Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[PS95]

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.

I really appreciate that Randy- thanks. Check out post #47. I already had this all resolved last night.

 

[Wrangler]

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

Reading comprehension. Did you see the word “complicit” in what you responded?

And I guess you don’t like to answer questions: A or B. Just respond with a personal attack. How upset you are determines how wrong I am.

 

[honeycomb]

Hello @Zao is life … The way I see it, since Paul was a chosen vessel, he couldn’t possibly be a hypocrite. I believe that from the beginning of his conversion, Paul was “told” what to do.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

- Acts 9:6 (KJV)

And in Acts 9:15, the Lord told Ananias:
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

 

[PS95]

Reading comprehension. Did you see the word “complicit” in what you responded?

And I guess you don’t like to answer questions: A or B. Just respond with a personal attack. How upset you are determines how wrong I am.

Look- I was trying to help myself and my brother understand the texts better while simultaneously not attacking him. Imagine that?
l have spoken with him before, and I do not doubt his love for the Lord or for Paul & the scriptures.
if you see a brother in error- ATTACK HIM? where is that? the flesh- that's where.
If you see that as complicit that's up to you. I dont answer to you.

 

[JohnDB]

In Paul's conversion story there exists a major clue as to WHY Paul was not only willing but eager to go to Jerusalem despite the "warnings" which in Paul's case were actually enducements.

In Paul's conversion it was made clear to Paul (by God) that he was to suffer for the Gospel. Up to this time his "Suffering" was minimal at best. But Paul wanted to share in the "Brotherhood of Suffering" with Jesus.

Like 1John 1:3 said so that he could have a more complete fellowship with Jesus/God.

There's no hypocrisy in this....just wishful thinking by those who do not understand much.

 

[PS95]

In Paul's conversion story there exists a major clue as to WHY Paul was not only willing but eager to go to Jerusalem despite the "warnings" which in Paul's case were actually enducements.

In Paul's conversion it was made clear to Paul (by God) that he was to suffer for the Gospel. Up to this time his "Suffering" was minimal at best. But Paul wanted to share in the "Brotherhood of Suffering" with Jesus.

Like 1John 1:3 said so that he could have a more complete fellowship with Jesus/God.

There's no hypocrisy in this....just wishful thinking by those who do not understand much.

reading the whole thread or dont comment is probably a good idea-There is an evolution of understanding happening. How is that bad? geez you people are chronically on attack. Why not try helping him instead of insulting him. ya know, BECOME A JEW LIKE PAUL DID?

 

[Wrangler]

Look- I was trying to help myself and my brother understand the texts better while simultaneously not attacking him.

Friend, let's take it down a notch and stand on truth. Do you believe Saint Paul is a hypocrite as the OP states?

 

[PS95]

Friend, let's take it down a notch and stand on truth. Do you believe Saint Paul is a hypocrite as the OP states?

If you would kindly read the entire thread you will get your answer.

 

[Wrangler]

If you would kindly read the entire thread you will get your answer.

Rather than type 2 or 3 letters (yes or no), you'd have me read 5-pages?! The truth is not that scary, my friend, to angle to and from it so.

Bless your heart and make a blessed day.

 

[PS95]

Rather than type 2 or 3 letters (yes or no), you'd have me read 5-pages?! The truth is not that scary, my friend, to angle to and from it so.

Bless your heart and make a blessed day.

Friend, let's take it down a notch and stand on truth. Do you believe Saint Paul is a hypocrite as the OP states?

No wrangler I do not .....................................................
and if you read the thread you would see that I asked Zoe to apologize.
And if you read the thread you would see that Zoe no longer thinks that, after discussing it with others who did not attack his person.

Ever had difficulty understanding something before? Or are you above that?
I had an older sister like you - we called her the witch from Oz. lol

 

[Wrangler]

No

Thanks for your honesty and courage to be honest. I also thank you for summarizing the gist of the thread exchanges.

 

[PS95]

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?

Let me try to help here..?
No one was lying. Where they wrong? It was how they felt.
It is seen as not directly from the Spirit- but "through the spirit" meaning that the disciples did not want Paul to go because they knew there was danger ahead for him. They were not a given direct revelation that Paul should not go, but they had interpreted that the warning of danger meant that Paul should not go. Nowhere is this explained but it is inferred by through and not from the Spirit.
Paul became as a Jew to win them.
The burnt offering was not for his sins.
Peter was acting out out fear of the Jews.
Paul was acting out of his love for Christ.

It makes perfect sense when reading all of the scriptures, and there is also Jesus' encouragment to Paul in Acts 23:11

 

[Randy Kluth]

I really appreciate that Randy- thanks. Check out post #47. I already had this all resolved last night.

I read the post and don't really see what you've resolved--certainly not as I understand it. But okay....

 

[Randy Kluth]

No wrangler I do not .....................................................
and if you read the thread you would see that I asked Zoe to apologize.
And if you read the thread you would see that Zoe no longer thinks that, after discussing it with others who did not attack his person.

Just so you know, I do not consider disagreement with ZOA's position to be a "personal attack," since it is a challenge to *not* criticize Paul as being "in error." It is certainly a rebuke of sorts if he insists on casting judgments on Paul that the Scriptures do not explicitly warrant. The danger is in encouraging others to question Scriptural authority. Questions, of course, are allowed...

I think perhaps underlying ZOA's position is the belief, by some, that Christians should be under the Law. But that is not an accusation--that is a question. Some Messianic believers, for example, feel that there is a NT means of observing the Law of Moses, if even if diluted form.

I do not believe that the NT teaches Christians are under the Law of Moses in any way whatsoever, since it is a failed covenant as well as a fulfilled covenant. In a sense it failed because it never could transmit to Israel Eternal Life, and Israel, as a nation, fell under that system.

