PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Paul Calling Himself A Pharisee



manichunter
Aug 5th 2008, 11:26 PM
The Apostle Paul claimed to be still a Pharisee. Why did he continue to make this claim? Was he a new type of Pharisee or was he always a different type of Pharisee? Ac 23:6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+23:6&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.




What was a Pharisee- Pharisaios
A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.
At its most basic definition it meant to be separated or sanctified (holy) for God's use. It comes from the Hebrew root word parush. Its founders originally had good intentions, and some of its followers at the time of Christ had good intentions as members of the Pharisees as well. It was one of five school of thought or denominations at the time of Jesus. There is nothing different about to day concerning us following the same pattern of set different schools of thought and institutions.


We read a lot of stories of how Pharisees were converted to the Way of Jesus. Why? It has something to do with some of them being honest God seekers like Saul. Not all the qualities in the above definition are bad or could be applied to every Pharisee.

Here are some more honest Pharisees:
Joh 3:1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+3:1&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

Mr 15:43 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mr+15:43&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Jesus was buried in a tomb meant for a member of the Sanhedrin which had to be either a Pharisee or Sadducee since you had to be one in order to an Elder, you had to pick a side to get some where in politics like today's political parties, ain't nothing new under the sun.)

Ac 6:7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+6:7&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. (You could not be a priest at this time which was incorrect since some where not from the tribe of Levi unless you were a Pharisee or Sadducee)


Hence why is Paul still calling himself a Pharisee?


I think he meant something by it that we do not understand today. To be a Pharisee meant multiple things, some good and some bad depending upon the person.

They were the shepherds and pastors of Israel at the time and Jesus commanded the people to obey them. Matt 23:1-3 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.


http://www.biblicallifeassembly.org/library/pdf/toap.pdf (http://www.biblicallifeassembly.org/library/pdf/toap.pdf)

Eaglenester
Aug 5th 2008, 11:35 PM
Looking at Strong's, that word I am can also mean I was or I have been.

obeytheword
Aug 6th 2008, 02:51 AM
The Apostle Paul claimed to be still a Pharisee. Why did he continue to make this claim? Was he a new type of Pharisee or was he always a different type of Pharisee? Ac 23:6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+23:6&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.


What was a Pharisee- Pharisaios

A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.

At its most basic definition it meant to be separated or sanctified (holy) for God's use. It comes from the Hebrew root word parush. Its founders originally had good intentions, and some of its followers at the time of Christ had good intentions as members of the Pharisees as well. It was one of five school of thought or denominations at the time of Jesus. There is nothing different about to day concerning us following the same pattern of set different schools of thought and institutions.


We read a lot of stories of how Pharisees were converted to the Way of Jesus. Why? It has something to do with some of them being honest God seekers like Saul. Not all the qualities in the above definition are bad or could be applied to every Pharisee.

Here are some more honest Pharisees:
Joh 3:1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+3:1&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

Mr 15:43 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mr+15:43&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Jesus was buried in a tomb meant for a member of the Sanhedrin which had to be either a Pharisee or Sadducee since you had to be one in order to an Elder, you had to pick a side to get some where in politics like today's political parties, ain't nothing new under the sun.)

Ac 6:7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+6:7&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. (You could not be a priest at this time which was incorrect since some where not from the tribe of Levi unless you were a Pharisee or Sadducee)


Hence why is Paul still calling himself a Pharisee?


I think he meant something by it that we do not understand today. To be a Pharisee meant multiple things, some good and some bad depending upon the person.

They were the shepherds and pastors of Israel at the time and Jesus commanded the people to obey them. Matt 23:1-3 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.


I believe that he meant it in the same sense that a jewish man will move to America, become an American citizen, and STILL call himself Jew.

Nicodemus did not stop becoming a pharisee, and neither did Paul. He simply disagreed with much of their teaching, and believed in Jesus.

As to why he identified himself with them. Well, he was to strengthen the claim that he - a rather prominent Pharisee believed in Jesus. It gained some measure of legitimacy in their eyes, which would have undoubtedly helped to win a few over if it were possible to do so.

In addition, he knew the chaos that would ensue by his statements, he publicly identified himself with the Pharisees, which sort of made them defend him as they defended the claim in the resurrection.

My .02 anyway

Be Blessed!

Firefighter
Aug 6th 2008, 03:02 AM
Philippians 3:5-8 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Paul also makes his opinion of being a Pharisee pretty clear... he considered nothing more than a pile of poopy

Vhayes
Aug 6th 2008, 03:10 AM
Ah - I see Urban Missionary beat me to it (Thanks!!)

The Pharisees were the "smart" ones, the intelligensia. Paul was saying if anyone knew about Judaism, he certainly did. And so what? Without Jesus it all means less than nothing.

He also said:
Galatians 2

18 - "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 - "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

student of the Lamb
Aug 6th 2008, 03:21 AM
I believe that he meant it in the same sense that a jewish man will move to America, become an American citizen, and STILL call himself Jew.

Nicodemus did not stop becoming a pharisee, and neither did Paul. He simply disagreed with much of their teaching, and believed in Jesus.

As to why he identified himself with them. Well, he was to strengthen the claim that he - a rather prominent Pharisee believed in Jesus. It gained some measure of legitimacy in their eyes, which would have undoubtedly helped to win a few over if it were possible to do so.

In addition, he knew the chaos that would ensue by his statements, he publicly identified himself with the Pharisees, which sort of made them defend him as they defended the claim in the resurrection.

My .02 anyway

Be Blessed!


I believe that it is much as you stated in your first sentence. Paul was also a Roman. Whether he liked it or not, it was the case. He was a Pharisee and he was a Roman but first and foremost PAUL was a Christ-follower.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 04:05 AM
Maybe he was calling himself a Pharisee because he considered himself a religious leader with authority. ;)

The Pharisees weren't all bad and weren't all evil. Just the higher ups that constantly challenged Jesus.

matthew94
Aug 6th 2008, 04:37 AM
A central belief among the pharisees was the resurrection (as opposed to the Sadducees who didn't even believe in such a thing). Paul was very comfortable aligning himself with the pharisees on this issue since, for him, resurrection was not simply 'a' central belief, but 'the' central belief. Hence the verse you quoted in the OP: "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 07:19 AM
There is a great gulf between today's christian thinking and that of the first century. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and He backed it up by his observance towards Torah.

1.He kept the Holy Festivals
Ac 20:16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+20:16&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost.

