Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[Zao is life]

Sometimes I really hate this site..........
Too many are on constant attack mode of fellow believers.
False teachers in the cults dont get the whippings..
Things that make you go hmmm

I sometimes wonder if this site hasn't been infiltrated by antichrists posing as believers so as to destroy the discussions of the real believers - so as to destroy this site, getting rid of the real believers and then turning the site it a truly antichrist(ian) cesspit, masquerading as a Christian site.​

 

[PS95]

It wasnt hypocrisy, as I think you see now. Since others are seriously upset by the fact that you thought it was- perhaps an apology is in order. It would show your humble spirit and end these attacks. I admit to being curious as to why it was hypocrisy on Peter's end and not Paul's but it really was a matter of me not reading more carefully. It is confusing after all. the Spirit DOES speak to us through others many many times. That is not debatable! This could have been however, just the way they were interpreting what they had seen in a vision or heard from Paul . As you see by the various answers of others- The text is not clear . However, I lean that way because
I think that 24:11 is a beautiful encouragement to Paul that he did the Lord's will in Jerusalem. so amen to that.
since the confusion offended so many- perhaps an apology is in order. At the very least, it will stop the attacks on you. And at the worst- you will have to make friends with Wrangler hahaha. Just kidding, but it will show your humble spirit and silence them.

good nite- it's really late here..............

 

[Hepzibah]

When you say Paul was in error here and claim that is not an "attack on Paul" is living in fantasyland.

I'm not saying Paul was perfect--he certainly was no more perfect than you or me. But imperfect people can be trained to operate responsibly in a saintly way. And Paul was called to guide the Church in responsible living. If he made "errors" he would then admit them if indeed they were "errors." But if it's just *you* calling some things "errors," then I would accept Paul's version over yours, unless it was painfully obvious you're right--it isn't.

We all have weaknesses--we have to mitigate them. Having a weakness does not mean you can't be honest when you're in "error" and when you're not. Paul admitted no error in the matters you are describing.

How we live our lives responsibly is one matter. Judging whether what Paul did was in "error" or not is another.

He may have told the others at the time, that it was an error. Leaving that out of scripture would be one way that God can show who has discernment and who has not, if they seek the truth of it. To them of course, as He already knows our hearts.

I am coming at this from a different angle however, as I see a perfected person as not making the mistake, unless they have slipped back to the fleshy way of understanding a situation, which in this case, would be his own overriding desire.

Oh how he suffered for it. Can we even imagine.

 

[RedFan]

The question you asked is in the OP of this thread and is what the OP was about. In later posts in this thread the answer to your question was repeated by others besides myself when discussing the OP, and this was before you asked the question.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you never read the OP carefully enough to realize that the answer to your question was in the OP, and I'll assume that you also never read the replies of two others in this thread where we (they and myself) are discussing and repeating the same answer to your question contained in the OP (which they saw and understood).

So giving you the benefit of the doubt, I apologize.​

Apology accepted. I've gone back through the entire thread and OP to search for the answer to my question, and don't find it. The OP certainly says -- and I agree -- that Acts identifies an incident of hypocrisy for Peter and one for Paul. But that was never my question.

You: Peter and Paul only each made themselves guilty of hypocrisy only once.
Me: How do you know that?
You: Paul and Peter were guilty of hypocrisy at least once.

I agree with you on this last comment (which certainly follows from the OP). But again, that was never my question.

 

[Wrangler]

You are really one rude individual. So the Spirit can not speak thru others. SINCE WHEN???

Not an answer to my reading comprehension question. You who are complicit with calling the Apostle Paul, who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament, a hypocrite, is calling me rude?! That is rich.

"Can" is a potential not actual. No one said the Spirit lacks the potential. I only pointed out the Spirit did not, in fact, actually command Paul to stay away from Jerusalem through others according to the text.

I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

PTL.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree with you. Nothing is said about why he chose not to listen to the Holy Spirit, other than he was ready to die for the Lord.
I also do not believe that the apostles in Jerusalem knew of that warning. There would have been a discussion I would think.

