Was Shaul/Paul Double Minded

In a recent discussion with someone who prescribes to a quite dominantly Antinomian Theology, I was obligated to point out that there is a contradiction from Paul in his own writings that cannot be more clearly the evidence they need to see that the Antinomian perspective CREATES the conflict. Further, only a Pronomian perspective can harmonize the conflicts often seen in Scripture.

Before you give up on this before even seeing it, I want to point out we are going to dive into Romans 2:13 and Galatians 2:16. My goal is simple. We will use hermeneutics to pick the passages apart and even discuss the various views I have heard presented over the years. Believe it or not, there aren't many things I am dogmatic about, and frankly, this is a big one, as you will see. I think there could be a wide variety of latitudes used to understand Paul's message. I am afraid, however, that all of the Antinomian latitudes I have ever been presented with fall short of harmonizing the two passages OR instead, actually create conflicts with other passages of Scripture, either from Paul or other writers. Even if you are completely against Pronomian thought, please give this article a chance.

To begin with, let me give some simple definitions for the usage of "Pronomian" and "Antinomian".

I am not using these based on the archaic meaning of the words. For example, at one time Antinomians were known as those who believed that the "moral laws" of the Torah did not apply to Christians because they had been "freed from the curse of the Law". There is so much wrong with that, I won't have time to cover it. So for this article, I will simply say that I am using a more modern definition, and frankly far more accurate, for the word.

Antinomian - the root words here are anti and nomos. Anti means against and nomos is a Koine Greek word for law. In the Koine Manuscripts of Scripture, it is contracted into a'nomia and the apostrophe replaces "nti" in anti. Literally, when contracted into a'nomia it means without law by the usage of the time period of the Apostles' letters. It carries, however, a negative connotation due to its relationship to "adikia". Adikia is a refusal to obey the law or hatred for law. I am trying to avoid oversimplifying this while also avoiding turning this into a massive lesson on Biblical Greek. This should suffice. If you have further questions, please feel free to reach out. Pronomian - pro is a prefix meaning "in favor of" or "for" (as opposed to against) and nomos, once again, means law. So Pronomians are those who are pro-law, for my purpose here, it will stand for Pro-Torah. It will be used to refer to those who are followers of Yeshua/Jesus but contend that all applicable Torah commands are still to be followed. By this I do not mean applicable from a Christian Theological perspective, but from an individual perspective. Not all Torah commands ever applied to all people. Some are for women only, some for farmers or livestock growers, some are only for Levites, etc. One more category, which needs to stand alone for reasons I don't have time to go into here is that, some are only applicable when there is a Temple. If you have questions about this particular defining of my usage of the word Pronomian, please feel free to reach out.

We will need more definitions as we go forward, but these will serve a different purpose. I want to establish, for you, a contrasting perspective on certain doctrines taught throughout Christendom via different avenues than most Christians have ever been presented with. I'd like you to read them, the reasoning behind them, and ask yourself if there are other passages that could align with them, if viewed from a Pronomian Perspective. I realize I am asking you to trust me, more than I ever have before, but I am also trusting you. I am trusting you will be able to be impartial, to separate yourself from what you may have been taught, if it disagrees with me, and give the information the ability to freely guide you to other examples that may fit with the narrative I lay out for you.

In the conversation I mentioned above, the individual cited Galatians 2:16 as a defense that Justification is by faith alone.

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

This is where my feelings of obligation kicked in. It became necessary to point out that Paul also said this in Romans 2:13

for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

This is a CLEAR and PRECISE contradiction; IF Paul was speaking about Torah in both places, or IF he really was Antinomian after his encounter with the resurrected Messiah.

Before we can delve into the process of exegesis (properly dividing Scripture) on this, we need to establish some culture. You know how big I am on the cultural context of any given passage. Why am I this way? Well, because of something I write and say a LOT

"The Bible was not written to us, but for us. While we in the 21st Century can benefit from Scripture in our own languages, we have to first understand what the original author was saying to the original audience!"

Context is EVERYTHING! But to obtain context we need to establish the beliefs of the writer, the culture of the writer and audience, and the historical information that may give us a clue to their intent. Intent is where the most reliable context can be found. Application is a different matter altogether.