2.He instructed the Corinthian church to keep the Feast of Passover
1Co 5:8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+5:8&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

3.He made a vow and commited animal sacrifices in the manner of Torah. He did not rebuke James suggestion
Ac 21:26 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:26&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

4.He called the Torah holy
Ro 7:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+7:12&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

5.He said that he delighted in the Torah
Ro 7:22 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+7:22&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

6.He bragged on Ananias concerning him keeping the Torah
Ac 22:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+22:12&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -"Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,

7.He obeyed the Torah
Ac 21:19 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:19&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)-24 19When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 09:44 AM
He also taught we were dead to the law. He told one friend to be circumcised in order to witness. But he told another to not be circumcised (i.e. don't worry about the letter of the torah). He preached consistently that we are not to live by the letter but rather the Spirit.

Simply put, the letter of the Torah is not what's important. Whether one eats pork or not has nothing to do with holiness now as it did in Joshua's time.

The Jews tried to kill Paul. There was a lot of conflict. Why? Because he didn't see the torah the same way they did.

This thread is what I call a set up thread. Ask a question to make a point later. Galatians is clear that we don't have to "keep Torah" the same way the Jews keep it. We keep it spiritually. We take passover as "oft as ye will" and eat the Lamb in remembrance of Him and what he did.

Firefighter
Aug 6th 2008, 11:48 AM
That's right Brother Mark. Paul also wrote this...

2Co 3:5-11 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

valleybldr
Aug 6th 2008, 11:50 AM
Paul , theologically, held positions that closely identified with the Pharisees (the tradition in which he was raised). There are books that make that connection (with Jesus as well) But Iím currently away from my library to give references. todd

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 12:22 PM
At what point in Paul's observances of the holidays did he advocate that all Christians do likewise?

Firefighter
Aug 6th 2008, 02:03 PM
Good point. Paul also wrote this...

Col 2:14-17 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

valleybldr
Aug 6th 2008, 02:12 PM
Good point. Paul also wrote this...

Col 2:14-17 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. We have done plenty of rounds on this one (and there's no need for another one IMO) but I feel this passage shows that Gentiles where integrating into a church which had Jewish worship forms and they followed accordingly. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 02:18 PM
We have done plenty of rounds on this one (and there's no need for another one IMO) but I feel this passage shows that Gentiles where integrating into a church which had Jewish worship forms and they followed accordingly. todd


Hebrews clears it up even more. The Law was changed because the priesthood was changed. Where under the law of Moses, only Levites could be priest, under the new covenant we can all be priest. And Jesus, our high priest is after the oder of Melchisadech, not Levi.

Also, the old covenant has faded away. A new covenant is now here. Is the old covenant useful? By all means! Through it we see the shadow and that which cast the shadow. When we read it in Spirit and understand then we know what God was getting at.

Jesus said not one jot or tittle would be done away with until all was accomplished.

Matt 5:18
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

And yet, we no longer offer animal sacrifices because Jesus is our sacrifice. So we know it was accomplished and fulfilled. Else, the law could not have changed as what was taught in Hebrews.

Heb 7:12-13
12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
NASB

Nor could the sacrifice have changed as it did. But once all was accomplished and Jesus said "It is finished", then a jot and tittle could pass away, and it did.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 02:26 PM
I still think we are ignoring the historical context.

Why were the Jewish leaders questioning Paul? Because Christianity, at that point, was still a Jewish sect. Thus, Paul still qualified as a Pharisee because he was a religious teacher (a rabbi). This is why he said he was a Pharisee - he actually was. There were some good Pharisees (if certain traditions are to be believed, and I believe them), but Paul serves as the best example of this theory.

valleybldr
Aug 6th 2008, 02:26 PM
But once all was accomplished and Jesus said "It is finished", then a jot and tittle could pass away, and it did. Problem is the Holy Days and Sabbath aren't finished. The last four Holy Days are yet to be fulfilled and most think God will be keeping them when they are. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 02:34 PM
Problem is the Holy Days and Sabbath aren't finished. The last four Holy Days are yet to be fulfilled and most think God will be keeping them when they are. todd

But they have changed as the law changed. For instance, now we know, from Hebrews 3, that to keep the sabbath means more about resting in God than it does about a day.


Heb 4:1-4

4 Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,

"As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest,"

although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
NASB

The writer here refers back to the very beginning when God rested on the seventh day. The point is we are to enter into God's rest. That is far more important than keeping a day. Many pharisees kept the day and went to hell. Many Gentiles didn't keep the day but entered into His rest, and went to heaven.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 02:40 PM
The Apostle Paul claimed to be still a Pharisee. Why did he continue to make this claim? Was he a new type of Pharisee or was he always a different type of Pharisee? Ac 23:6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+23:6&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.





What was a Pharisee- Pharisaios
A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to OT books the Pharisees recognised in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; and, comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country's cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.
At its most basic definition it meant to be separated or sanctified (holy) for God's use. It comes from the Hebrew root word parush. Its founders originally had good intentions, and some of its followers at the time of Christ had good intentions as members of the Pharisees as well. It was one of five school of thought or denominations at the time of Jesus. There is nothing different about to day concerning us following the same pattern of set different schools of thought and institutions.


We read a lot of stories of how Pharisees were converted to the Way of Jesus. Why? It has something to do with some of them being honest God seekers like Saul. Not all the qualities in the above definition are bad or could be applied to every Pharisee.

Here are some more honest Pharisees:
Joh 3:1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+3:1&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

Mr 15:43 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mr+15:43&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Jesus was buried in a tomb meant for a member of the Sanhedrin which had to be either a Pharisee or Sadducee since you had to be one in order to an Elder, you had to pick a side to get some where in politics like today's political parties, ain't nothing new under the sun.)

Ac 6:7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+6:7&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. (You could not be a priest at this time which was incorrect since some where not from the tribe of Levi unless you were a Pharisee or Sadducee)


Hence why is Paul still calling himself a Pharisee?


I think he meant something by it that we do not understand today. To be a Pharisee meant multiple things, some good and some bad depending upon the person.

They were the shepherds and pastors of Israel at the time and Jesus commanded the people to obey them. Matt 23:1-3 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.


http://www.biblicallifeassembly.org/library/pdf/toap.pdf (http://www.biblicallifeassembly.org/library/pdf/toap.pdf)

I think it was just a statement made by him so that he could easily identify himself before the Sanhedrin. He actually stated that he himself being a jew, a pharisee, etc, etc, had little value in parts of his epistles, and stated himself to be an apostle of God...

Gal 1:1,12-20 (NIV) Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father...)

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 03:02 PM
I still think we are ignoring the historical context.

Why were the Jewish leaders questioning Paul? Because Christianity, at that point, was still a Jewish sect. Thus, Paul still qualified as a Pharisee because he was a religious teacher (a rabbi). This is why he said he was a Pharisee - he actually was. There were some good Pharisees (if certain traditions are to be believed, and I believe them), but Paul serves as the best example of this theory.

