be all things to all man???

[ngaisteve1]

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?

 

[orthotomeo]

Hello,

A pastor I respect greatly has an idea about that passage which I believe may be at least partly accurate:

* * *

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. In I Corinthians 9:20, Paul regretfully admits:

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law; that I might gain them that are under the law."

Paul says that he did this "that I might by all means save some" (v. 22). But are we to use all means to reach the lost and teach the untaught? No, we must be careful "lest that by any means" we are too zealous and break the rules! Paul's words here are not given to encourage us to emulate his methods, but rather as a warning not to follow in his footsteps. He means for us to admire the zeal that motivated his actions, but to temper this zeal with an unwavering determination to play by the rules.

We know that Paul was willing to give up his rewards and be "accursed from Christ" for his brethren in Israel (Rom. 9:3). This sounds noble, and we are tempted to say, "Amen! You go, Paul!", and be willing to give up our own rewards for the sake of those about us. But Paul learned the hard way that God doesn't approve of it, and it doesn't work anyway! Compromising the rules never accomplishes the goal, it only brings loss of rewards. Thus Paul tells Timothy:

"And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive LAWFULLY {according to the rules}" (II Tim. 2:5).

* * *

I don't know if I agree 100% with my friend's analysis but he raises some good points. In any case, the usual interpretation of being all things to all people to win them is (I believe) not supported by the Bible as it was not exactly Paul's point.

Besides, where does one draw the line on how far is too far? How does one become "as" a Jew or "as" a Gentile when God has made no distinction between them today? It can't be done.

Food for thought,

o.

 

[JohnStevenson]

I believe that the pastor in question has misunderstood both Paul as well as the New Testament in this matter.

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

First of all, we ought to note that the event in Paul's life took place AFTER Paul had written his first epistle to the Corinthians. Thus we have the principle set forth in 1 Corinthians and then Acts 21 describes Paul actions in fulfilling the principle that he had set forth earlier under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, we should not that this event in Paul's life was not unfortunate, but rather that it served as a means for Paul taking the gospel to Rome. This was both in keeping with Paul's own desire (Acts 19:21) as well as with the promise of God that bonds and afflictions awaited him (Acts 20:23; 21:11-13).

There is an important lesson here. It is that it is possible for "bad" things to happen and yet for one to still be within the will of God and to have acted appropriately.

 

[orthotomeo]

JohnStevenson,

Thanks for your comments. I passed them on to the author, and here's his reply:

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

 

[pmarquette]

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?

..................................................................
to minister to catholics , i became catholic in " thought " The best way to minister to a catholic is to get to know their basic tenants of faith and look for ways to edify and agree with them .... difficult , not impossible

to minister to protestants I became a protestant in biblical doctrine the best way to minister to protestants is to understand biblical hermeneutics and fundamental protestant teachings

to minister to cults , sects , I sought to see basic flaws in their philosphy that I might liet in the gospel's light

 

[Puritan]

It seems that some would have you believe that you have to be exactly like a certain group in order to reach them,such as in Rap music or secular entertainment.
Personally i can't relate to this,since no one catered to me to bring me in the fold.
I simply came under the impression that i either take the pure Gospel as it is,or my seeking would be in vain.
I know everything has it's place,but it seems to me that some ministry vehicles such as rap music only edifies those who are singing. I either don't understand the words,or they are mere rhetoric and cliches,over and over,as most rap music is sung.
That could go for any Christian 'crossover' music as well.

I suppose i just can't get over my own bias,as to how i came to Christ on my own,without anyone having to creatively persuade me.
It seems that some would 'convert' simply because they can relate to the personality of people,moreso than to the persona of Christ?
Their is a difference between believing and accepting the Gospel message,and truly RECEIVING Christ as your Saviour in a personal way.
Just something to consider...

~David

 

[Mr.Cheese]

I think it comes down to loving people where they're at on their level and establisning a relationship with them.

 

[orthotomeo]

I'm with you, Puritan. And I agree with Mr. Cheese about building relationships, as far as it's possible to do. But there's an obvious risk in "meeting people where they are" IN ORDER TO SHARE THE GOSPEL. It's just too easy to go all out to "draw" or "attract" the lost with entertainment, coffee bars, etc, when EVENTUALLY you're going to have to tell them they've sinned against God and Christ died specifically for the sins THEY have committed. That's a message most people do not want to hear under any circumstances!

But if they've already been 'love bombed' with clap-happy pop music, pastors in baggy jeans, special effects, questionable testimonies from professional athletes, 12-step programs and latte (sp?), won't they feel set up if you THEN say, "How're the donuts? Oh, by the way, Christ died for your sins"? Won't they feel like they've been sucked in by a slick marketing program? Won't they RESENT it and possibly reject anything you have to say? I would!

It's bad enough when cults (Mormons) advertise the Bible on TV, bring a free KJV to your door, then tell you the Bible is corrupt and unreliable so what you REALLY need the Book of Mormom. It's bait and switch! It's unethical. It's the work of weasels.

Well, aren't evangelicals doing something very similar with the carnival atmosphere of so many churches today?

Paul says the power is in the Gospel itself, not in the presenter or in his presentation. Believers simply don't trust that fact.