The Self-Drawn Portrait of the Apostle Paul. (8)
Posted by Marvin Pagkanlungan on Sunday, June 1, 2014
by Charles H. Welch
#8. Separate Features: Fear of evil appearance.
“Here we see . . . . . that scrupulous fear of evil appearance which ‘would not eat any man’s bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that he might not be chargeable to any of them’.” (Conybeare and Howson).
There were three orders in the Sanhedrin. The Priests, the Elders and the Scribes. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, and therefore could not have been a priest, and as he was a young man neither could he have been an elder. Most evidently he was a scribe, for he knew the scriptures, at least in the letter. By his own confession he was also a Pharisee.
The very expression “Scribes and Pharisees” calls up all that is petty and mean. Dean Farrar thus comments on the words, “He lived a Pharisee”:--
“We know well the kind of life which lies behind that expression. We know the minute and intense scrupulosity of Sabbath Observance wasting itself in all those abhoth and toldoth—those primary and derivative rules and prohibitions, and inferences from rules and prohibitions, and combinations of inferences from rules and prohibitions, and cases of casuistry and conscience arising out of the infinite possible variety of circumstances to which those combinations might apply.”
As a Pharisee Paul had therefore known the minutiæ of thought and action involved in this system. But Paul, the Apostle, exulted in the liberty wherewith Christ had set him free, and, apart from grace abounding, such a swing of the pendulum might have led to licence and disregard for appearances. While this was not the case, the fact that Paul was under no bondage and that he would not tolerate the placing of fetters on the believer is evident from all his epistles. He who was once the scrupulous Pharisee, writes:
“One believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs . . . . . One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. xiv. 2-5).
A man not so fully actuated by grace would have flaunted this new-found freedom in the face of his fellows. He would have sought to show his liberty by outraging convention; he would have imagined effrontery to be synonymous with principle, and that to ride roughshod over the scruples of others was evidence of superior strength. Such behaviour however does not result from a knowledge of the truth. The man who reminds the whole household that he is Master is usually far from being so. The man most easy to be entreated is usually the strong man. The man who can bear with the scruples and foibles of others is usually one who himself is so far above such scruples that he can afford to stoop without fear of the charge of compromise. A good example of this is found in Acts xv., xvi. From Gal. ii. 3, as well as from Acts xv., we realize that the key to the conflict was the circumcision of the Gentile believer. Paul fought, and from his fight on this very point, came away from Jerusalem in triumph. In Acts xvi., the very next chapter, we read that he circumcised Timothy. This act might have been the evidence of compromise in a smaller man, who would have been afraid of being misunderstood and would have entrenched himself in apparent consistency. But Paul’s attitude is neither that of base compromise nor unbending, blind, external, consistency: it was the attitude of a man concerned not with petty triumphs but with eternal truth. Whether resistance to the imposition of circumcision in Acts xv. be demand for the truth’s sake, or yielding to it be demanded for the same truth’s sake, as recorded in Acts xvi., Paul had grace enough to put truth before apparent consistency, and for truth’s sake was prepared to appear to throw away the hard-won victory of the preceding chapter.
This apostle, in all his strength, neither censures nor ridicules the weaker brother. He protects him; he even allows the “other man’s conscience” (I Cor. x. 26-29) to be the deciding factor. Paul’s scrupulous fear of evil appearance, therefore, was not the result of the fear of man, nor of slavish adherence to mere appearance, but of willingness, for love’s sake, to give up and to yield; to be constricted where he might have been at large, so that the name of Christ should not be blasphemed; so that the weak brother should not be stumbled; so that all things might be done to the glory of God.
How splendid it is to say, “I refuse to be turned aside from the faith before me; I do all to the glory of God”. How much more difficult, yet how much more Christ-like it is, still to press on to the one mark, “the glory of God”, and at the same time to be able to respect the scruples of the weak, and endure without irritation the bigotry of the narrow minded. Yet nothing less than this is before us, as it was before the Apostle.
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink” (and one must remember the arguments of chapters viii.-x. on this vexed question) “or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved” (I Cor. x. 31-33).
The many references to the Apostle’s refusal to receive support during his ministry, because circumstances suggested that it would be misinterpreted, are doubtless known to the reader. If not, they should all be discovered and read, for the sake of the illumination they throw on this particular feature of the Apostle’s portrait, without which some of his actions would be inexplicable. May we all rise above the petty scruples that are prompted by fear, yet, for love’s sake, observe many from which we could be free were we willing to disregard the weaker believer.