:B


If one were to look at the history, it would clear up most of this discussion. We can't divorce him from his historical context or what other Scriptures say.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 03:07 PM
Another thing to mention is that before Paul actually mentioned himself being a Pharisee, he actually condemned the Pharisee..the man who ordered the others to slap him(Ananias)...calling him a "white washed wall" (Acts 23:3) and stated that God was going to strike him. He also rebuked the Sanhedrin for judging people based on Moses teaching. The irony of this is that the same situation happened to Christ when he was brought before the Sanhedrin. Truly, the spirit of the Lord was speaking through Paul during this occassion(and all occassions) and once again judging the teachers of the law based on their own standards.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 03:44 PM
Another thing to mention is that before Paul actually mentioned himself being a Pharisee, he actually condemned the Pharisee..the man who ordered the others to slap him(Ananias)...calling him a "white washed wall" (Acts 23:3) and stated that God was going to strike him. He also rebuked the Sanhedrin for judging people based on Moses teaching. The irony of this is that the same situation happened to Christ when he was brought before the Sanhedrin. Truly, the spirit of the Lord was speaking through Paul during this occassion(and all occassions) and once again judging the teachers of the law based on their own standards.

It's even more interesting in that once Paul realized completely who they were, i.e. authority, he repented.

Acts 23:4-6
But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

I think he claimed to be a Pharisee here and used his position for expediency. He was being as wise as a serpent. The entire passage is interesting. They wanted to kill him because of this statement.

Acts 22:21-23
21 "And He said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"

22 And they listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!"
NASB

They were offended that he said God was sending him to the Gentiles. So they sought to kill him. Of course, he was preaching about the resurrection of the dead too. Knowing what was going on, he said this...

Acts 23:5-6
6 But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"
NASB

He was very smart in what he did. The Jews were going to kill him because he basically said God was rejecting them and sending him to the Gentiles. The message he had just shared was his testimony and it infuriated them. It did have to do with the ressurrection of the dead in that all CHristian messages have to do with the resurrection of the dead. But I find it interesting how he used the situation at hand in a very wise way.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 04:02 PM
It's even more interesting in that once Paul realized completely who they were, i.e. authority, he repented.

Acts 23:4-6
But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

I think he claimed to be a Pharisee here and used his position for expediency. He was being as wise as a serpent. The entire passage is interesting. They wanted to kill him because of this statement.

Acts 22:21-23
21 "And He said to me, 'Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"

22 And they listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!"
NASB

They were offended that he said God was sending him to the Gentiles. So they sought to kill him. Of course, he was preaching about the resurrection of the dead too. Knowing what was going on, he said this...

Acts 23:5-6
6 But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"
NASB

He was very smart in what he did. The Jews were going to kill him because he basically said God was rejecting them and sending him to the Gentiles. The message he had just shared was his testimony and it infuriated them. It did have to do with the ressurrection of the dead in that all CHristian messages have to do with the resurrection of the dead. But I find it interesting how he used the situation at hand in a very wise way.

Yup. Paul was extremely intelligent, but at the same time God was working through him, so I think his initial rebuke of the Pharisees, as well as his humility were both coming from God. At the bottom of the passage, God does not rebuke Paul in any shape in form for condemning the men, and actually states the following..

Acts 23:11
The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, "Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome."

So Paul was acting in accordance with the will of God in both condemning their conduct, as well as showing humility to their authority.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 04:11 PM
But they have changed as the law changed. For instance, now we know, from Hebrews 3, that to keep the sabbath means more about resting in God than it does about a day.


Heb 4:1-4

4 Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,

"As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest,"

although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
NASB

The writer here refers back to the very beginning when God rested on the seventh day. The point is we are to enter into God's rest. That is far more important than keeping a day. Many pharisees kept the day and went to hell. Many Gentiles didn't keep the day but entered into His rest, and went to heaven.


Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow (is, was, and to come). God changes not. We changed. What we know now, what we understand now, and what has been manifested changed.

God does not make mistakes for He is perfect. Most theological thoughts make God mistake prone and imperfect.

We say the Torah changed. Hence, we make God imperfect and as a man. We start off wrong in our understanding and the Holy Spirit cannot teach us anything just by us calling the Torah, the law. One cannot even conceive the validity and sincerity of the Torah without taking the opportunity for Holy Spirit to teach the spirit of the Torah.

God has by and by placed the revelation of His impending eternal kingdom before mankind since the creation of Adam. He has taken layer upon layer off His plan to redeem mankind into His kingdom. He has not started one plan, then discovered that it was imperfect, to only have to trash it. Then established a new plan which is perfect. Mankind is the imperfect one, not God.

We make arguments against the Torah while establishing our own traditions.

There is definitely an anti-Torah spirit at work, and it has been at work almost six thousands years. This is not a new work. Adam and Eve were the first to throw off God's Torah, for they failed to love their God with all their heart, mind, and soul. They will not be last, as the anti-Torah spirit continues to work to keep the people of God lawless, stripped of any legal protections.

Here is how the confusion works. I say that I am a spiritual torah observer, but I am not legalist or do I find any justification for my salvation in my keeping of the Torah. Then others say how can this be done, it is not possible. However, I say all things are possible with God by His Spirit. This is the great mystery of God. We love Him by keeping His commandments, not by grace or trust. Grace allows our actions, but it does not define our actions. Trust waits on God and does not act before God. However, love is constantly doing what it already knows pleases God.

Then other say your trying to be a Jew or an Israelite. I ask, why should I remain a Gentile. There is no longer any pride in my flesh. I seek that which I have apprehended to, which is the spirit. My citizenship is no longer of this world, though my body has yet to be redeemed.

One thing is certain, the anti-Torah spirit will manifest itself even more as the number of the Torah seeking Gentiles increase. God is drawing a crowd of poeple who are tired of business as usual. People who want to live in power. People who want to be real and not just religious. People who want to be Elijahs, Jeramiahs, and Isaiahs with their lives.

I did not ask for this. I asked for something different, so I believed. I asked God to real. I told God I did not want to be fake. I wanted to do what He created me to do. This is where my love for God has lead me.

I have studied the Bible to discover things such as this subject, and cannot just casually bottle it up again and return to my religion again the same. A respond is always demanded now. I see that Paul claimed to be a Pharsisee, now I must see why. The honest answer stripped away another layer of my religion and made me more personal and real with God. This something others have to desire first, then act upon. No one can make another want to go beyond religion and allow Yahweh to reveal Who He is in Spirit and Truth.

With love, I convey this message.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 04:15 PM
Yup. Paul was extremely intelligent, but at the same time God was working through him, so I think his initial rebuke of the Pharisees, as well as his humility were both coming from God. At the bottom of the passage, God does not rebuke Paul in any shape in form for condemning the men, and actually states the following..