I am not talking about just any culture in this article, but the religious culture of Yeshua/Jesus and His disciples. By that, I am implying that we need to understand what "justification" meant to them.

I am going to paste the reply I gave to the individual this all started with. They asked, "Is justification by the law then?" and "What does justification mean to you?".

My Reply (modified for context and clarity only):

"Not just any Hebraic body of law, Torah specifically. I don't mean to split hairs, but due to the fact that it cannot be said with 100% certainty whether Galatians 3 is about some other body of Hebraic law or that earning salvation through obedience to Torah cannot be done, I tend to be very specific.

It doesn't really matter what justification means to me. What matters is what it meant to the Yeshua and the writers who mention it in Scripture.

Justification is exactly that, it is self-explanatory and you can witness this in Jesus' ministry and messages. Whether guilty or not we are ruled just, in the case of believers, because He took the written ordinances against us to the cross (Colossians 2:14). In other words, all the records of a believer's guilt were destroyed at the cross. The proof that we were unjust was erased. It wasn't Torah put on the cross with Him, it was the records of our violations of Torah (sin), that were destroyed, so now we are justified. Sin is defined as any violation of the Law in 1 John 3:4. But according to Romans 2:13, we remain justified by Obedience to Torah, which means we don't keep sinning, which again is what grace is about and why Ezekiel told us in 36:26&27 what the indwelling and new heart are for - to make us obey His Law. Putting that another way, He enables (empowers) us to obey. His Torah is not burdensome to His children 1 John 5 tells us all about that. It also tells us that Torah Obedience is the only way to truly "love God" and "love our neighbor". The big 2 that most of Christendom says is our only Torah responsibility now. Yet John says without obeying the rest we aren't obeying those two."

---

You see, a lot of what Antinomianism has contributed to Christendom is also a direct descendent of Marcionite Theology. (I have written quite a bit about this. If you want to know more just let me know). Or you can b uy my book "Anointed to Rule" on Amazon.com

Though modified and morphed over the centuries, Marcion's Theology appears to have heavily influenced Constantine and those at the Councils he conducted to establish the Theology and Doctrine of what later became the Catholic Church. When the Reformers broke away, most of whom were defrocked Catholic Priests, this was the Theology they were trained in and so (I believe) they did the best they could with what they had. But something they lacked was a Hebraic context for Scripture. They dismissed or didn't even recognize, the "Jewishness" of everything written by these very "Jewish" disciples who died as "Jewish" as they were born. Those "Jewish" apostles had given up on the traditions, customs, and man-made "laws" of the Sages and Elders, but they never left Torah Obedience because (unlike the Reformers) they recognized it as The Father's Torah and not the Law of Moses. That phrase was used to honor Moses, not to denote ownership or intellectual right to Abba's Kingdom Law. Over time, I can prove this to you, but first I have to be able to teach you how to see the Hebraic nature of the doctrine being presented by the Apostles. Once you can see it in some key places within the Apostles' letters, you will start being able to see it in other places on your own.

---

Let's take a quick look at "salvation" from the words and perspective of Yeshua/Jesus before we continue, shall we?

My conversation hit a spot where the person was genuinely asking some solid questions, but the problem was the questions were around theological words defined from a Greco-Roman Theology and not that of a 1st Century follower of The Way. So when they asked, "How then is salvation obtained and maintained?"...

...my reply was:

"There is a bit of a difference between Salvation and Covenant, and you're really asking how does one have a salvation experience and enter into covenant"

Frankly, one leads to the other and both are necessary. "Salvation alone" is a distinctly Western (Rome is west of Israel, this isn't just about the US) concept from the perspective of saying a prayer and being "saved". BUT, as Yeshua put it "those who endure until the end shall be saved" (Matthew 24:13). He said that during a discourse about the End Times. We see a partnership of Faith in Yeshua" and Obedience to the Father in Revelation 12:17, 14:12, and 22:14 - and they are equally important. So, I present to you that Yeshua/Jesus did not view the idea of salvation in the same way Christendom often does, especially modern Christendom.

From Messiah's perspective we aren't "saved" and therefore don't have "salvation" until we reach the end of this life. Whether that is by death or by being "caught away" (harpazo) is inconsequential.

