Trophimus - Did Paul Mislead A Man To Abominate the Temple?

And Did Paul Do So On A Trip That God Told Paul Not To Make?

Paul says that “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing....” (1 Cor. 7:19.)

Consider how this message impacts the ongoing validity of the following command applicable to Gentiles and the abomination of God's Temple at Jerusalem. The Prophet Ezekiel declared: if one “uncircumcised in flesh [is caused] to be in my sanctuary, to profane it,” then it is an “abomination.” (Ezekiel 44:9.)

But if uncircumcision became nothing after the Cross, as Paul said, then a Gentile was free to ignore this command from the Prophet and enter the Temple.

Paul even told the Ephesians in a letter this was true. Paul taught the Ephesians that God “has broken down the middle wall of partition” at the Temple, “having abolished in his flesh... the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances....” (Eph. 2:14-15.)

Did an Ephesian friend of Paul named Trophimus ever trust Paul's new principle to the point of violating the middle wall of the Temple, which kept the Gentiles outside the Temple? We will see that this is precisely what took place in 58 A.D. We will also see how God responded, proving God’s legal principles on what abominates had not evaporated at the Cross in 33 A.D. We will also see that prior to this trip to Jerusalem by Paul and Trophimus that God told Paul, according to Luke, not to make this journey to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4) but that, as Luke records, Paul deliberately disobeyed God. (Acts 21:24.)

Furthermore, if Trophimus heard Paul's words about whether God is present at the Temple, Trophimus could conclude God no longer lived there, and thus there was no longer any risk of sacrilege by his presence in an uncircumcised state. For while the Gospels endorse the OT designation of the Temple in Jerusalem as the very House of the LORD (Mt 23:21, Lk 2:49/19:45-46), Paul told the Athenians that God "does not live in temples built by hands." Acts 17:24. If Trophimus heard this from Paul, Trophimus predictably would show no concern for the sanctity of the Temple upon his arrival with Paul in 58 A.D. at Jerusalem.

What Happened In 58 AD At Jerusalem?

What happened is that in 58 A.D., Trophimus, an uncircumcised Gentile from Ephesus, entered the prohibited area of the Temple. (Acts 21:28-29.)

Neither Luke nor Paul ever deny Trophimus profaned the Temple. Instead, both Luke and Paul merely try to deny there was proof that Paul had brought Trophimus into the prohibited area. (Acts 21:29, 24:6, 13, 18; 25:7-8.) Luke says the Jews "supposed" Paul had done so because they earlier saw Paul together with Trophimus in Jerusalem. (Acts 21:28-29.) Trophimus was indeed a close companion of Paul. (Acts 20:4; 2 Tim.4:20.) Yet, Paul said his accusers merely found him (Paul) purifying himself in the temple. (Acts 24:18.) This was the only inadequacy Paul cited to the charge that he (Paul) was responsible for Trophimus’ profaning the Temple. (See Acts 21:28, Paul "brought Greeks also into the temple, and .... defiled this holy place.") Paul did not make any stronger refutation such as that Trophimus had not breached the middle wall of the Temple, evidently because Paul knew that charge was true.

Obscuring These Events In Christian Commentary

Incidentally, Paul was accused by the Jews of being the cause of Trophimus' breach, and it was this charge (Acts 24:6, "profane the temple") which Paul appealed to Caesar, and this caused his being taken to Rome. (Acts 25:8-11.) For some reason, this aspect of what Paul was being put on trial for is rarely openly discussed in Christian churches. Research "Trophimus" online to verify this yourself.

There is a reason for this obscuring of the issue for which Paul was on trial. Some are hesitant to acknowledge Trophimus, a friend of Paul, defiled the Temple. This would raise even the most hardened Paulinist to start wondering about Paul because everyone knows Paul told Ephesians like Trophimus that the middle wall at the Temple was no longer a barrier to a Christian Gentile.