Acts 23:11
The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, "Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome."

So Paul was acting in accordance with the will of God in both condemning their conduct, as well as showing humility to their authority.

Except that they were rulers and that made it out of line. God rebuked him through the rulers themselves in the same way he used Abimalech to rebuke Abraham. Paul himself then quoted scripture showing he was wrong to rebuke a ruler.

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Had they simply been pharisees, it would have been fine. But a ruling high priest, not so. That's why scripture tells us not to rebuke an elder and to pray for those in authority. The High Priest was a position of authority and once Paul realized he was speaking to one in authority, he repented.

Satan also use to be an authority over Michael yet, Michael would not accuse him.

Jude 7-9
8 Yet in the same manner these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
NASB

Paul understood these things and once he knew a High Priest was present, he quoted scripture and repented. He knew he was out of line and got back in line quickly. There was no need for God to correct him later as Paul corrected himself.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 04:37 PM
Except that they were rulers and that made it out of line. God rebuked him through the rulers themselves in the same way he used Abimalech to rebuke Abraham. Paul himself then quoted scripture showing he was wrong to rebuke a ruler.

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Had they simply been pharisees, it would have been fine. But a ruling high priest, not so. That's why scripture tells us not to rebuke an elder and to pray for those in authority. The High Priest was a position of authority and once Paul realized he was speaking to one in authority, he repented.

Satan also use to be an authority over Michael yet, Michael would not accuse him.

Jude 7-9
8 Yet in the same manner these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
NASB

Paul understood these things and once he knew a High Priest was present, he quoted scripture and repented. He knew he was out of line and got back in line quickly. There was no need for God to correct him later as Paul corrected himself.

Remember though, Paul's authority was of the Lord. He was always speaking of the Lord, and not of himself - except when he stated in various epistles that certain things were of his own opinion. Thus no rebuke of Paul was warranted, as it was God speaking through him the entire time. He goes on to describe just how much authority had been given to him by God in his epistles to the Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 10:1-12
Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's. For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

Another interesting thing to think of us when Jesus was questioned about his authority, he stated that he himself had no need to explain to the high priests where his position of authority had come from, since they were unable to explain where their position of authority had come from.

Remember that God is the only true authority, and that when he uses us through his Spirit, we are always speaking from the authority of God, not of men. It is important though that when speaking from the spirit, we demonstrate meekness as well as humility before any of those who come before us, despite what position in life they have been given.

In Christ,

Stephen

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 04:42 PM
Remember though, Paul's authority was of the Lord. He was always speaking of the Lord, and not of himself - except when he stated in various verses that certain things were of his own opinion. Thus no rebuke was warranted, as it was God speaking through him the entire time. He goes on to describe just how much authority had been given to him by God in his epistles to the Corinthians.

Then why did Paul repent, if he did nothing wrong?


Another interesting thing to think of us when Jesus was questioned about his authority, he stated that he himself had no need to explain to the high priests where his position of authority had come from, since they were unable to explain where their position of authority had come from.

And yet, when the High Priest used his authority on Jesus, Jesus obeyed.

Matt 26:57-64

57 And those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter also was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, in order that they might put Him to death; 60 and they did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You make no answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB

When others questioned him, Jesus remained silent. When the High Priest questioned him, and adjured him though his God given authority, Jesus answered him.

All authority is established by God. Paul repented quickly when it was pointed out to him he spoke against the High Priest. Why? Because he knew he was in error.

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 04:43 PM
Then why did Paul repent, if he did nothing wrong?



And yet, when the High Priest used his authority on Jesus, Jesus obeyed.

Matt 26:57-64

57 And those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58 But Peter also was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome. 59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, in order that they might put Him to death; 60 and they did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 And the high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You make no answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
NASB

When others questioned him, Jesus remained silent. When the High Priest questioned him, and adjured him though his God given authority, Jesus answered him.

All authority is established by God. Paul repented quickly when it was pointed out to him he spoke against the High Priest. Why? Because he knew he was in error.

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

This conduct also is in His keeping of the Torah.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 04:45 PM
This conduct also is in His keeping of the Torah.

There are many things believers do that are in agreement with the torah. But that doesn't mean we are to keep all the torah. Rather, we live by the Spirit not the letter.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 05:19 PM
Then why did Paul repent, if he did nothing wrong?


Humility. He had nothing to repent of - as he rebuked there behavior as wrong and judgemental, and stated that God would strike them for it, which was the truth. Why do you feel as if it was necessary for Paul to repent of informing the Pharisees of the Truth? Why can't you see this as just an act of humility, mercy, and kindness on Paul's part towards the Pharisees?

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 05:32 PM
Humility. He had nothing to repent of - as he rebuked there behavior as wrong and judgemental, and stated that God would strike them for it, which was the truth. Why do you feel as if it was necessary for Paul to repent of informing the Pharisees of the Truth? Why can't you see this as just an act of humility, mercy, and kindness on Paul's part towards the Pharisees?

Because the scripture he quoted said not to speak evil of rulers. He didn't quote something about humilty. But rather, he said "I did not know he was the High Priest and it is written..." If it were about humility, what does being the High Priest then matter? It was all about not rebuking an elder or authority of the people.

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Once Paul realized he was High Priest, he repented. But only AFTER he knew he was high priest. Does Paul's only humble himself for those in authority? He was well within his calling to speak the way he spoke to Pharisees. But he was out of line to do so to the high priest and that's why he repented.

There are plenty of OT scriptures Paul could have quoted about humility. But he didn't. Instead, he quoted one on authority and said he did not know he was speaking to one in authority.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 05:36 PM
Because the scripture he quoted said not to speak evil of rulers. He didn't quote something about humilty. But rather, he said "I did not know he was the High Priest and it is written..." If it were about humility, what does being the High Priest then matter? It was all about not rebuking an elder or authority of the people.

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Once Paul realized he was High Priest, he repented. But only AFTER he knew he was high priest. Does Paul's only humble himself for those in authority? He was well within his calling to speak the way he spoke to Pharisees. But he was out of line to do so to the high priest and that's why he repented.

There are plenty of OT scriptures Paul could have quoted about humility. But he didn't. Instead, he quoted one on authority and said he did not know he was speaking to one in authority.

The question remains though, did Paul speak any evil about the Pharisees, or did he speak the truth?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 05:37 PM
There are many things believers do that are in agreement with the torah. But that doesn't mean we are to keep all the torah. Rather, we live by the Spirit not the letter.