To be honest, I have confusion with all of this story. I am not doubting Paul's sincerity at all. I love Paul, but maybe it's because I was never a Jew. I dont think I would do what he did. I think I would have felt like I was not honoring Jesus- especially where the sacrifice was burned for him. Paul and the apostles didn't see it that way and again- it's probably due to not being a Jew on my part.
Paul knew the sacrifice meant nothing- and was only trying to win them somehow.. I dont know how that would work though. What was he thinking? To befried them and follow the law until an opportunity came to explain why the law is not necessary- that could have taken quite some time. How many burnt scarifices would he allow? He knew he was going to be chained and bound.

As you pointed out , Peter was reproved by Paul over a similar occurance. The only difference is that Peter was doing it out of fear of the Jews. That's was Paul's view anyway. Paul was doing what he did out... of wanting to be a martyr for Jesus. That's what it says. Did he do it out of love for the Jews who kept the law? Maybe, It doesnt say that though. It says what it says.

After reading the early church fathers- it seems they did indeed look for ways to be martyr'd.

I dont want to hear from others about how wrong i am. lol It says what it says.
Paul said he wanted to die and be with Christ- I think he really meant it, literally.

It could be a little tricky discerning between what dishonors the Lord, and how far we should go to win man. I dont pretend to get it all.

He may have told the others at the time, that it was an error. Leaving that out of scripture would be one way that God can show who has discernment and who has not, if they seek the truth of it. To them of course, as He already knows our hearts.

Argument from silence is inadequate.

I am coming at this from a different angle however, as I see a perfected person as not making the mistake, unless they have slipped back to the fleshy way of understanding a situation, which in this case, would be his own overriding desire.

Oh how he suffered for it. Can we even imagine.

Suffering does not necessarily indicate error. Identifying what is "spiritual" and what is "fleshly" is a judgment we should not make lightly, particularly when we're talking about the Scriptures and the apostles.

An important record like this would clearly indicate an error if it had happened, as was the case with Peter withdrawing from Gentile Christians. But that is not the case in the matter of Paul adopting Jewish customs among unbelieving Jews. And it is not the case with his following through with his direction from God to go to Jerusalem even while he is warned it would cost him.

 

[Hepzibah]

@Randy Kluth

The early church have written so many times that martyrdom was desired by them all. Paul knew that he would be martyred, so why the big fuss about going to Jerusalem? It makes no sense and why on earth were all of his fellows trying to stop him despite it being the will of God? Were they all backslidden at that point? Nonsense.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Arriving in Tyre during his missionary journeys, Paul stayed there seven days with disciples in Tyre, "who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should NOT go up to Jerusalem."

After leaving Tyre and staying one day at Ptolemais, Paul "came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him, and a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea, and "he came to us, took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, "The Holy Spirit says this: 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'"

When they heard this, Paul's travelling companions and the local people "begged him not to go up to Jerusalem".

Then Paul replied, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.", and "because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, "The Lord's will be done." -- Acts 21:3-14.

Then, while in Jerusalem, Paul was advised by James and the elders and other disciples:

"Thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. They have been informed about you - that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come.

So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law." -- Acts 21:3-24

It was a number of years before this that Paul had written to the Thessalonians and Galatians, saying,

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification [Greek: hagiasmos, purification] of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." -- Galatians 5:1.

Despite this, acting on the advice of James and the other elders of the church in Jerusalem, Paul "took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them." -- Acts 21:20-26.

Paul had accused Peter of hypocrisy when Peter, after eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, withdrew from them when Jews associated with James came from Jerusalem (Galatians 2:11-21).

Now Paul, contrary to his own doctrine, acting on the advice of James and other elders did the same - he purified himself in accordance with Mosaic law in order to appease Jews who claimed to believe the gospel, yet maintained strict observance of Mosaic law.