So yes, we probably do have a "salvation experience" at repentance, and I'm ok with calling it that. The change it makes in us is because we are being translated from one kingdom (darkness) to His Kingdom (light) and entering into Covenant. Romans 2:13-16 and Ezekiel 36:26&27 bear a twofold witness to this. But if we don't walk in accordance with the Bible's standard of righteousness we do not remain in Covenant. Deuteronomy 6:25 defines righteousness for us. Paul confirms this in Philippians 3:6b, when he admits there is righteousness in the law.

Again, repeating for clarity not emphasis, a salvation experience is the entrance into Covenant. In Romans 11 Shaul/Paul makes it clear that even those grafted into Covenant can be cut off (verse 21). Notice that there are 2 people groups mentioned there; "Jews" and Gentiles. One had Torah and was without Messiah and they were cut off. Why do you suppose those Gentiles who have entered into Covenant by a salvation encounter are cut off? Because they didn't keep their side of the Covenant, or they turned their faith away from Messiah. More on this in a bit...

You see, enduring until the end is about the strait gate and narrow path which few will find.

Many will enter Covenant, but few will keep it. Those will potentially be cut off. How can we know this? In Mathew 5:19 Yeshua says those who ignore even the least of commands will be least in the Kingdom. So they make it, but barely. In Mathew 7:21-23 He says there will be many believers who are a'nomia - without the Law - and they will be turned away. I leave it to Him to decide who is which. But I'll finish this reply with this.

How do we know the End Times Day of Judgment people sent away in Mathew 7:21-23 were believers? They meet some of the very same criteria Yeshua Himself gave in Mark 16:17&18 when He said these signs will follow those who believe. Their belief and exploits won't save them, but had they added obedience to Torah with their Faith, it would have."

---

Some will say, "That's just for Jews". But that would contradict Numbers 6:25. The Scripture of an all-knowing/all-powerful God cannot have contradictions or that God is just a god and not all-knowing or all-powerful, after all.

Numbers 6:25

One law and one custom shall be for you and the stranger (gentile) who dwells with you.

Combining Romans 2:13-16 and 11:19-24 is an exposition on this very insight from Numbers. The entire Bible is ONE BOOK from the eyes of its true author - YHVH (God). We may see it as 66 different books, He does not. He wrote it, why would any author view their own work in the same volume as multiple works? We sometimes anthropomorphize the Creator of the Universe and assign our perceptions to Him as if they are fact. But the fact is, He is the true author of Scripture and He didn't need a second chance to get it right. He planned it exactly as it happened from the beginning and Messiah was the final piece of the puzzle to redeem us, making it possible to put His Spirit in us and empower us to Obey His Kingdom Law (actually better translated as His Instruction). Again, see Ezekiel 36:26&27.

Romans 2:

13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Romans 11:

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Ezekiel 36:

26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and make you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Taking this a bit further, what if we add the sentiments of

Ephesians 2:

12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

It clearly links to Numbers 6:25 when referring to Gentiles having been "strangers" who are not citizens of Israel. THIS is the context of being grafted in!! The church has always taught that "Jewish" believers join them, but Scripture supports that believing Gentiles become a part of the collective body of believing "Jews"/Israelis.

Let's take that thought just one step further...

Galatians 3:

29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

NOTE: (Christ is a Latin word replacement for Messiah - just one more way the Hebraic Context of the Apostle's letters gets lost or forgotten).

We HAVE to let Scripture define Scripture. When we do, a very different picture than the one typically painted within the body of our Christian brothers and sisters begins to emerge!!

---

Invariably, discussions of this nature come down to Paul's infamous statements about changing his means of sharing Messiah with different people groups. Usually, right after discussing Romans 6:14.

Romans 6:

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Now we have to look at more definitions from the perspective of Paul, the 1st true Messianic Rabbi. (these definitions, by the way, are a very likely part of what Peter mentioned as "the wisdom God gave" to Paul in 2 Peter 3:16 - Paul understood the idea of the Old and New Covenants)

Here is my reply to the question about the context of Romans 6:14

"Before we get to Romans 6:14 we need to look at 1 Corinthians and how he categorized the people he ministered to. This will help us to understand how Paul viewed people groups. It wasn't sinner/saint or Jew/Gentile. Paul identifies a 3rd group in 1 Corinthians 9. Paul wasn't talking about his lifestyle in regard to these people, but his communication to/with them. He didn't sit down and chat over a BLT with those without the law or those under the law or else he was a lying hypocrite in Acts 24:13&14

1 Corinthians 9:

20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

When talking about Yeshua/Jesus to a "Jew" he used Scripture, which is how the Bereans were able to verify his claims. What Scripture did the Bereans use? Obviously, the Hebrew Bible / "Old Testament".