This is what I mean. We are timid to not do anything different. There is not a concentrated effort to establish anything regarding the Torah by the Body of Christ. We are seperated into various factions. Some say completely ignore Torah or any commandment. Others say, some are good but not all. Some say, it is all good. However, named one christian mainstream institution or denomination that has made a concentrated and honest effort to plot the manner of a believer's conduct in regards to the Torah, other than junk the whole thing. I am aware of some small movements and individuals taking such steps as to see how the Torah should apply and fit.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 05:39 PM
The question remains though, did Paul speak any evil about the Pharisees, or did he speak the truth?

Even if he spoke truth, he felt the need to repent. When Ham spoke of Noah's nakedness, he spoke truth. But he was cursed for it. Many truthful things can be said of rulers, but that does not mean we have the freedom to say them. That's why Paul quoted the OT verse and repented...

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 05:43 PM
Even if he spoke truth, he felt the need to repent. When Ham spoke of Noah's nakedness, he spoke truth. But he was cursed for it. Many truthful things can be said of rulers, but that does not mean we have the freedom to say them. That's why Paul quoted the OT verse and repented...

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

So do you believe Paul was repenting for speaking the Truth?

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 05:46 PM
This is what I mean. We are timid to not do anything different. There is not a concentrated effort to establish anything regarding the Torah by the Body of Christ. We are seperated into various factions. Some say completely ignore Torah or any commandment. Others say, some are good but not all. Some say, it is all good. However, named one christian mainstream institution or denomination that has made a concentrated and honest effort to plot the manner of a believer's conduct in regards to the Torah, other than junk the whole thing. I am aware of some small movements and individuals taking such steps as to see how the Torah should apply and fit.

Can't name you a denomination that gets it right, IMO. The messianics go too far and keep the letter. Others chunk it.

Better to use it and teach it correctly than to make it a project to be pushed. For instance, we can preach on the OT feast of passover. Then we can preach how Jesus fulfilled the passover feast and how John the Baptist rightly recognized him as the Lamb. How did John know the Messiah was to be a Passover Lamb? He got it from the OT. After that, we can show how each individual believer should also experience the passover spiritually and have the Lamb inside and the blood of the Lamb on the door of his heart. Then, if desired, we can even have a passover meal to further illustrate the spiritual truth! Of course, we do have a meal of sorts and call it the Lord's supper but we could do the passover itself if desired. Though I would highly recommend not killing a lamb. That would go too far IMO.

We can find the right place for the law of Moses and see what David thought of it. When he sinned, he didn't go offer sacrifice as the law required. Instead, he offered a broken heart to God. Even though David lived under the torah, he rightly recognized it's spiritual place. God expressed his frustration with sacrifices and feasts in Isaiah 1. Why? Because the heart of the people.

There is a place for the OT and the NT in the church. No doubt about it. But we don't get there by pushing the "torah" or the OT. Instead, we get there by teaching the whole counsel of God. When we can show the principle in the OT and in the NT and then give an illlustration of it from the OT as well, it has power from God to have a great impact upon people.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:14 PM
Can't name you a denomination that gets it right, IMO. The messianics go too far and keep the letter. Others chunk it.

Better to use it and teach it correctly than to make it a project to be pushed. For instance, we can preach on the OT feast of passover. Then we can preach how Jesus fulfilled the passover feast and how John the Baptist rightly recognized him as the Lamb. How did John know the Messiah was to be a Passover Lamb? He got it from the OT. After that, we can show how each individual believer should also experience the passover spiritually and have the Lamb inside and the blood of the Lamb on the door of his heart. Then, if desired, we can even have a passover meal to further illustrate the spiritual truth! Of course, we do have a meal of sorts and call it the Lord's supper but we could do the passover itself if desired. Though I would highly recommend not killing a lamb. That would go too far IMO.

We can find the right place for the law of Moses and see what David thought of it. When he sinned, he didn't go offer sacrifice as the law required. Instead, he offered a broken heart to God. Even though David lived under the torah, he rightly recognized it's spiritual place. God expressed his frustration with sacrifices and feasts in Isaiah 1. Why? Because the heart of the people.

There is a place for the OT and the NT in the church. No doubt about it. But we don't get there by pushing the "torah" or the OT. Instead, we get there by teaching the whole counsel of God. When we can show the principle in the OT and in the NT and then give an illlustration of it from the OT as well, it has power from God to have a great impact upon people.

We definitely agree on every merit in this post. I would add that it would take an honest study and examination of the first covenant books to get to your understanding you have thus far. I know that is what it took for me. I had to risk to put my religion at risk as I see you have done as well. This is what David did as well becuase of his heart. It was personal and not a religion for David and yourself. Thanks for the encouragement brother Mark.......

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 06:17 PM
So do you believe Paul was repenting for speaking the Truth?

Hey Mark,

Since you did not answer this question, I'm going to go ahead and follow up with it. Now you have to understand, in us speaking about this particular verse, we are both making a lot of assumptions about Paul's purpose in relenting, and God's purpose in not rebuking Paul. That being said I'm going to go on record and agree with you by saying that perhaps Paul was indeed thinking in terms of repentance when he retracted his statement. I don't think though he was speaking out of misplaced authority though, seeing as how God being sovereign and omnisicient - knew exactly what words were going to come out of Paul's mouth, and didn't relent or tell Paul exactly what to say before the confrontation. You see in scripture there were times Paul was directed to say something(or nothing) exactly in the way in which the Lord wanted him to, and other times when Paul just said something without God specifically giving him the exact words to say. I think we can clearly say on both on both fronts, that Paul was being lead to say exactly what God wanted him to say when confronting Ananias(as Paul was an apostle who was always speaking on behalf of the Lord) as well as doing exactly what God wanted him to do when he repented.

God bless in Christ,

Stephen

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 06:17 PM
Even if he spoke truth, he felt the need to repent. When Ham spoke of Noah's nakedness, he spoke truth. But he was cursed for it. Many truthful things can be said of rulers, but that does not mean we have the freedom to say them. That's why Paul quoted the OT verse and repented...

Acts 23:5
5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASBWe have to see what was going on to get the gist of Paul's irony in quoting the law to them:

(Acts 23:1-5 KJV) And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

{2} And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

{3} Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

{4} And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

{5} Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Paul is not repenting here, though what he says is to appease these men. These were the men who were not acting according to the law and yet wanted to claim it for their authority to do wrong to Paul - who had done nothing except speak the truth in response to their lawless actions. Which of course offended them. Paul quotes the law I think tongue in cheek here. These men were the rulers of the people all right, but they were not the rulers which God had ordained nor were they serving the Lord whom Paul served. And what Paul said to them in v3 is prophetic.

What did Paul say which these men smote him for? It was his claim to have lived in good conscience before the Lord, while these men were accusing him of wrongdoing and supposedly "breaking the law". Yet these men had brought him before their council in order to accuse him of wrong doing because of his service to Jesus. It is that old "hated me without a cause" that caused these men to hit him, not because Paul had done anything to deserve it. The wicked hate the righteous.

