Defending the Apostle Paul: Part 6

Conflicting Evidence:

Having now given an outline of my hypothesis, my presumptions and approach to reading and understanding the Apostle Paul, we are ready to address the significant amount of (apparently) conflicting evidence. While I may not be able to address all the criticisms adequately and have answers to all the clear conflicts, I hope that the weight of evidence will remain in favour of the approach and perspective I have introduced here.

Paul’s character:

“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.” 1 Corinthians 9:20

Perhaps one of the most challenging verses with respect to the Apostle Paul’s character is 1 Cor 9:20. It is a most normal and natural tendency to assume on reading this verse that Paul is speaking about his behaviour here, his lifestyle; his obedience to, (or disregard for) Torah.

Let us assume for a moment that this reading is correct and that there is no redaction here, that is, that the Apostle Paul actually said this, and meant it in this way. In fact, let’s even expand it to include the verses 19 through to 23 as below:

"19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. " 1 Cor 9:19-23

Under this understanding, Paul is a chameleon. He is one minute a Jew and the next not; one minute ‘outside the law’ and the next not; in fact, he is anything and everything he needs to be for expediencies sake. He therefore displays duplicity and dishonesty. He is not authentic and certainly not Torah-observant based on this reading and interpretation.

If we had no other way of interpreting this passage, it would be a serious impediment to the introductory argument I have presented here about the righteousness and integrity of Paul. By itself, it may not tip the scales; but if there are many such statements, then there is a very serious question to be addressed.

Before I address this passage though, I must say I find it quite incredible that a number of biblical scholars will appear to recognize the problem of Paul’s apparent expediency here, and in other places, and excuse it as acceptable to win people to Christ! It is not acceptable; it is never acceptable to dupe people into anything; even if it is good for them. Gaining good through dishonest means is never righteous.

So what’s wrong with this reading? How should this passage be seen properly in context? There are two crucial elements to be understood.

Firstly, this declaration is rhetorical; Paul is explaining his rhetorical approach[1] in debating the revelation of Yeshua as the Messiah and revelation of Gentile inclusion.

Secondly, we need to have some appreciation of the dialectic approach that the Pharisees and Jewish scribes used when debating Scripture.

Consider his audience here. While his letters were being read to both Jew and Gentile, Paul is trying to convince his God-fearing Gentile audience to remain Gentiles, and NOT to get ‘circumcised’; not to go through the whole ‘works of the law’ process (Jewish proselytization rituals) and become Jewish.

Because, as he states in Gal 5:3, if they do instead become Jewish they will be obligated to keep the whole Torah; all 613 mitzvot.

“I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole Torah” Gal 5:3

Paul has made it very clear here that being Jewish means obeying the whole Torah. If his listeners, his Gentile audience saw that he, clearly a Pharisee and a Jew did not keep the whole Torah, his argument would have no support whatsoever. His behaviour alone would falsify to his argument! He wouldn’t convince anyone, because they would clearly see his duplicity, his inconsistency in practice as his words would not match his deeds!

Chapters 8 to 10 of 1 Corinthians is essentially a section of rhetorical argument. From 1 Cor 8: 1-3, we see that he is addressing some ‘knowledgeable’ (but not knowledgeable about God) readers.

“1. Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that all of us possess knowledge. This knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.” - 1 Cor 8: 1-3

The Apostle Paul was clearly a great teacher. He was able to appreciate who his audience were; where they were at and work from that place of understanding or lack there-of, to the place he wanted them to end up. That is, he adapted his teaching; his writing and preaching to suit his audience. This is sometimes called ‘rhetorical adaptability’ but it simply means being a good teacher (today we may often do ‘pre-tests’ before we start teaching a topic to ascertain where are students are at, and then after teaching a topic we give post-tests to see what they have learned. The results of the pre-test may alter what and how we will teach the topic; the approach; the depth and breadth, etc.).

Where do we see Paul indicating where his audience is at? Consider 1 Corinthians 3:1-3:

“1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Messiah.

2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,

3 for you are still of the flesh.”

He is here explaining that these Gentiles are still quite ignorant when it comes to the ways of God and His end-times plan. He is conceding that he will need to use a different approach to that he would use with say, fellow Pharisee’s for example; that is Jews who have been brought up in the ways of God; who have the oracles of God and are very much  ‘spiritual people’.

Using this teaching style, this ‘rhetorical adaptability’, the Apostle Paul may start with ideas and concepts that they will easily understand, but ultimately he will lead them to very Jewish conclusions and to endorsing behaviours which represent appropriate communal, religious and moral behaviours for Gentiles living within Jewish communities.