------------------------
(From The Berean Exxpositor, vol. 33, page 140).
--------------------------
#8. Separate Features: Fear of evil appearance.
“Here we see . . . . . that scrupulous fear of evil appearance which ‘would not eat any man’s bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that he might not be chargeable to any of them’.” (Conybeare and Howson).
There were three orders in the Sanhedrin. The Priests, the Elders and the Scribes. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, and therefore could not have been a priest, and as he was a young man neither could he have been an elder. Most evidently he was a scribe, for he knew the scriptures, at least in the letter. By his own confession he was also a Pharisee.
The very expression “Scribes and Pharisees” calls up all that is petty and mean. Dean Farrar thus comments on the words, “He lived a Pharisee”:--
“We know well the kind of life which lies behind that expression. We know the minute and intense scrupulosity of Sabbath Observance wasting itself in all those abhoth and toldoth—those primary and derivative rules and prohibitions, and inferences from rules and prohibitions, and combinations of inferences from rules and prohibitions, and cases of casuistry and conscience arising out of the infinite possible variety of circumstances to which those combinations might apply.”
As a Pharisee Paul had therefore known the minutiæ of thought and action involved in this system. But Paul, the Apostle, exulted in the liberty wherewith Christ had set him free, and, apart from grace abounding, such a swing of the pendulum might have led to licence and disregard for appearances. While this was not the case, the fact that Paul was under no bondage and that he would not tolerate the placing of fetters on the believer is evident from all his epistles. He who was once the scrupulous Pharisee, writes:
“One believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs . . . . . One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. xiv. 2-5).
A man not so fully actuated by grace would have flaunted this new-found freedom in the face of his fellows. He would have sought to show his liberty by outraging convention; he would have imagined effrontery to be synonymous with principle, and that to ride roughshod over the scruples of others was evidence of superior strength. Such behaviour however does not result from a knowledge of the truth. The man who reminds the whole household that he is Master is usually far from being so. The man most easy to be entreated is usually the strong man. The man who can bear with the scruples and foibles of others is usually one who himself is so far above such scruples that he can afford to stoop without fear of the charge of compromise. A good example of this is found in Acts xv., xvi. From Gal. ii. 3, as well as from Acts xv., we realize that the key to the conflict was the circumcision of the Gentile believer. Paul fought, and from his fight on this very point, came away from Jerusalem in triumph. In Acts xvi., the very next chapter, we read that he circumcised Timothy. This act might have been the evidence of compromise in a smaller man, who would have been afraid of being misunderstood and would have entrenched himself in apparent consistency. But Paul’s attitude is neither that of base compromise nor unbending, blind, external, consistency: it was the attitude of a man concerned not with petty triumphs but with eternal truth. Whether resistance to the imposition of circumcision in Acts xv. be demand for the truth’s sake, or yielding to it be demanded for the same truth’s sake, as recorded in Acts xvi., Paul had grace enough to put truth before apparent consistency, and for truth’s sake was prepared to appear to throw away the hard-won victory of the preceding chapter.
This apostle, in all his strength, neither censures nor ridicules the weaker brother. He protects him; he even allows the “other man’s conscience” (I Cor. x. 26-29) to be the deciding factor. Paul’s scrupulous fear of evil appearance, therefore, was not the result of the fear of man, nor of slavish adherence to mere appearance, but of willingness, for love’s sake, to give up and to yield; to be constricted where he might have been at large, so that the name of Christ should not be blasphemed; so that the weak brother should not be stumbled; so that all things might be done to the glory of God.
How splendid it is to say, “I refuse to be turned aside from the faith before me; I do all to the glory of God”. How much more difficult, yet how much more Christ-like it is, still to press on to the one mark, “the glory of God”, and at the same time to be able to respect the scruples of the weak, and endure without irritation the bigotry of the narrow minded. Yet nothing less than this is before us, as it was before the Apostle.
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink” (and one must remember the arguments of chapters viii.-x. on this vexed question) “or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved” (I Cor. x. 31-33).
The many references to the Apostle’s refusal to receive support during his ministry, because circumstances suggested that it would be misinterpreted, are doubtless known to the reader. If not, they should all be discovered and read, for the sake of the illumination they throw on this particular feature of the Apostle’s portrait, without which some of his actions would be inexplicable. May we all rise above the petty scruples that are prompted by fear, yet, for love’s sake, observe many from which we could be free were we willing to disregard the weaker believer.
------------------------
(From The Berean Exxpositor, vol. 33, page 140).
--------------------------
