be all things to all man???

orthotomeo said:

After he had "preached to others" that we are not under law but under grace, he took a Jewish vow (Acts 21:18-26) that would have ended in an animal sacrifice (v. 26). Rather than let him cast such a dishonorable shadow on the Cross of Christ, God interrupted the vow (v. 27), had him arrested (v. 32) and subsequently imprisoned, cast away or sidelined because he didn't follow the rules.

Indeed, it is this unfortunate event in Paul's life that prompted the passage we are now considering

Click to expand...

Dear Brother Don,

I'm never too busy to take the time to admit that I was wrong! It used to bother me to have to do so, but now I find it a valuable tool in convincing people that I'm not being modest when I tell them how dumb I am.

I amreally weak in the area of Bible chronology, but the writer is correct, and I hope that you are able to forward my thanks to him for catching this. ICorinthians seems to have been written from Ephesus. Paul mentions spending three years there (Acts 20:31) and never returning (v.25). Yet when Paul writes to the Corinthians, he mentions tarrying in Ephesus til Pentecost. So obviously ICorinthians was written from Ephesus during those three years, which ended in Acts 20. And so, just as obviously, ICorinthians was written before the compromising episode that is described in Acts 21.

My position in the article was that Paul wrote I Corinthians 9:20 regretting that in Acts 21 he had gone too far in the area of become "as under the Law" to them that are under the law, and that the verses that follow in ICorinthians 9 were a warning to others not to make the same mistake (the verses that follow talk about the importance of striving, but playing within the rules.)

I'm wondering if perhaps while the example I gave was wrong, the principle might still be a valid one. Perhaps Paul in ICorinthians 9 was thinking not of his compromise in Acts 21, but rather of the vow that he took in Acts 18:18, which also had to end in an animal sacrifice. Since a sacrifice could only be accomplished in Jerusalem, it might explain why he was anxious to get there in time for "the feast" (v.21). You could offer such a sacrifice anytime, not just during a feast, but as long as he had to go, he may have wanted to be there when it was crowded with faithful Jews.

Then we have to ask ourselves, what was his motive for wanting to be there when there were a lot of faithful Jews there? Was it so that he could get a chance to speak to them, or was it so that more of them could see him offer an animal sacrifice?

But either way, it comes back to my contention that it was not right for Paul to offer such a sacrifice. While his motive might be to "by all means save some," compromise of this nature is not acceptable. While we don't read of any censure from God in Acts 18:18ff, perhaps there was censure from God over this, and this might well be what Paul was referring to in ICorinthians 9:20 rather than the event in Acts 21.

As Pastor Stam wrote in his books on Acts, "a veil is cast over his visit to Jerusalem." As the Spirit inspires Luke to record it, Luke does so in just two words, saying that Paul had "gone up" (v.22) i.e., up to Jerusalem. If Paul offered an animal at that time, perhaps the Lord spoke to him about it, or even issued him some form of chastening. Perhaps in writing the Scripture the Spirit didn't make a big deal of it for it was Paul's first major infraction. But we know from Leviticus 26 that chastening from God was always incremental, ending in the 5th stage, captivity. If Paul was chastened for offering an animal in Acts 18, maybe there were subsequent acts of good-intentioned compromise on his part that finally culminated in captivity for Paul in Acts 21.

I say all this, believe it or not, not to try to defend my goof, but because I still see a concern in Paul's words in I Corinthians 9:20. It is one thing to not eat pork in front of a Jew, and thereby put yourself under the law to win them that are under the Law. This, it seems to me, would be simple courtesy toward the sensitivity of a Jew's conscience. But to offer an animal sacrifice casts a reflection on the finished work of Christ, and such compromise, I feel, is going too far. And this is why I feel that Verse 20 is followed by the warnings in the subsequent verses to strive as Paul did, but to strive within the rules.

If you forward this to your helpful friend, and he has any comments on it, I'd appreciate it if I could see them. Or you could encourage him to e-mail me directly, if he would rather, unless he would prefer to remain anonymous. Or we can continue to discuss it through you, if you'd prefer, so that you too can benefit from the discussion. By the way, do you have any thoughts on all this?

Thanks for sharing the comments.

Yours in Christ,

Pastor Ricky Kurth

Click to expand...

ngaisteve1 said:

Paul's letter did mentioned how we need to be all things to win as many souls. What is the meaning of be all things to all man? He said for the jews, be become like Jews and for the weak, he become weak. Is that compromising righteousness? Or we should compromise to win unbeliever or souls over? But, isn't it dangerous? We can easily led astray by them, isn't it?

Click to expand...