So we can expect him to lead them to understanding that God is truly One; that to love the One True God is to then love our neighbour; that they are not to knowingly eat ‘idol food’, and so on (see the Jerusalem edict of Acts 15).

So the point being made in 1 Cor 9:19-23 is in summary; if Paul is arguing with Jews; he will use Jewish arguments, he will approach the debate with the standard Jewish dialectic[2] for example. After all, he was a Jew, he couldn’t therefore ‘become (as) a Jew’. Behaviourally, he was either Torah observant or he wasn’t. He couldn’t just be so some of the time!

As I have tried to show in the first part of this article, the Apostle Paul was most emphatically Torah observant; therefore, he simply couldn’t behaviourally, ‘become a Jew’! But when using various styles of teaching and debate; he could, and did, alter his arguments and teaching to suit his audience. When they were Jewish; he assumed a much greater ‘spiritual maturity’ and Torah knowledge and taught from this base. As a teacher of Torah and Messiah, he was indeed ‘all things to all people’ in his teaching approach (1 Cor 9:22).

It is also interesting to note that Luke writes in Acts 17 about Paul’s very use of this ‘rhetorical adaptability’ approach when speaking to the men of Athens. Luke informs us that Paul starts with the Greek’s recognition of their Gods and their idols of these gods; but then having started with a degree of acknowledgement and agreement to ‘hook’ his argument onto something his audience are familiar with, he ultimately rejects their gods and idols. He explains that their position was out of ignorance, but that now they no longer need be ignorant, and then he introduces them to the One True God and His Messiah Yeshua.

So here as well we see another NT author and disciple of Yeshua, giving an example of Paul’s teaching approach, which is consistent and supportive of the approach I have argued for here with 1 Cor 9:19-23.

Further though, I think it important, both for this apparently conflicting passage and for some of the others I am about to address that we look at what the typical Pharisaic approach to Torah discussion, debate and learning was.

We see this approach exemplified in Yeshua’s discussion in Matt 5:17 where we can imagine that some Pharisees have listened to Yeshua’s argument and disagreed with some aspect of it. So they have very typically replied ‘You are destroying Torah!’[3]. The Pharisaic approach was not only dialectic, but very forceful and passionate and zealous. If they felt someone else had even just some minor point of Torah wrong; then this could lead to having the entire Torah wrong, because everything was about how to act in response to God’s instructions (Torah = instructions). If some minor error lead to unrighteous behaviour then it in a sense ‘destroys’ Torah.

To the Pharisees and to the Rabbi’s of today, EVERY commandment is as important as every other one for this very reason. To most of us non-Jewish believers, we look at the 10 Words for example and say that ‘You shall not murder’ is far more important than ‘You shall not covert’ for example. This is not their more ‘spiritually mature’ approach.

So how does Yeshua (in many ways a Pharisee himself, as Prof David Flusser demonstrates so powerfully) respond. In the same way! He states (paraphrasing), ‘I did not come to destroy Torah but to properly teach, enact and live Torah!’.

It is the zealousness, the fervour, the forcefulness of this Pharisaic approach that I wish to draw to your attention, because I believe this very much epitomises the way the Apostle Paul speaks and writes and it can often be taken as arrogant or belittling of others, when it is not.

So let’s look next at Galatians 2.
“6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. …

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Messiah Yeshua, in order to be justified by faith in Messiah and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

I include verse 6 as some may read this as rather arrogant and even condescending of the great work of the leaders among the Apostles and disciples. I believe though that this is typical of the very forthright approach that is evidenced in the writings and saying of the Pharisees; of Yeshua himself and even of many Rabbi’s and Jewish scholars down to this very day. I certainly hold my breath at times when I try to have some degree of discussion and debate with my very wise Jewish friends. Some of the responses can sound almost unfriendly in their directness.

I think it for good reason that native-born Israelites are given the nickname ‘sabra’[4]!

Note in verse 11 that Paul is having a full on difference of opinion with the Apostle Peter! This is serious stuff, Peter walked with Yeshua; Peter was one of his right-hand men; Peter was at the transfiguration. Peter surely has seniority (though it appears that Yaa’cov or ‘James’ – Yeshua’s brother was the main leader of the Messianic community in Jerusalem). Paul has confronted an elder, he has rebuked an elder, one of the 12 Apostles, along with other leading disciples/apostles such as Barnabas. Perhaps Paul’s character should be questioned?

What about 2 Cor 12:16? Didn’t the Apostle Paul state that he was deceptive in his dealings with the Corinthian Church here?