But the Law in a sense also succeeded because it was never meant to do anything other than maintain a relationship between God and Israel until Christ came with his covenant of Eternal Life. So there's that...

 

[marks]

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."
​

Let's not be too hard on Paul yet, though.

I agree, Paul was not intended to go to Jerusalem, and should not have taken a vow according to the Law to prove to the Jerusalem Jewish Christians that he was, as they were, zealous to keep the Law.

lost his freedom for the rest of his life, effectively ending his missionary journeys.

It didn't end Paul's missionary journeys, though. Paul was sent to Rome, where God told him he would go. While there Paul was able to bring the Gospel to an entirely differnet segment of the population. In this instance Roman soldier who had come from many places, and would return to those places, and who would be stationed in many other places still.

My observations have been that yes, Paul sidelined himself by doing this, though I think he was back on the program 2 years later when he sailed for Rome. I see zero fruit recorded to his account for that two years, but after that, it seems to me he was fruitful again. Just going by what was written.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Just because we can all thank Jesus for Paul (and for all His apostles He sent us), does not mean we have to pull the blindfolds over our eyes and assume that a mistake any of them made could not have been a mistake, by exalting them to super-human status just because they were apostles. Peter made a number of mistakes. We certainly don't judge or condemn or devalue his work or his life or his epistles or his teaching because of it, but we don't exalt any human to god-like status and pretend that they were super human and not capable of making a mistake. Paul and the other apostles would have been the first to correct those who so readily do so.

We also remember all things work together for good to those who love God, the called. I believe that while Paul chose against what God was telling him, that even so it was this very thing, being imprisoned, that God used to bring about great works in and through Paul.

Much love!

 

[PS95]

Just so you know, I do not consider disagreement with ZOA's position to be a "personal attack," since it is a challenge to *not* criticize Paul as being "in error." It is certainly a rebuke of sorts if he refuses to cast judgments on Paul that the Scriptures do not explicitly warrant. The danger is in encouraging others to question Scriptural authority. Questions, of course, are allowed...

I think perhaps underlying ZOA's position is the belief, by some, that Christians should be under the Law. But that is not an accusation--that is a question. Some Messianic believers, for example, feel that there is a NT means of observing the Law of Moses, if even if diluted form.

I do not believe that the NT teaches Christians are under the Law of Moses in any way whatsoever, since it is a failed covenant as well as a fulfilled covenant. In a sense it failed because it never could transmit to Israel Eternal Life, and Israel, as a nation, fell under that system.

But the Law in a sense also succeeded because it was never meant to do anything other than maintain a relationship between God and Israel until Christ came with his covenant of Eternal Life. So there's that...

Disagreeing is fine, of course. That's not the same as attacking him. No, Zoa does not think we are under the law. On the contrary, that's a part of why he had trouble with understanding why it appeared Paul went under the law toward the Jews after criticizing Peter.
He sees now that Peter acted out of fear.
The sciptures are not terribly clear about the Spirit not speaking directly to the disciples, and that is where the mix up began. Apparently, there are bible commentators who dont agree on this. - That's too bad.
I hope that he and Hepzibah will be able to better reconcile this now. A few prayers is always good?!! Both of them, imho are part of the body of Christ. Nice to talk with you.

 

[marks]

Just so you know, I do not consider disagreement with ZOA's position to be a "personal attack," since it is a challenge to *not* criticize Paul as being "in error." It is certainly a rebuke of sorts if he refuses to cast judgments on Paul that the Scriptures do not explicitly warrant. The danger is in encouraging others to question Scriptural authority. Questions, of course, are allowed...

I think this episode just shows us Paul's zeal to see the Jews saved. Against all, against the prophets warning him, against his own troubles with the Jews who would harrass him, still, this is the man who was willing to trade his salvation for theirs, imagine that!

This is not a man I'd want to accuse of anything. And there is no reason I can see here to somehow bring into question the inspiration of Paul's writings.

Much love!

 

[JohnDB]

reading the whole thread or dont comment is probably a good idea-There is an evolution of understanding happening. How is that bad? geez you people are chronically on attack. Why not try helping him instead of insulting him. ya know, BECOME A JEW LIKE PAUL DID?

But then he won't argue....what fun is it then?

Besides, we are talking about Paul here....
It kinda is necessary.
Paul started how many city-wide riots over religious disagreements?

Told the Galatians he wished the jews to become unichs.

He wasn't as meek and mild as people tend to think....he had a razor sharp wit and tongue.

Just saying....

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think this episode just shows us Paul's zeal to see the Jews saved. Against all, against the prophets warning him, against his own troubles with the Jews who would harrass him, still, this is the man who was willing to trade his salvation for theirs, imagine that!

This is not a man I'd want to accuse of anything. And there is no reason I can see here to somehow bring into question the inspiration of Paul's writings.

Much love!

1st, I must tell you that I worded the post you're responding to wrong. I corrected it now. I think if ZOA refuses to stop criticizing Paul, then he deserves a rebuke. There is nothing wrong, however, with asking questions--just criticizing without genuine Scriptural warrant to do so.

That being said, you're saying exactly what I believe in. I would rather err on the side of Paul than on criticizing the beloved apostle, who appears to have sacrificed everything to communicate the Gospel to all, both Jews and Gentiles.

When it is warranted the Scriptures themselves lead us to conclude if criticism is justified. I don't find that to be the case in the matters being referred to. I see a kind of consistency that is sometimes difficult to navigate through, particularly when dealing with 2 different religions that are related and when dealing with newer or young Christians who have not yet had time to develop a consistent theology.

Thanks brother!