Paul used to persecute the saints - under the authority of these men - but now he was doing good to them. And that is what angered these men who neither kept the law nor served God.

Paul had nothing to repent of and what he says when he quotes the law to them, went right over their heads.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:19 PM
We definitely agree on every merit in this post. I would add that it would take an honest study and examination of the first covenant books to get to your understanding you have thus far. I know that is what it took for me. I had to risk to put my religion at risk as I see you have done as well. This is what David did as well becuase of his heart. It was personal and not a religion for David and yourself. Thanks for the encouragement brother Mark.......

I don't like seeing the way the OT is used in todays churchs brother. It is discouraging to me. I see some that use it to beat people with law. I see others totally ignore it. Yet, there is much to be gleaned from it! What some people call historical books. I call examples from God that illustrate his truth to us in many ways. He recorded all that for out benefit. Oh and yea, letting go of my preconceived belief systems was one of the hardest things I ever had to do. Actually, God had to do it for me because I couldn't do it. In my head I agreed with Him. In my heart, I wanted the old way.

Here's a neat little nugget I know you will enjoy.

Why did Ahithophel want to kill David himself when Absolam became king for a brief moment? This is the only prophet in the OT where it says "When he spoke, it was if God himself spoke". Yet, this prophet of God wanted to kill David. When Absalom ignored his advice, he went and hung himself. An interesting story. But there is a real reason this happened in Aphithophel's life.

Why do I bring this up? It will give you an idea of how I use the OT. Perhaps we can better understand each other as we move forward.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:22 PM
We have to see what was going on to get the gist of Paul's irony in quoting the law to them:

(Acts 23:1-5 KJV) And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

{2} And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

{3} Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

{4} And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

{5} Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Paul is not repenting here, though what he says is to appease these men. These were the men who were not acting according to the law and yet wanted to claim it for their authority to do wrong to Paul - who had done nothing except speak the truth in response to their lawless actions. Which of course offended them. Paul quotes the law I think tongue in cheek here. These men were the rulers of the people all right, but they were not the rulers which God had ordained nor were they serving the Lord whom Paul served. And what Paul said to them in v3 is prophetic.

What did Paul say which these men smote him for? It was his claim to have lived in good conscience before the Lord. Yet these men had brought him before their council in order to accuse him of wrong doing because of his service to Jesus. It is that old "hated me without a cause" that caused these men to hit him, not because Paul had done anything to deserve it. The wicked hate the righteous.

Paul used to persecute the saints - under the authority of these men - but now he was doing good to them. And that is what angered these men who neither kept the law nor served God.

Paul had nothing to repent of and what he says when he quotes the law to them, went right over their heads.

Needless to say, I disagree. The high priest has shown to be an authority over the people in scripture. When Paul realized he was an authority, he quoted the law about not speaking evil of a ruler. We see the same thing taught in the NT and the OT. I do see the irony in the passage. But I also see where Paul repented quickly when he realized he had included the High Priest in his accusation. Even Jesus obeyed the High Priest when he was on trial. That speaks volumes to me about how God views authority.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 06:24 PM
We have to see what was going on to get the gist of Paul's irony in quoting the law to them:

(Acts 23:1-5 KJV) And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

{2} And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

{3} Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

{4} And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

{5} Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

Paul is not repenting here, though what he says is to appease these men. These were the men who were not acting according to the law and yet wanted to claim it for their authority to do wrong to Paul - who had done nothing except speak the truth in response to their lawless actions. Which of course offended them. Paul quotes the law I think tongue in cheek here. These men were the rulers of the people all right, but they were not the rulers which God had ordained nor were they serving the Lord whom Paul served. And what Paul said to them in v3 is prophetic.

What did Paul say which these men smote him for? It was his claim to have lived in good conscience before the Lord. Yet these men had brought him before their council in order to accuse him of wrong doing because of his service to Jesus. It is that old "hated me without a cause" that caused these men to hit him, not because Paul had done anything to deserve it. The wicked hate the righteous.

Paul used to persecute the saints - under the authority of these men - but now he was doing good to them. And that is what angered these men who neither kept the law nor served God.

Paul had nothing to repent of and what he says when he quotes the law to them, went right over their heads.


Those are good points Robin. Perhaps relented his testimony would be a better word as a means to appease the Pharisees and bring them to repentance themselves is a better way of viewing things..I don't know how to completely look at this situation, I do think it's important though when asked before any form of authority questions, we should pray to God to do our best to represent him in a spirit of meekness and humility. Whatever the case, Paul was moved by the Lord to say and do exactly what God wanted him to do regarding his testimony to the Sanhedrin.

God bless in Christ,

Stephen

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 06:25 PM
Before anyone else goes on in this discussion, it is important to ask a few questions:

1) Who here understands the history of the Pharisees?

2) Who has read actual rabbinical writing from that time period and knows what they were teaching?

3) In the minimalist of senses, who has at least read a book that in a chapter or few paragraphs deals with the above two issues?

I don't ask that to be smug - it's just that we have this cultural reading about the Pharisees that isn't fair or accurate. Not all the Pharisees held the same beliefs - they came from different schools. It seems that often times when Jesus was challenged, he was challenged by a different group or different school of Pharisees (some schools even taught it was okay to heal on the Sabbath).

My point in all this is the reason Paul probably called himself a Pharisee and then apologize to the high priest is because Paul was a Pharisee and merely considered himself a rabbinical teacher. At the time Paul encountered this he would have been attempting to reform Judaism back to what it should be (since her promised Messiah had come). This would have to begin with the Pharisees. He also taught in the synagogues when he visited a town, something he most likely wouldn't have been able to do if he wasn't considered a Pharisee post-conversion.

Ultimately, Brother Mark is right in what he's saying. He has the most accurate and historically balanced view on this issue in the topic. The reason Paul apologized is because he still viewed the high priest as an earthly authority (meaning you could disobey by direct command of God, but other than that you were subject).

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 06:32 PM
Those are good points Robin. Perhaps relented his testimony would be a better word as a means to appease the Pharisees and bring them to repentance themselves is a better way of viewing things..I don't know how to completely look at this situation, I do think it's important though when asked before any form of authority questions, we should pray to God to do our best to represent him in a spirit of meekness and humility. Whatever the case, Paul was moved by the Lord to say and do exactly what God wanted him to do regarding his testimony to the Sanhedrin.

God bless in Christ,

StephenAnd notice Paul cuts right to the quick concerning the hope which the law they supposedly were serving was to keep active. Their hope in the resurrection of the dead. Which manages to turn them against one another, since Paul knows this is what divides them. And the Pharisee's end up defending Paul and the captain rescues him from the uproar.