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.” – KJV

“Let it be granted, then, that I was not a burden to you; but, crafty fellow that I am, I took you with trickery!” – Complete Jewish Bible

“But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, YOU SAY, and got the better of you by deceit.” – ESV

The KJV and the Complete Jewish Bible both seem to have the Apostle Paul here stating that he was ‘crafty’ and tricked the Corinthians with trickery or guile.

The ESV though seems to have added a couple of words that perhaps give a different slant, when it states, referring to the Corinthians, that ‘you say’, ‘I was crafty and got the better of you by deceit’.

So which is it? How have others translated the Greek or understood this verse; how does this verse sit in context; was the Apostle Paul really ok with acting immorally and unethically and using a crafty and deceptive approach?

I think most translations miss the real intent of the Greek in this passage. I believe The Apostle Paul is saying that some argue that he has been deceptive and then he goes on in v17-18 to declare that he was NOT!

Firstly, check the context. In 2 Cor 11 he is telling the Corinthians that they have been deceived by the craftiness of some. He then adds more to this argument against them to argue in 12:16 that whoever has been deceiving them has also argued that he, the Apostle Paul is the one deceiving them!

Look now at how both JB Philips New Testament and, a paraphrased version like The Message translators phrase this. It should be clear that they see it as I describe:

“All right then,” I hear you say, “we agree that he himself had none of our money.” But are you thinking that I nevertheless was rogue enough to catch you by some trick? Just think. Did I make any profit out of the messengers I sent you? I asked Titus to go, and sent a brother with him. You don’t think Titus made anything out of you, do you? Yet didn’t I act in the same spirit as he, and take the same line as he did?” 2 Cor 12:16-18 – JB Philips version

and The Message has:

“And why is it that I keep coming across these whiffs of gossip about how my self-support was a front behind which I worked an elaborate scam? Where’s the evidence? Did I cheat or trick you through anyone I sent? I asked Titus to visit, and sent some brothers along. Did they swindle you out of anything? And haven’t we always been just as aboveboard, just as honest?” 2 Cor 12:16-18 - The Message.

So it should now be clear that the more consistent and contextually valid translation and interpretation (remember, ALL translations are interpretations), is that the Apostle Paul is telling the Corinthians that he never imposed on them for anything (read all of the preceding 2 Corinthians 11 again to get a better grasp of the context), and IF he had done so, THEN he would have been as a villain, taking the Corinthians with guile or trickery.

This passage was brought to my attention my someone arguing that the Apostle Paul is a liar and that this passage proves in his own words that he used deception and trickery, that he considered the end justified the means. I can see how such a conclusion is possible and even most likely if you rely on only one version; if you extract the verse from it’s immediate and overall context; if you also begin with the presupposition that the Apostle Paul was a fraud.

However, without needing to be a Greek scholar, I think a little in-depth and contextual study aided by the reference to a number of translations can show that such an understanding is really untenable.

While we may all wish to approach the NT with a simple and trusting methodology, and would prefer not to have to engage is serious scholarship and the study of extra-biblical material to help gain contextual relevance, sadly such a simplistic approach can easily lead to some serious errors being made.

So here again are some words of the Apostle Paul which may appear on a cursory viewing to suggest his character is suspect. A closer inspection though again reveals a consistency and an honesty, that we would surely expect.

Next: Addressing the Conflicting Evidence or get the whole book at http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Apostle-Paul-Weighing-ebook/dp/B009TLLK0U/

Note: Appendix on the phrase 'works of the law' is here

---

[1]  Prof Mark Nanos explains this far better and in much more detail than I present here. I highly recommend his article here - http://marknanos.com/1Cor9-Leuven-9-4-09.pdf

[2] Dialectic: The practice of arriving at a conclusion by the exchange of logical arguments, usually in the form of questions and answers.

[3] Flusser explains in his seminal book ‘Jesus’ that to ‘fulfill the Torah’ was to correctly interpret and enact it and to ‘destroy the Torah’ was to interpret in incorrectly. It was apparently quite common for Pharisees in arguments with each other to shout ‘You are destroying the Torah!’ or ‘I am fulfilling Torah!’ Two examples that I think illustrate this well are Gal 6:2 and Romans 13:10. Try reading these passages and replacing ‘fulfill’ with ‘correctly interpret and enact’ and hopefully you will see what I mean:  Gal 6:2 “Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the Torah of Messiah.”  Romans 13:10 “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of Torah.” This context is of course perfectly in harmony with God’s pronouncement to Moses that he would send a Prophet who would perfectly declare the Torah (that is, who would ‘fulfill’ it).

[4] The allusion to the fruit ‘sabra’ is to a tenacious, thorny desert plant with a thick hide that conceals a sweet, softer interior, suggesting that even though the Israeli Sabra are rough on the outside, they are delicate and sensitive on the inside.