Of the Jewish believers who insisted that Gentiles obey the law of Moses, Paul had previously told the Gentiles, "They court you eagerly, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you would seek them eagerly." -- Galatians 4:17

As a result, instead of thus appeasing the Jews when he purified himself in the temple in accordance with Mosaic law, Paul was accused by the Jews of defiling the temple, and was arrested and bound in chains. He remained under arrest until he died.

Paul listened to the advice he received from James and the elders, as well as other Jewish disciples who kept the law of Moses, and as Peter had done in Antioch, Paul did something to show the Jews that Paul still kept the law of Moses.

The fact that Paul was repeatedly warned by Christian prophets speaking by the Holy Spirit not to go to Jerusalem, implies that it was not the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem, or that he be arrested - but Paul, "returning to the weak and beggarly elements of the law" in order to make a show to unbelieving Jews of being a Torah-observant Jew, lost his freedom for the rest of his life, effectively ending his missionary journeys.

OBVIOUSLY (before someone shouts this false accusation) it does not mean that Paul lost his salvation - but he suffered the consequence of his hypocrisy for the rest of his life - and this is why prophesying by the Holy Spirit Paul was repeatedly warned by Christians NOT TO go to Jerusalem. But he never listened.​

2 Timothy 2:9-13 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. [10] Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [11] It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: [12] If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: [13] If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

To me there is a difference….Paul became all things to all men… to the weak becoming as weak. To the bound as becoming bound. But to me Paul still knew the Liberty he had been given Of God in Christ …to become all things to all men. Voicing “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me.” There is a difference I think in afraid to sit with the gentiles or Jew or sinners …and doing questionable things men scratch their heads over saying “that’s not right”…yet out of having been given the Liberty to do so. Point is …I don’t see Paul afraid of the Jews to go bound or to follow a religion, but instead going into captivity to save those in captivity? Don’t forget Jesus Christ did things one minute Christ said not to do …then He did what He just told them not to do. My husband has been talking about one of those times where Jesus tells them not to go to any of the Cities in Samaria ..then He goes to visit the Samaritan woman by the well.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Then Paul replied, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.", and "because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, "The Lord's will be done." -- Acts 21:3-14.

Romans 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, [2] That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. [3] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

When they were telling Paul …weeping…for him to not go up to Jerusalem. It being prophesied what will happen if Paul goes to Jerusalem.

it sounds very familiar …of when they wept and begged Jesus to not go to be crucified. Where men waited to do horrible things to Jesus Christ. Point is …we think we can easily Judge what Paul did but it looks very familiar to a same walk, a same path of being taken and bound …where if we are to judge by the outcome as “a failure” in saying “and there Paul remained until the day he died” “bound”
…someone before Paul took the same walk being met with the same “contradiction of sinners against himself”
Hebrews 12:2-9 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. [3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest you be wearied and faint in your minds. [4] You have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. [5] And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when you are rebuked of him: [6] For whom the Lord loves he chastens , and scourges every son whom he receives. [7] If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chastens not? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

They are saying the spirit says “don’t go”
Paul can’t be persuaded “and he goes”’
To me it’s too soon to say Paul was not in subjection to the Father of spirits… “your breaking my heart”
Sounds familiar too… Christ could have easily told the disciples as they begged Him also not to go…He could have easily told them also “you are breaking My heart”

Can’t overlook Peter exclaimed before Christ went to be crucified … “I am ready to go to die with you!” Where Christ told Peter “you will deny Me three times this night.”

 

[Hepzibah]

Arriving in Tyre during his missionary journeys, Paul stayed there seven days with disciples in Tyre, "who said to Paul *through the Spirit*, that he should NOT go up to Jerusalem."

So who was lying here, or getting it wrong?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree with you. Nothing is said about why he chose not to listen to the Holy Spirit, other than he was ready to die for the Lord.
I also do not believe that the apostles in Jerusalem knew of that warning. There would have been a discussion I would think.