When with a Gentile he clearly didn't use Torah, or any other parts of the Tanakh to convince them because it would have been fruitless. He used other means like "I don't come with words of man's wisdom but in the demonstration of power". Holy Spirit confirmed what he taught with signs and wonders. Even here we see he was walking away from anything man-made (man's wisdom = the teachings of the sages/elders). These were the ones "without the law" - See Romans 2 again...

Romans 2:

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 👉🏼for when Gentiles, who do not have the law👈🏼, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

When talking to those who were guilty of disobedience, he must have called them back to obedience. Not at all unlike a good attorney would do now with a client who keeps getting into trouble with the law. Those are the ones UNDER THE LAW.

See, he mentioned the "Jew", "the ones without the Law", and "those under the Law"... why did he need the 3rd one if he had covered the "Jew" and "Gentile"? Under the Law does not mean obedient to Torah, it means being disobedient and suffering the consequences. THAT is the curse of the Law. Disobedience brings a curse all of its own. God didn't curse Adam and Eve, He just told them what things the curse(s) they'd unleashed on themselves would include. Obedience ALWAYS brings blessings.

We have to be careful to not allow some of the more liberal "translations", that insert things the Greek doesn't say, and just believe it. That's why I tend to use the NKJV and NLT, to balance one another against the Greek. In all honesty, I only settled on those two a year or two ago. I still will often go back to Tyndale's work, sometimes the NIV, Young's Literal, and etc to compare and contrast what I think I might be seeing in the Greek or Hebrew. I also read the Aramaic translated into English sometimes."

This led our discussion in a direction that caused them to want to know about Paul's other uses of the phrase "under the law". They were convinced that there had to be proof that under the law meant those who obeyed Torah.

With the following we are about ready to pick Galatians 2:16 apart...

---

My Reply:

In regard to Paul's usage of "under the law" elsewhere, we have to take those on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes he's not referring to Torah at all, and sometimes he is. One example for determining when he was/was not referring to Torah, and it's not 100% because Paul used a scribe, and they weren't totally consistent; if you look in the Greek and the article "the" is there, it is likely Torah - but the context will tell you. You have to read Paul's work through the filter of his own beliefs which can be found in Acts 24:14."

14 But this I confess to you, that according to The Way which they call a cult, I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

---

"Nomos always refers to one of two things; Torah or some man-made law or body of laws. They are all called "nomos" because that happens to be the one Koine Greek word that is primarily used to refer to all bodies of law in his and other apostles' letters. However, there were several bodies of law in the Hebraic culture of the 1st century. They just weren't all as formalized as they are now. If Paul said he believed all that is in Torah and the Prophets (Acts 24:14) but taught differently he's a hypocrite and a heretic. If he was consistent with his beliefs then we must determine which Hebraic body of nomos he is referring to when that word is used. But to keep it simple they really boil down to the two I just mentioned. Torah or Man-Made.

Here is another word Christendom tends to redefine from an academic understanding of Koine Greek, but is completely devoid of any Hebraic context - Grace (charis). Biblical grace is empowerment to overcome sin. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't need it and Luke's gospel makes it clear that Jesus grew in grace as a child (2:40 and 2:52). Sin is defined as any violation of Torah in 1 John 3:4. So grace isn't what is offered to a sinner regarding their sin, that's mercy. Grace is what's given to the believer so they don't violate Torah, or in other words, continue to sin. Charis/grace comes into play in a sinner's life when they decide to follow Messiah Yeshua/Jesus and cross-over into Covenant.

We are empowered to stop violating Torah by [grace] through faith [in Messiah] is another way of saying we are saved by grace through faith when we use Scripture to define itself.

So if we are under Grace we won't violate Torah. That's the context of Romans 6:14."

---

Let's now start with Galatians and break this down some.

2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

There are a couple of ways this can go and both are about as likely as the other.

