Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
At the end of Acts, Paul said, "I am a Pharisee". I don't know if the Greek or some other translation would help, but my English translation seemed pretty plain. I didn't try to read too much into it, I think.
Again, the Chinese can say, "My Chinese culture is dung to me", and so can the Scot and the Swede. But I won't forbid the Scot from wearing a kilt, the Chinese from eating dumplings. If being a Pharisee was dung to Paul, why did he still say, "I am a Pharisee"? Either he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, or it really didn't matter.... But he was still a Pharisee, albeit a Pharisee that was crucified with Christ.
Back to the topic at hand. The law of Christ, the royal law, the new commandment, made external distinctions such as male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free, Pharisee and non-Pharisee, null and void. To Paul they were now just dust, detritus of world completely gone. What was left? Just, love one another. (But notice that Paul still tells wives to obey husbands, slaves to obey masters, etc. He's willing to acknowledge the temporal, corporeal order, even while declaring it as rendered void)
|
hullo mr.aron,
simple simon says...
paul defended and stood for the LAW OF CHRIST until the end of his life. he was often before kings, rulers, and governors defending this driving principle of the gospel.
i've identified the passage in book of acts that you must be alluding to (paul does not mention the word 'pharisee' elsewhere toward the end of the book, so this must be it) and he is in chains before 'rulers and kings', as it were, and under examination, having been accused of the jews of subverting their religion. but I wouldn't be so sure that he boasts of being a pharisee here [acts 26:1-11]. . maybe if you read it again while also considering the context paul's words might yield a different meaning.
so, the context is, under examination, paul stands accused by the jews of speaking against the 'Law Of Moses', and teaching things contrary to the Law.
paul has denied this...
he had already told the governor, festus, that 'neither against the Law of the jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against ceasar have i offended in anything at all' [acts 25:8]
and in the portion of scripture you have referenced he stands before king agrippa whom he knows is an expert (like him) in all the questions and customs of his accusers, the jews;
and he tells the king that these same jews knew his "manner of life from his youth" (referring to the past) and because they knew him "from the beginning" (referring, again, to the past) they -his accusers- could 'testify that after the most straitest sect of their religion he had LIVED as a pharisee' (past tense).
it doesn't look like he is making a proud boast of being a pharisee, the way you seem to have read it, i don't think, mr.aron...paul doesn't say 'i am a pharisee'.
his intention, instead, in telling the king of this detail about himself is to reassure the king that in any question concerning the jewish law, he, paul, was just as well versed on any point concerning it as any of his accusers, and that he was not simply some idle subverter of the law: he, in fact, having been a member of the extremely strict sect of the pharisees, knew better than anybody what he was talking about when he 'appeared' to be preaching against the Law.
that is his point
don't you think the context cries out for this interpretation?
i'd be interested in hearing your response, mr.aron, there could be something that i've missed which you see.
that's it
...coz simple simon said so...