To be honest, I have confusion with all of this story. I am not doubting Paul's sincerity at all. I love Paul, but maybe it's because I was never a Jew. I dont think I would do what he did. I think I would have felt like I was not honoring Jesus- especially where the sacrifice was burned for him. Paul and the apostles didn't see it that way and again- it's probably due to not being a Jew on my part.
Paul knew the sacrifice meant nothing- and was only trying to win them somehow.. I dont know how that would work though. What was he thinking? To befried them and follow the law until an opportunity came to explain why the law is not necessary- that could have taken quite some time. How many burnt scarifices would he allow? He knew he was going to be chained and bound.

As you pointed out , Peter was reproved by Paul over a similar occurance. The only difference is that Peter was doing it out of fear of the Jews. That's was Paul's view anyway. Paul was doing what he did out... of wanting to be a martyr for Jesus. That's what it says. Did he do it out of love for the Jews who kept the law? Maybe, It doesnt say that though. It says what it says.

After reading the early church fathers- it seems they did indeed look for ways to be martyr'd.

I dont want to hear from others about how wrong i am. lol It says what it says.
Paul said he wanted to die and be with Christ- I think he really meant it, literally.

It could be a little tricky discerning between what dishonors the Lord, and how far we should go to win man. I dont pretend to get it all.

The problem is, earlier in this argument Paul's rebuke of Peter for withdrawing from Gentile believers was equated with Paul's willingness to indulge believers who felt they should continue to observe the cultural trappings of the Law. But these are not the same issues.

To withdraw from fellowshipping with fellow believers over race is racism. But on cultural issues Paul indicated it was necessary to observe some of the externals of a culture if one is to reach a different culture, particularly with young believers who were raised up in it.

In one case Paul warned that immature believers, such as those who would not eat food sacrificed to idols, should be respected by not practicing such eating in their presence. On the other hand Paul warned that the Gospel would not be effective if cultural adornments were not properly respected in that culture while the Gospel was being preached--two different issues.

On the matter of going to Jerusalem it is clear that Paul was warned by God that he must go to Jews and Gentiles in the face of suffering. The prophecy warning Paul about Jerusalem was a reflection of the prophet's concern for Paul suffering, but Paul had already know that he would suffer and was willing to obey God despite that.

2 Cor 12.9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

As for the prophet's ignorance of Paul's call to suffer it is clear that in his warning Paul not to go he did not know what Paul already knew, that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer in the process. It was the prophet who erred--not Paul. It wasn't really error so much on the part of the prophet, but concern for Paul with a lack of information about what God had told Paul.

Paul, while he was in Corinth, proclaimed the Gospel to Jews resistant to his message. But we read this...

Acts 18.9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.

So Paul was following his call to reach both Jews and non-Jews with the Gospel. And reaching the Jews required that Paul find acceptance of the Apostles in Jerusalem, as well as preach the Gospel in Jerusalem, despite his call to reach the Gentiles. This was particularly disturbing to Jews who under the Law had been told that Gentiles were pagan and should be ignored.

Your problem is you just don't believe the record of Scriptures and what Paul had said about these things. Jesus had told the original 12 Apostles to begin their testimony in Jerusalem even though they were also warned that they would be persecuted in the process. And Jesus himself died there. Paul is simply following in the steps of the original 12 Apostles in persisting in going up to Jerusalem in the face of persecution.

Acts 20.22 “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace."

Acts 21.13 Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 23.11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

Paul and James agreed that young Christians raised in Judaism should not be encouraged to blatantly defy the cultural and moral values in Judaism so that they could remain "like the Jews to win the Jews."

1 Cor 9.20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Acts 15.20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

And those young in their conversion had trouble distinguishing between some of the prohibitions of the Law from moral prohibitions in Christ. And Paul wanted to allow for time to mature before trying to clarify these more-difficult matters.

Rom 14.1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

When Paul went to Jerusalem the last time it was in the stream of his regular visits there, sometimes to bring financial support to Jewish believers, and sometimes to coordinate his ministry to the Gentiles with those ministering among the Jews. But he was aware of his proximity to martyrdom as his ministry approached its later stages. And he was no doubt aware that Jesus had ended his ministry in Jerusalem.