Then we see Jesus speaks to Paul about this same witness he will give in Rome and tells him to be of good cheer!

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:36 PM
And notice Paul cuts right to the quick concerning the hope which the law they supposedly were serving was to keep active. Their hope in the resurrection of the dead. Which manages to turn them against one another, since Paul knows this is what divides them. And the Pharisee's end up defending Paul and the captain rescues him from the uproar.

Then we see Jesus speaks to Paul about this same witness he will give in Rome and tells him to be of good cheer!

His testimony to all was from God. His rebuke of the High Priest is where he got out of line. ;)

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:36 PM
Those are good points Robin. Perhaps relented his testimony would be a better word as a means to appease the Pharisees and bring them to repentance themselves is a better way of viewing things..I don't know how to completely look at this situation, I do think it's important though when asked before any form of authority questions, we should pray to God to do our best to represent him in a spirit of meekness and humility. Whatever the case, Paul was moved by the Lord to say and do exactly what God wanted him to do regarding his testimony to the Sanhedrin.

God bless in Christ,

Stephen

Are you saying Saul was being slick and beguiling. Was he trying to play with their minds by using deception and game. Paul did not want to get hit again, I am sure of. :pray: That Sanherdrin loved to beat people down. The Mel Gibson movie showed all those supposedly levitical guards to be at least 6 ft and 240lbs. Remember when Moses sent them through the camp after the calf was built. They ran through the other tribes like butter without losing a man. :o They were quick to jack slap a brother.

Everything recorded in Scripture is important from my view. I sure there is a load of things the Spirit can teach me with the small verse in the Bible, Jesus wept. :lol:

Just being humorous. :monkeyd: Thanks for the input.........

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:39 PM
His testimony to all was from God. His rebuke of the High Priest is where he got out of line. ;)

So Saul discovered that he was in violation of torah just as David would not strike down God's appointed leader? Hence, Saul obeyed the spirit of the torah literally by correcting himself and making it public as to turn away any chastisement.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 06:39 PM
ak,
It is obvious Paul sees the office of the high priest as one which God had established and his righteous anger is justified when directed at these men who had usurped that position for their own ends. He is not bringing honor to these men, he is declaring their doom for what they are doing. Where do you find him apologizing for anything he has said?

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 06:41 PM
His testimony to all was from God. His rebuke of the High Priest is where he got out of line. ;)NO WAY!!

Jesus approved of what Paul did and promises him more of the same VICTORY.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:42 PM
So Saul discovered that he was in violation of torah just as David would not strike down God's appointed leader? Hence, Saul obeyed the spirit of the torah literally by correcting himself and making it public as to turn away any chastisement.

That is exactly my take on the situation. Just as David heart was smote when he lifted a hand against Saul and cut his skirt, so was Paul's heart torn when he realized he had spoken harshly to the High Priest.

God's principles can be seen in both testaments. Jesus himself submitted to the command of the High Priest when he was on trial. The rest he ignored. But when one with authority questioned him, he answered.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:43 PM
Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Corinthians 4: 16, 17)

What did Paul mean by this if he was a torah observer?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:44 PM
That is exactly my take on the situation. Just as David heart was smote when he lifted a hand against Saul and cut his skirt, so was Paul's heart torn when he realized he had spoken harshly to the High Priest.

God's principles can be seen in both testaments. Jesus himself submitted to the command of the High Priest when he was on trial. The rest he ignored. But when one with authority questioned him, he answered.

Scripture does say Yeshua was in all ways obedient to the Father and will of God, Torah.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:46 PM
I don't like seeing the way the OT is used in todays churchs brother. It is discouraging to me. I see some that use it to beat people with law. I see others totally ignore it. Yet, there is much to be gleaned from it! What some people call historical books. I call examples from God that illustrate his truth to us in many ways. He recorded all that for out benefit. Oh and yea, letting go of my preconceived belief systems was one of the hardest things I ever had to do. Actually, God had to do it for me because I couldn't do it. In my head I agreed with Him. In my heart, I wanted the old way.

Here's a neat little nugget I know you will enjoy.

Why did Ahithophel want to kill David himself when Absolam became king for a brief moment? This is the only prophet in the OT where it says "When he spoke, it was if God himself spoke". Yet, this prophet of God wanted to kill David. When Absalom ignored his advice, he went and hung himself. An interesting story. But there is a real reason this happened in Aphithophel's life.

Why do I bring this up? It will give you an idea of how I use the OT. Perhaps we can better understand each other as we move forward.


I just jump both feet into this. I have and still do teach a David course in seminary. You have just added to my students headache for next year. :(

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:47 PM
ak,
It is obvious Paul sees the office of the high priest as one which God had established and his righteous anger is justified when directed at these men who had usurped that position for their own ends. He is not bringing honor to these men, he is declaring their doom for what they are doing. Where do you find him apologizing for anything he has said?

He apologized when he admitted his ignorance and then quoted an OT verse saying he was wrong.


Acts 23:4-5
4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB


It is similar to me accusing a pastor of a church I just joined of hypocrisy but not knowing he was the pastor. Then, when those standing around point it out to me, I say "I did not know he was the pastor of my church! Scripture says "Do not speak evil of a ruler of your people". That to me sounds a whole lot like repentance.

When Ham accused his authority, Noah, in front of his brothers, his children were cursed. David would not lift a hand against Saul even when God removed the anointing. When Miriam spoke wrongly against Moses, God made her a leper. So we see we have examples of those who make false accusations and of bad rulers. In each case, God did not allow those under authority to rail against the authority, even when the authority was wrong.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:48 PM
I just jump both feet into this. I have and still do teach a David course in seminary. You have just added to my students headache for next year. :(

:lol: If you want a hint, let me know. My pastor preached on this man a while back. He calls it the "Mystery of Ahithophel". It's a great story and illustrates a great truth. It is amazing that a man of God, that had the word upon him so much, others said it was like God himself spoke, went and committed suicide. What a warning to us all! God put in the scriptures that this man spoke as God spoke and this man committed suicide. Wow.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 06:54 PM
Mark,
Your cited examples are of God established authority which when challenged brought recompense. It is not what Paul is doing at all.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 06:56 PM
:lol: If you want a hint, let me know. My pastor preached on this man a while back. He calls it the "Mystery of Ahithophel". It's a great story and illustrates a great truth. It is amazing that a man of God, that had the word upon him so much, others said it was like God himself spoke, went and committed suicide. What a warning to us all! God put in the scriptures that this man spoke as God spoke and this man committed suicide. Wow.But first he committed treason and so his end was like Judas.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 06:57 PM
But first he committed treason and so his end was like Judas.