In apparent recognition of this strain on Paul's validity, when this event is discussed, it is typically misdescribed in ways to whitewash Trophimus. A major Encyclopedia with absolutely no basis insists, for example, that Trophimus was "innocent." (See "Trophimus," International Bible Enclyclopedia.) Then when the reader hears what the Jews "supposed" Paul did, one easily leaps to the conclusion that Luke says more than he did say. But what Luke says is

They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area (Acts 21:29, NIV.)

One Reputable Source Gets Closer To The Truth

However, there is one reputable source within modern Christianity which mentions it was the Jews who "believed" it was Paul who had brought Trophimus into the sacred part of the Temple. This book source does not proclaim Trophimus's innocence. These authors acknowledge instead that the action of Trophimus would be the kind of abomination that desolates spoken about in Daniel. (Whether it was the abomination which Daniel prophesied is beyond the scope of this study.) This source is Tim La Haye's and Ed Hinson's The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Harvest House, 2004) where we read:

The Jews were extremely careful to prevent such acts and even built a protective fence around the Second Temple. It included a warning inscription promising death to any non-Israelite who passed beyond it into the court of the Israelites. The New Testament (Acts 21:27-28) records the violent opposition of a Jewish crowd who believed Paul had taken a Gentile proselyte (Trophimus) into the Temple to offer sacrifice. They accused Paul of “defiling the holy place” (the Temple). With this background, we can understand why the future act of desecration by the abomination of desolation is the climax of Daniel’s seventieth week and signals the intensification of God’s wrath in the second half of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:15-21; Mark 13:14-19). 1

Hence, finally some authority is identifying it is the Jewish crowd who made a supposition about Paul's responsibility. The guilt of Trophimus was never in doubt. The crowd was trying to blame Paul for Trophimus's action, and that is a different issue. The way Luke gives the account Paul defends himself not by declaiming Trophimus was innocent, but rather by Paul insisting he himself was busy washing himself at the temple at the time of Trophimus's defiling action.

Paul's Message To Ephesians Like Trophimus About The Middle Wall

Now why did Trophimus breach the middle wall that had warning signs declaring that no uncircumcised Gentile could pass into the Temple without facing a death penalty? Trophimus must have been convinced of a new principle that was superior to the principle God gave the prophet Ezekiel. Where did Trophimus learn such new principle that could give him such liberty?

There is little doubt that Trophimus, a travelling companion of Paul, must have relied upon Paul’s doctrine. First, Paul said that “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” (1 Cor. 7:19.) Lastly and most important, Trophimus, an Ephesian, must have been convinced he could pass this middle barrier because of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. In it, Paul taught God “has broken down the middle wall of partition” at the Temple, “having abolished in his flesh... the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances....” (Eph. 2:14-15.) The true “habitation of God” is now the church, built upon the “apostles and prophets.” (Eph.2:20-22.)

Jesus Says Paul Is Wrong, For Daniel's Prophecy Depends Upon Ezekiel's Principle Continuing

Yet, was this middle wall abolished in God’s eyes? Or were the Prophetic words of Ezekiel still in place after the Cross of 33 A.D.? In other words, would an uncircumcised Gentile inside the temple still be an abomination standing in the Holy Place? The answer is yes.

First, Jesus spoke precisely of an "abomination that causes desolation" standing in the holy place, as a sign of the coming destruction of the Temple as "prophesied by Daniel." (Matt. 24:15-16.) Jesus hence recognized that Ezekiel's principle would be operative after Jesus' ascension. The abomination would be a precursor of the destruction of the Temple.

(Jesus had in mind Daniel's identification of a person who is responsible for a "sacrilegious object" entering in the Temple,  and a person who simultaneously puts an end to the sacrifices and offerings at the Temple. It is this person who "causes" an abomination spoken by Daniel. See Dan. 9:27. Whether Trophimus' abomination is the subject of Daniel's prophecy is beyond the scope of our analysis here.)