It may be that Paul prompted Jewish believers in Jerusalem to maintain a semblence of obedience to the Law out of respect for those in Judaism. Though many of them were not yet clear on how much liberty the Gospel afforded them they were nevertheless encouraged to maintain respect among those still in Judaism.

So following the Law externally had the practical purpose of not provoking those whose culture required Jews to remain externally obedient to the Law. Jewish believers may have been ignorant concerning the division between OT and NT requirements, but it was essential that they know Christians do not intentionally disrespect customs that do not have anything to do with spiritual uncleanness.

This is a lot, I know, to take in. But over-simplifying it by "attacking Paul" as a "lapsed Christian" doesn't work for me. Undoubtedly Paul was as flawed as we are. He got hot-headed insulting a high priest albeit naively. But the Scriptures appear to support Paul's last trip to Jerusalem, as well as his counsel of Jewish believers in Jerusalem. We should take care before questioning Paul's motives.

 

[Randy Kluth]

@Randy Kluth

The early church have written so many times that martyrdom was desired by them all. Paul knew that he would be martyred, so why the big fuss about going to Jerusalem? It makes no sense and why on earth were all of his fellows trying to stop him despite it being the will of God? Were they all backslidden at that point? Nonsense.

It's a reasonable question, but not a question that should instantly cause us to accuse Paul. I think we're human and if we don't know a friend and fellow believer is going to die we may resist.

For example, a friend is dying from cancer and knows from the Lord his time is short. I don't know this and encourage my friend to seek more extreme medical aid, and encourage him to "fight!"

In the end we're just talking about being human--nothing about fighting the Lord and resisting His will in any extreme way. God understands. Compassion is good. Accepting the Lord's will, even begrudgingly, is better.

 

[Zao is life]

2 Timothy 2:9-13 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. [10] Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [11] It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: [12] If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: [13] If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

To me there is a difference….Paul became all things to all men… to the weak becoming as weak. To the bound as becoming bound. But to me Paul still knew the Liberty he had been given Of God in Christ …to become all things to all men. Voicing “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me.” There is a difference I think in afraid to sit with the gentiles or Jew or sinners …and doing questionable things men scratch their heads over saying “that’s not right”…yet out of having been given the Liberty to do so. Point is …I don’t see Paul afraid of the Jews to go bound or to follow a religion, but instead going into captivity to save those in captivity? Don’t forget Jesus Christ did things one minute Christ said not to do …then He did what He just told them not to do. My husband has been talking about one of those times where Jesus tells them not to go to any of the Cities in Samaria ..then He goes to visit the Samaritan woman by the well.

Good points. Not sure if it was the will of God for Paul to become bound or the will of Paul because he had a burning desire to go to Jerusalem, but what you said above regarding Paul's attitude is valid.

 

[Zao is life]

Romans 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, [2] That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. [3] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

When they were telling Paul …weeping…for him to not go up to Jerusalem. It being prophesied what will happen if Paul goes to Jerusalem.

it sounds very familiar …of when they wept and begged Jesus to not go to be crucified. Where men waited to do horrible things to Jesus Christ. Point is …we think we can easily Judge what Paul did but it looks very familiar to a same walk, a same path of being taken and bound …where if we are to judge by the outcome as “a failure” in saying “and there Paul remained until the day he died” “bound”
…someone before Paul took the same walk being met with the same “contradiction of sinners against himself”
Hebrews 12:2-9 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. [3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest you be wearied and faint in your minds. [4] You have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. [5] And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when you are rebuked of him: [6] For whom the Lord loves he chastens , and scourges every son whom he receives. [7] If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chastens not? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

They are saying the spirit says “don’t go”
Paul can’t be persuaded “and he goes”’
To me it’s too soon to say Paul was not in subjection to the Father of spirits… “your breaking my heart”
Sounds familiar too… Christ could have easily told the disciples as they begged Him also not to go…He could have easily told them also “you are breaking My heart”

Can’t overlook Peter exclaimed before Christ went to be crucified … “I am ready to go to die with you!” Where Christ told Peter “you will deny Me three times this night.”

