussion, see our Carlstadt Research page.)

As a result of this difference, and related ones, Luther persecuted Carlstadt in a book entitled "The New Judas." Luther's pressure led to the Wittenberg city government  expelling Carlstadt. Id.

In the 1520s, Luther incited German rulers to kill 100,000 of the Brethren who were inspired by Carlstadt's teachings to demand their own church government where all would be equal brethren in the church -- no more superior hierarchy. Luther claimed that these 100,000 should be ruthlessly killed like "dogs" because they defied Paul's words that government rulers are agents of God (Romans 13:1-3). Luther said their defiance of rulers, even if preceded by good faith protest and negotiation, justifies killing them en masse without trial. For the horrifying and bloodthirsty calls for mass murder by Luther which were carried out on Carlstadt-inspired Protestants, see our article Luther Destroys JWO Movement.

3. The Mature Luther Turns From Paul And Back To Jesus

Ironically, much later in life, from 1531 to his death in1546, Luther abandoned the faith alone doctrine of Paul and the anti-Law views of Paul.

First, Luther did everything surreptitiously he could do to unwind the damage he had done by the faith alone doctrine.This was  in conformance with his aide Melancthon's previous change in the same doctrine. Luther tried to use an ecumenical conference with the Catholic Church to take an explicable step away from his own youthful faith-alone Paulinism. He evidently planned to sell the agreement as a reasonable step for Christian 'unity.' See our Preface to Jesus' Words on Salvation.

So at this ecumenical conference, Luther's agents supported agreeing to secondary justification of a Christian by works, i.e., after initial justification by faith alone. A Christian could only remain justified (hence saved) by a secondary justification by works. This is known as the Double Justification doctrine.

However, at the last minute, the Catholic church rejected the secondary justification of a Christian by works. It claimed justification is solely by baptism. It then withdrew its priot agreement to double justification principles. Id.

After Luther's death in 1546, Melancthon, as head of the Lutheran church, employed Major to set forth in On the Necessity of Good Works, the need for a doctrinal change. They both succeeded limiting faith alone, and introducing into the Lutheran church that works are essential for a believer, in obedience to Christ's teachings while defying those of Paul. Id.; see also our page Major and Melancthon.

Tragically, in 1580 -- after the death of Major and Melancthon -- the faith alone Paulinist party among Lutherans revived and quashed the back-to-Jesus movement that Luther and Melancthon spearheaded toward the end of their ministries. Id.

Finally, in this same later period of Luther's life- in 1537 to be precise, Luther condemned in Antinomian Theses as a false prophet anyone, even one who talks much about Christ or "grace," who seeks to abrogate any part of the Law given Moses. See our page discussion. Because Luther insisted in the 1520s that Paul abrogated all the Law given Moses (including the moral law component, as well as the Sabbath) who more than Paul did Luther have in view by 1537 in identifying such a false prophet?

4. Adam Pastor During Reformation Period

Adam Pastor (died 1560/70)[bio at our webpage], a Mennonite Pastor and leader, likewise rejected Paul in his only surviving work -- Contrast / Difference Between True Doctrine and False Doctrine. According to Dosker's summary:

He evinced little sympathy with Paul, whose doctrine of salvation was apparently repugnant to him. Christ, his life, his words— that is the content of his religion. (Henry Elias Dosker, In The Dutch Anabaptist: the Stone lectures delivered at the Princeton  theological seminary (Judson Press, 1921) at page 60.)

 Pastor's views were a strong one among the denominations ridiculed by Catholics as "anabaptist" (rebaptizers, from a Latin term). We know these groups today as the Brethren, Mennonite and Amish. In that early era, they were largely anti-Paul. As our article on Luther Killed the JWO Movement in the Reformation explained:

Today we know the Anabaptists by their proper names that show they are a diverse group: the Amish, the Mennonites, etc. These anabaptist groups disliked the excessive reliance on Paul to the detriment of following Jesus' statements and example. As one historical account puts it:

A thorough-going Christo-centrism is the indisputible tenet of anabaptism. To be a Christian means, not to cling to Paul's `gospel' (or Luther's reading of Paul)-- which invariably seems to set him in opposition to both James and Jesus--but to live in conformity to the way of life taught and demonstrated by Jesus in the gospels.****

When it came to the Bible, Anabaptists started from Jesus and interpreted everything in the light of him--unlike the Reformers whom Anabaptists suspected of starting from doctrinal passages [from Paul] and trying to fit Jesus into these. (So What's All the Fuss About Anabaptism (2004) reprinted at