Second, and consistent with this view that Ezekiel was still a valid command post 33 AD, Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the “Law or the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17).  This would include Ezekiel's words on what causes an abomination of God's Temple, i.e., the presence of an uncircumcised Gentile. Also, Jesus said not until “heavens and earth pass away will one little jot or tittle of the Law pass away....” (Matt. 5:18.) In the Law, we read God promises that if we “walk contrary to Me,” then “I will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation.” (Lev. 26:27,31.)

Did God Respond To Trophimus' Act Consistent With Leviticus?

Thus, if the Law and Prophets were still in effect after the Cross, then one would expect God would respond by desolating His own Temple for Trophimus’ act. God’s word appears to require He desolate it in response to such a crime.

Indeed, a gentile, Trophimus, in reliance on Paul, came to abominate the temple in 58 AD. And God in response did desolate His temple in 70 A.D.

Of course, in the bigger moral picture, God destroyed the Temple "because you did not know the time of your visitation" (Luke 19:41-44). However, in the micro-picture of immediate causes, it was because of Trophimus' violation of the Temple. As a result, God saw to it that every stone of the Temple was torn down. Thus, the Law and Prophets did not expire at the Cross. Instead, thirty-seven years after the cross, the Law of Moses was vigorously enforced by the Almighty.

If Paul’s teachings misled Trophimus, look then at the horrible consequences of trusting Paul’s views that the Law was defunct and no longer to be performed. Let’s learn from Trophimus’ mistake and only trust Jesus’ view on the Law and Prophets continuing validity until heaven and earth pass away. (Matt. 5:18.)

INTERESTING CIRCUMSTANCE ABOUT PAUL'S PRESENCE IN JERUSALEM

Just prior to this incident, according to Luke, God commanded Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem. Thus, Luke depicts that Paul in disobedience to God went Paul went anyway to Jerusalem. (See Acts 21:4.) It reads:

We went ashore, found the local believers, and stayed with them a week. These believers prophesied through the Holy Spirit that Paul should not go on to Jerusalem. NLT

And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. ASV

Then Paul's disobedience led to the abomination episode mentioned above.

This is agreed upon by conservative Christian scholar James Montgomery Boice in his book entitled Acts (Baker Books, 1997). Dr. Leon Combs in 2006 wrote about this, using Paul's example to prove how disobeying God sometimes works out just fine ("God uses our failures for His glory"). Dr. Combs explains:

in this chapter we will see how Paul did not obey God in going to
Jerusalem. I would not present this interpretation if it were not also backed up by one of
my favorite theologians, James Montgomery Boice. 2

Dr. Combs extrapolates a wrong reading from this fact but with a wholesome conclusion: "even when we desire to do good deeds [i.e., Paul's desire to worship at the Temple] we can be in violation of God’s desire for our lives. We must carefully listen to God’s Word and desire only to do what He wants us to do."

No, the correct reading is when we violate God's command, something bad will happen. Nothing good came from this, for Paul's violation of the command of the Holy Spirit led to the abomination of the Temple.

For in Acts 21:4, Luke records that spiritual Christians shared with Paul the message of the Holy Spirit not to go to Jerusalem:

And after looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they
kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. NASB

Luke tells you that God knew better; Paul heard the Spirit's message through others, but defied it anyway.

Interestingly, Dr. Combs recognizes that when Paul in Acts 21 is confronted by the apostolic leadership at Jerusalem (this is years after the decision that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised), the duty that Jews had to be circumcised was still maintained by the mother church. To this Dr. Combs realizes a chasm existed between the apostolic church and Paul. Dr. Combs writes, utterly sympathetic of Paul and judgmental of the apostolic church of the true twelve:

This issue is very disturbing to me for it shows that the mother church was still involved in strong Jewish practices. They viewed Paul as someone who many in the church thought was taking the church too far away from their core beliefs. (Combs, God Uses Our Failures for His Glory (2006) at 3.)

This underscores two things in the very same chapter of Acts -- that Paul disobeyed God going to Jerusalem and was not obeying the Apostolic practices of the true 12, but Combs does not see this. Let's explore.