Paul most certainly was prepared to be bound at Jerusalem or even killed for the name of Christ (he said so himself before even arriving in Jerusalem), but it was not Paul's idea to observe the requirement of the law - it was James and the elders at Jerusalem's idea - and they put the idea forward for no other reason except to appease "Jews which believe; and are all zealous of the law".

This isn't my own idea - it's what is written and recorded as the motive - and it is the only motive mentioned.

The motive was to appease them because those Torah-observant believers were informed that Paul "teaches all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

The fact that this was done was so that "all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning Paul were nothing; but that he himself also walked orderly, keeping the law".

No other motive for Paul doing so is mentioned in Acts.

Paul agreed, knowing what the purpose of the exercise was, because he had been told what the purpose was by those who asked him to do it.

Paul did not go ahead and seek to appease Torah-observant believers by showing them that he obeyed the law because he feared them (as in Peter's motive), but he nevertheless did so in order to appease them, like Peter had done when Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy.

Regardless of what motivated Peter or what motivated Paul, When Peter did something in order to appease the Judaizing party, there was someone to accuse him of hypocrisy (i.e, Paul).

But when Paul did something to appease the Judaizing party there was no one to accuse him of hypocrisy because the only people who could have accused him were the very people who had asked Paul to do it in the first place.

The motive was to appease the Torah-observant party in Jerusalem, and that's the motive Paul was made aware of. He agreed to do what James and the elders at Jerusalem asked him to do, for the reason they had asked him to do it. Nothing is written about Paul doing it for the sake of becoming as under the law for the sake of those under the law. The only motive given in the text was to placate the Torah-observant Jewish believers. Sure, Paul found it easy to do because he had the attitude of placing himself under the law for the sake of those under the law. But that's not the purpose we are told about.

This does not detract from the fact that it's highly possible that because by the Holy Spirit and through other disciples Paul was told not to go to Jerusalem, meant that God did not want Paul going there in the first place - but Paul did not listen - not because he was being disobedient but because in his zeal to go to Jerusalem he failed to see it as an instruction, believing that he was merely being forewarned about what would inevitably happen to him in Jerusalem (he was very zealous of going to Jerusalem).

As a result and without realizing it, Paul was on Paul's own mission to go to Jerusalem, not on God's mission - but God was nevertheless with him. Jesus did not withdraw his presence from Paul just because Paul had got himself on his own mission.​

 

[Zao is life]

It was James and the elders at Jerusalem's idea for Paul to do what he did - and the record tells us that they put the idea forward for no other reason except to appease "Jews which believe; and are all zealous of the law".

The above is what is written and recorded as the motive - and it is the only motive for Paul doing so that is mentioned in the text.

The motive we are told about in the text: The motive was to placate Torah-observant believers who were informed that Paul "teaches all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

The fact that this was done was so that "all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning Paul were nothing; but that he himself also walked orderly, keeping the law" is the only motive we are told about in the text. No other motive for Paul doing so is mentioned in Acts.

Paul agreed, knowing what the purpose of the exercise was, because he had been told what the purpose was by those who asked him to do it.

Paul did not go ahead and seek to appease Torah-observant believers by showing them that he obeyed the law because he feared them (as in Peter's motive), but he nevertheless did so in order to appease or placate them, like Peter had done when Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy.

Regardless of what motivated Peter or what motivated Paul, When Peter did something in order to appease the Judaizing party, there was someone to accuse him of hypocrisy (i.e, Paul).

But when Paul did something to appease the Judaizing party there was no one to accuse him of hypocrisy because the only people who could have accused him were the very people who had asked Paul to do it in the first place.

Anyway I'm starting to feel like I'm reading the book of Job with his friends giving long and wise-sounding discourses about the "why" of things that had nothing to do with the why of things.

Fact of the matter is that the possibility is high that because God spoke through the Holy Spirit through other disciples telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem, this means that God did not want Paul going up in the first place but Paul did not listen - not because he was being disobedient but because in his zeal to go to Jerusalem he believed that he was merely being forewarned of what was going to happen to him in Jerusalem.

