Was Paul Just Being All Things to All Men or A Hypocritical Deceiver?
Since commentators believe that Paul advocated doing away with the written Torah-law, it's understandable that it's difficult for them to understand why he would keep a Nazirite vow from Numbers 6 (see Acts 18:18) and sponsored the Nazirite vows of four others and keep the written law generally.
Indeed its a hard contradiction to try to explain isn't it?
For example, two possible explainations are offered by Matthew Henry. Either
- James, Paul and the Jerusalem elders deceived the Jews or;
- they were trying to be "all things to all men".
Did James Paul and the Jerusalem Elders Plan to Deceive the Jews?
Are we seriously to believe that James, the Jerusalem elders and Paul colluded to try to deceive the Jews into thinking that they still believed in the “law of Moses”, when in fact they didn’t?
We think that's rather unlikely.
We read earlier that Paul wanted to return to Jerusalem whatever the cost and not only be bound as Agabus had prophesied, but moreover he was prepared to die for the truth if he had to. Indeed that’s exactly what happened to Paul as a direct result of these events; eventually. Wasn’t James eventually executed for his beliefs too?
Suffice to say that neither of these men (that Christ himself chose as representatives) were hypocrites or deceivers.
So Were They Trying To Be "All Things To All Men"?
If this is the case, then where's the dividing line between becoming "all things to all men" and being a hypocrite?
Would commentators who suggest that Paul was only trying to be "all things to all men" seriously imply that he would have sacrificed to the "gods" on Mars Hill, to "win" a few Greeks?
No, we don't think so either. That's why we don't think he would have sacrificed at the temple just to be "all things to all men".
If Being All Things To All Men Isn't Being Hypocritical, What is It?
Actually we would argue that when Paul talks about being "all things to all men" he's not talking about being hypocritical, he's just engaging others with the gospel in a sensitive manner. Today we say we try to "speak the same language" or try to "see things from the other person's angle". Paul was particularly good at this, which we see for example on Mars Hill.
Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols....22-23 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: ...
NKJV
Just as Paul could explain the weakness of the oral-Torah-law to Jews, he sensitively introduced the Greek philosophers to their own "Unknown God".
We would argue then, that's what Paul means when he says: "to the Greek I became a Greek, and to the Jew I became a Jew", or words to that effect.
So...The Other "Unthinkable" Explaination
There is another explaination of course: Paul kept the written Torah-law because the Old (some would say redundant) Testament was NOT "done away".
Return to the start of Paul's Post Crucifixion Temple Sacrifices a Judianity website ?
© www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info March 2006.
In the predominantly Jewish New Testament church, why isn't any fuss recorded if most of the Old Testament laws were "done away" yet in Acts a small and predictable change to one "Old Testament" law about the circumcision of gentile proselytes caused massive turmoil? The Mosaic law - is it really "done away" in Galatians?