Paul may very well be discussing the fact that salvation is by Messiah alone as also seen in Luke's record in Acts 4:

11 For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says, ‘The stone that you builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.' 12 There is salvation [in] no one else! God has given 👉🏼no other name👈🏼 under heaven by which we must be saved.”

Note something important, as indicated by the pointing hands and brackets above. The one wrench that could be thrown into this particular perspective is that Yehoshua, (the full version of the name Yeshua), means "YHVH is salvation". If the passage didn't specifically mention the "name" then this would be a moot point and not worthy of bringing up. The fact is the Greek DOES mention the "name" and therefore Luke may have simply been referring to the meaning of the name. Verse 12 literally means "Salvation is a part of the name". I still contend that Messiah is the only path to salvation, please don't get me wrong. I am simply pointing out these passages may not be saying what most in the Body have assumed they mean. Again, as I write this I am reminded of something I say time and again.

The Bible was not written to us in the 21st Century. But it was written/recorded for us. We can benefit from it, but we must first understand what it meant to those who wrote it and what they were really saying to the ones they were writing to. (Tim Hillis, Ph.D.)

There is a key to all of this, but it is dependent upon the information above, especially in letting Scripture define itself instead of the man-made Western definitions found within the indoctrination of the church. Please forgive me, I just cannot think of a less direct way of saying this without losing the intended meaning. It is connected to 2:16 through the phrase "works of the law".

Galatians 5:4

4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Paul is expressing something very different than is often extrapolated here. First of all, grace is the empowerment to not sin ( sin is any violation of Torah - 1 John 3:4) as covered above, then we cannot fall from grace by Obeying Torah. The sin then becomes something other than obeying Torah, it is, rather, obeying Torah as THE source for justification. You see, Paul admitted in Philippians 3:6b that there is righteousness in Torah Obedience. He said in Romans 2:13 that those who do Torah WILL BE justified. Messiah said that those who endure until the end shall be saved. Justification grants us a NOT GUILTY verdict at the end of this life. So the endurance Yeshua/Jesus was talking about is in keeping faith in the Messiah AND being obedient until the end, whatever the end might be for each person (Matthew 24:13, Revelation 12:17, 14:12, and 22:14).

NOTE: Keep in mind all are end-times passages.

It is the combination of FAITH and OBEDIENCE that produces Justification and thus SALVATION when it's all said and done. How is salvation produced? Faith in Messiah Yeshua/Jesus, BUT it is a doorway into Covenant. Those who do not die shortly after a "salvation encounter" are expected to walk out their Covenant. THIS is why 1 John 3:6 says to live/walk as Jesus lived/walked. HE walked in perfect Covenant with the Father, having never known sin (violation of Torah) because he was Full of Grace - 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Luke 2:40.

It took a lot to get here, but that was so that I could demonstrate Hermeneutics in action. Specifically letting Scripture define/interpret Scripture. It was also because until someone understands the Hebraic context of certain doctrinal positions like the Doctrine of Salvation and the Doctrine of Justification, there really is no way for them to see the positions from which Paul the first Messianic Rabbi was writing. One more time, we have to read Paul through the lens of his own beliefs as seen in Acts 24:14. Until we are willing and able to do that, there is simply ZERO hope of understanding his sometimes difficult to understand ways of communication - 2 Peter 3:15&16.

Let's put our "contradicting" passages into play using the final analysis of our Hermeneutics, shall we?

Galatians 2:16

knowing that a man is not granted a pardon for sin by only doing the works of the law, but by first putting faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law alone; for by the works of the law alone no flesh shall be justified.

Romans 2:13

for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the believers in Messiah who are also doers of the law will be justified;

Based on our exegesis, by following Hermeneutics quite strictly, can you now see, why it is so important to determine the 1st Century Hebraic context of Scripture BEFORE trying to figure out its application in our 21st Century world? I didn't take the time in this article to break down the Western doctrines of salvation and justification because I didn't want this to become such a long study that it would be even more cumbersome. I also don't want to give the impression that I think everything every Christian Theologian has ever said is wrong. Instead, I trust you know what you've been taught and what you've chosen to believe well enough that I could be free to simply show another perspective; and hopefully teach you how to begin finding the Hebraic context within the passages of the Apostles' letters on your own. If you have questions or require more assistance in this endeavor, PLEASE reach out. I will do my best to assist you.