Jesus remained with Paul in Jerusalem regardless.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Paul most certainly was prepared to be bound at Jerusalem or even killed for the name of Christ (he said so himself before even arriving in Jerusalem), but it was not Paul's idea to observe the requirement of the law - it was James and the elders at Jerusalem's idea - and they put the idea forward for no other reason except to appease "Jews which believe; and are all zealous of the law".

This isn't my own idea - it's what is written and recorded as the motive - and it is the only motive mentioned.

The motive was to appease them because those Torah-observant believers were informed that Paul "teaches all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

The fact that this was done was so that "all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning Paul were nothing; but that he himself also walked orderly, keeping the law".

No other motive for Paul doing so is mentioned in Acts.

Paul agreed, knowing what the purpose of the exercise was, because he had been told what the purpose was by those who asked him to do it.

Paul did not go ahead and seek to appease Torah-observant believers by showing them that he obeyed the law because he feared them (as in Peter's motive), but he nevertheless did so in order to appease them, like Peter had done when Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy.

Regardless of what motivated Peter or what motivated Paul, When Peter did something in order to appease the Judaizing party, there was someone to accuse him of hypocrisy (i.e, Paul).

But when Paul did something to appease the Judaizing party there was no one to accuse him because the only people who could have accused him were the very people who had asked Paul to do it in the first place.

The motive was to appease the Torah-observant party in Jerusalem, and that's the motive Paul was made aware of. He agreed to do what James and the elders at Jerusalem asked him to do, for the reason they had asked him to do it. Nothing is written about Paul doing it for the sake of becoming as under the law for the sake of those under the law.​

I don’t know. Your post does make me think of

Romans 2:27-29 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision do transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The reason that passage makes me think of what is being discussed in this thread concerning Paul. I personally don’t believe Paul went to Jerusalem to be bound for the sake of Christ …for the praise of men. But of God. I would be hesitate to assume otherwise and that Paul was being a hypocrite in seeking the praise of men. Paul’s teachings even on the surface sound like condoning keeping the letter …while at the same time …those things Christ revealed to Paul was not in keeping the letter but teaching of the Spiritual things of God, of reconciliation unto God. Some read Paul and think he teaches the letter. Some read Paul and hear otherwise. In the letters to the Corinthians where they seek proof that Christ speaks in Paul…I do believe Paul reveals to them the truth that Christ speaks in Paul towards them…and that they are accusing Christ as not speaking is their accusing Christ as a reprobate and not Paul. I’m like you…I don’t know what’s going on there when they weep for Paul not to go. But I personally don’t think Paul went alone, but went in the Spirit of Christ knowing Christ would deliver Paul from death. Just like John the Baptist in prison waiting to be beheaded. Might look like a failure to those seeking failure …except Jesus sent word to John that the captives go free. No, John never left there but was beheaded…was it a lie then or speaking of a freedom from captivity greater than John not loosing his head. It seems like Paul knew all of this and went ahead to Jerusalem always stressing to others “I know whom I have believed, He is able to do it.”

Maybe none of that makes sense. Point is…I don’t doubt the Spirit in Paul. Even if I don’t understand something written…I’m still going to believe there is a Spiritual teaching that reveals Christ that goes beyond misunderstandings. Not that Paul is great but Christ revealed in Paul is hopeful …

 

[Zao is life]