Paul's Disobedience in Acts 21 Conjoined With Disobeying Apostles's Practices

First, at the very same time Paul disobeys God in Acts 21:4, Paul was out-of-sync with the true 12 apostles on other issues, as recorded in Acts 21 -- about 3 years after Acts 15.

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Conference concluded Gentiles did not have to be circumcised but could not eat meat sacrificed to idols. Why was Paul out-of-sync? We know independently of Acts 21 that Paul taught Gentiles they could eat such meats sacrificed to idols. See Rom 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29.

Furthermore, in Acts 21, we learn Paul is viewed to be out-of-sync for a second reason. Paul is thought by James to be teaching Jews too did not have to be circumcised, which James disapproves anyone to teach. James heard rumours that Paul teaches Jews do not have to follow the Law any more. Of course, Paul indeed taught this in many letters. See 2 Cor. 2:14 (“old covenant”); Gal. 5:1 (“yoke of bondage”); Rom. 10:4 (“Christ is end of the law”); 2 Cor. 3:7 (“law of death”); Gal. 5:1 (“entangles”); Col. 2:14-17 (“a shadow”); Rom. 3:27 (“law of works”); Rom. 4:15 (“works wrath”); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 (“cannot justify”); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col.2:14 (“wiped out” exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 (“given by angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements”).

Finally, God tells Paul through inspired messages to others (according to Luke) not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:24), but Paul goes anyway.

It is therefore not surprising that someone not following apostolic leadership and not obeying God (Acts 21:24), as Luke depicts Paul simultaneously in Acts 21, would arrive in Jerusalem and mislead Trophimus to abominate the Temple - the worst possible act of disobedience known in the Torah and Prophets. Luke obviously wants us to realize God told Paul not to come so as to protect His sanctuary.

The Tacit Message About Paul From Luke

Why do people then think Paul is depicted as a hero in Acts? Because they do not take time to read the final chapters of Acts. They do not take time to understand what is being said about Trophimus. They do not understand the legal implications of Trophimus's conduct. They stop and think it is only important to know Paul did not escort Trophimus into the holy area. They do not connect up the fact that Paul knew Trophimus in Ephesus, and wrote a letter to the Ephesians that God tore away the ordinances that prevented Gentiles from passing the middle wall of the Temple at Jerusalem.

Hence, they do not realize that by the end of Acts, Luke truly depicts Paul in a very ugly light. Of course, it is a fair and balanced description of the events so Paul's misdeeds are not exaggerated. Yet, in Luke's account, Paul is certainly a disobedient man to God Almighty and out-of-sync with Jesus's true 12 apostles.

Hence, it cannot go unnoticed that Luke in Acts in the three vision accounts between Paul and Jesus never once depicts Jesus saying Paul was appointed an apostle. Jesus only said Paul was to be a MARTUS -- a witness. This completely undermines Paul because Jesus taught us that a self-serving statement of one's special status with God is invalid/untrue; instead two witnesses must confirm it. (John 5:31; Rev. 2:2.) Paul had zero confirmation other than his self-serving claims. Jesus had the voice of God the Father ("this is my Son") and the Spirit in the Dove confirm Jesus's identity at His baptism. Also, At the transfiguration, Jesus also had the voice of the Father again as well as Moses and Elijah to confirm His identity. (Matt. 17:1-9.)

Thus, because of such similar negative facts running throughout the book of Acts, which modern pastors spend a lot of time concealing, modern scholars believe Luke had an objective to bring Paul down as a means of counteracting the influence of Marcion. (See Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942) at 114-39.)

Thus, Luke is a key witness AGAINST Paul when you read thoroughly to the END of Acts.

Other Links

For a similar analysis from Scott Nelson, see "Why Didn't James Come To Paul's Rescue," at http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/trophimus_incident.htm

Trophimus means "foster-child." ("Trophimus," Wikipedia.) Perhaps Luke is saying Trophimus's adopted father was Paul.

For a drama of the trial of Paul which I created, see this webpage.