I don’t know. Your post does make me think of

Romans 2:27-29 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision do transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The reason that passage makes me think of what is being discussed in this thread concerning Paul. I personally don’t believe Paul went to Jerusalem to be bound for the sake of Christ …for the praise of men. But of God. I would be hesitate to assume otherwise and that Paul was being a hypocrite in seeking the praise of men. Paul’s teachings even on the surface sound like condoning keeping the letter …while at the same time …those things Christ revealed to Paul was not in keeping the letter but teaching of the Spiritual things of God, of reconciliation unto God. Some read Paul and think he teaches the letter. Some read Paul and hear otherwise. In the letters to the Corinthians where they seek proof that Christ speaks in Paul…I do believe Paul reveals to them the truth that Christ speaks in Paul towards them…and that they are accusing Christ as not speaking is their accusing Christ as a reprobate and not Paul. I’m like you…I don’t know what’s going on there when they weep for Paul not to go. But I personally don’t think Paul went alone, but went in the Spirit of Christ knowing Christ would deliver Paul from death. Just like John the Baptist in prison waiting to be beheaded. Might look like a failure to those seeking failure …except Jesus sent word to John that the captives go free. No, John never left there but was beheaded…was it a lie then or speaking of a freedom from captivity greater than John not loosing his head. It seems like Paul knew all of this and went ahead to Jerusalem always stressing to others “I know whom I have believed, He is able to do it.”

Maybe none of that makes sense. Point is…I don’t doubt the Spirit in Paul. Even if I don’t understand something written…I’m still going to believe there is a Spiritual teaching that reveals Christ that goes beyond misunderstandings. Not that Paul is great but Christ in Paul is hopeful …

Well Acts does not mention Paul's own motive. It mentions that Paul was only seeking to do what James and the elders asked him to do for the reason James and the elders asked him to do it. James and the elders' motive and purpose is the only motive mentioned in Acts, which they related to Paul, and he agreed to do it.

It had nothing to do with Paul sharing the gospel, and nothing is said about Paul sharing the gospel at the time - the only thing mentioned is Paul doing something to placate or appease (or whatever you want to call it) those who observed Torah, and for the purpose given by those who asked him to do it - which was to placate Torah-observing Jewish believers.

 

[Zao is life]

I personally don’t think Paul went alone, but went in the Spirit of Christ knowing Christ would deliver Paul from death.

Of course Christ went with Paul anyway. God is not harsh, and it was not out of direct disobedience that Paul failed to understand that the Holy Spirit was telling him NOT TO go to Jerusalem. Jesus even appeared to Paul some time after he had been arrested in Jerusalem to tell Paul not to fear because as he had testified of Christ in Jerusalem so he would testify in Rome also.

In other words, Jesus was telling Paul he was not going to be put to death, though he was under arrest. God would not allow it, because there was work for Paul yet elsewhere.

"And the following night the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul, for as you have testified of Me in Jerusalem, so you also must bear witness at Rome." -- Acts 23:11

I don't believe that anyone should doubt even for a minute that God did not remain with Paul even though He did not want Paul to go to Jerusalem in the first place

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Of course Christ went with Paul anyway. God is not harsh, and it was not out of direct disobedience that Paul failed to understand that the Holy Spirit was telling him NOT TO go to Jerusalem. Jesus even appeared to Paul some time after he had been arrested in Jerusalem to tell Paul not to fear because as he had testified of Christ in Jerusalem so he would testify in Rome also.

In other words, Jesus was telling Paul he was not going to be put to death, though he was under arrest. God would not allow it, because there was work for Paul yet elsewhere.

"And the following night the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul, for as you have testified of Me in Jerusalem, so you also must bear witness at Rome." -- Acts 23:11

I don't believe that anyone should doubt even for a minute that God did not remain with Paul even though He did not want Paul to go to Jerusalem in the first place

That is enough for me. It is all really confusing. I don’t know. But I liked what you shared because to me that is what mattered. Not understanding why Paul did otherwise or what it means. Only that Christ went with Paul. And as you pointed out …continued "And the following night the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, Paul, for as you have testified of Me in Jerusalem, so you also must bear witness at Rome." -- Acts 23:11

 

[PS95]

Not an answer to my reading comprehension question. You who are complicit with calling the Apostle Paul, who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament, a hypocrite, is calling me rude?! That is rich.

"Can" is a potential not actual. No one said the Spirit lacks the potential. I only pointed out the Spirit did not, in fact, actually command Paul to stay away from Jerusalem through others according to the text.


PTL.

I never once called Paul a hypocrit. --You are in error.