But why did he commit suicide? What was driving this man to commit treason?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 06:59 PM
:lol: If you want a hint, let me know. My pastor preached on this man a while back. He calls it the "Mystery of Ahithophel". It's a great story and illustrates a great truth. It is amazing that a man of God, that had the word upon him so much, others said it was like God himself spoke, went and committed suicide. What a warning to us all! God put in the scriptures that this man spoke as God spoke and this man committed suicide. Wow.

So far, he sounds human and his gift and office was without repentance until guilt overcame him. Classic hireling stuff. However, I know that is not enough in study. I could be already far from the truth in my quick assessment. By the way, I believe I am.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:00 PM
Mark,
Your cited examples are of God established authority which when challenged brought recompense. It is not what Paul is doing at all.

It was similar. He brought a railing accusation against the High Priest. That's something that even Michael wouldn't do against Satan. (Whom I believe was once an authority over Michael.) It was the railing accusation that Paul repented of, IMO, when he quoted that OT verse. Jesus too recognized the authority of the High Priest.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:01 PM
So far, he sounds human and his gift and office was without repentance until guilt overcame him. Classic hireling stuff. However, I know that is not enough in study. I could be already far from the truth in my quick assessment. By the way, I believe I am.

Check out his family tree, specifically, his offspring. ;)

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 07:02 PM
But first he committed treason and so his end was like Judas.

Do you know what tribe Judas was from? Do you know what Judas wanted from Yeshua? Do you know where Judas sat doing the last supper with Yeshua? What does his seat position denote about Judas?

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 07:02 PM
But why did he commit suicide? What was driving this man to commit treason?Because he picked the wrong man to follow. He chose Absalom because he had possession of the city, but this was the man who God was going to judge.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 07:05 PM
ak,
It is obvious Paul sees the office of the high priest as one which God had established and his righteous anger is justified when directed at these men who had usurped that position for their own ends. He is not bringing honor to these men, he is declaring their doom for what they are doing. Where do you find him apologizing for anything he has said?

Did you pay attention to everything else I said prior to that point?

Until you can prove that I'm wrong on the previous points, then the interpretation I gave is solid.

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) actually deal with what I said prior to that point?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 07:06 PM
Because he picked the wrong man to follow. He chose Absalom because he had possession of the city, but this was the man who God was going to judge.

God was judging David at the same time as well, for not chastising his children. David was reaping as well as Absalom for sinning and not repenting of their sin. Joab put it to David correctly when called Absalom bad and that David should have corrected him a long time ago.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:06 PM
Because he picked the wrong man to follow. He chose Absalom because he had possession of the city, but this was the man who God was going to judge.

There is much, much more to it than that. Why did he pick Absolam? Why did he wish to kill David?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 07:07 PM
Did you pay attention to everything else I said prior to that point?

Until you can prove that I'm wrong on the previous points, then the interpretation I gave is solid.

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) actually deal with what I said prior to that point?

Yes he made admends towards God and man in this one. He quoted Scripture as a witness.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:08 PM
God was judging David at the same time as well, for not chastising his children. David was reaping as well as Absalom for sinning and not repenting of their sin. Joab put it to David correctly when called Absalom bad and that David should have corrected him a long time ago.

Yes indeed! But can we not see the heart of God in David when David cried out at Absolam's death "Absolam, my son Absolam, would that I had died in your stead". Thus is the cry of the heart of God when every unrepentant sinner dies having rejected the death of Christ.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 07:10 PM
Did you pay attention to everything else I said prior to that point?

Until you can prove that I'm wrong on the previous points, then the interpretation I gave is solid.

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) actually deal with what I said prior to that point?You mean those things which formulated your opinion that were not based on the text at hand?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 07:10 PM
There is much, much more to it than that. Why did he pick Absolam? Why did he wish to kill David?

David was a great king and wise ruler, but could not rule at home. He watched things happen at home. He was decisive and sharp outside of the home when it came to decisions, but passive and timid at home. He should have been spanking the butt of Absalom when he was starting all that trouble at the gate.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 07:13 PM
God was judging David at the same time as well, for not chastising his children. David was reaping as well as Absalom for sinning and not repenting of their sin. Joab put it to David correctly when called Absalom bad and that David should have corrected him a long time ago.Exactly, Absalom took the course he did because David had failed to deal with the issue with Tamar which caused Absalom to kill his brother and then try to take the kingdom from David. All of which came about because of David's sin with Bathsheba & Uriah.

If you notice that when David was incited to number the people, it was this sin God actually encouraged so that He could use it to judge the people who had followed Absalom.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 07:14 PM
You mean those things which formulated your opinion that were not based on the text at hand?

Yeah, my bad, I've studied history and looked at the culture. Sorry for presenting a historical accurate picture of what Paul would have been dealing with. How foolish of me to try to understand the culture of the time. I forgot we're supposed to read our own culture and time period into the passage. Oops!

Can you - or anyone - please deal with the historical and cultural facts I listed? Please? Am I really asking that much?

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 07:16 PM
Yes indeed! But can we not see the heart of God in David when David cried out at Absolam's death "Absolam, my son Absolam, would that I had died in your stead". Thus is the cry of the heart of God when every unrepentant sinner dies having rejected the death of Christ.Which cry he was rebuked for. He should have been grieved over the sin moreso so that this would not have been Absalom's end.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 07:17 PM
Yeah, my bad, I've studied history and looked at the culture. Sorry for presenting a historical accurate picture of what Paul would have been dealing with. How foolish of me to try to understand the culture of the time. I forgot we're supposed to read our own culture and time period into the passage. Oops!

Can you - or anyone - please deal with the historical and cultural facts I listed? Please? Am I really asking that much?

Now you just violated the spirit of the commandments. You should apologize for this remark. It was sarcastic and unloving. :cry: Rebuke me for much of the same.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 07:18 PM
Yeah, my bad, I've studied history and looked at the culture. Sorry for presenting a historical accurate picture of what Paul would have been dealing with. How foolish of me to try to understand the culture of the time. I forgot we're supposed to read our own culture and time period into the passage. Oops!

Can you - or anyone - please deal with the historical and cultural facts I listed? Please? Am I really asking that much?The text deals with the situation at hand quite well, and one need not read anything into the text to get the gist of it.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:20 PM
The text deals with the situation at hand quite well, and one need not read anything into the text to get the gist of it.

I think the text shows how important authority is. ;)

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:21 PM
Which cry he was rebuked for. He should have been grieved over the sin moreso so that this would not have been Absalom's end.

Not by God but by Joab. Joab wasn't exactly a great man of God. He even broke covenants of his king and brought a curse upon his head.

The cry of David is a great picture of the cry of God. But, Absolam should have been dealt with. Just as God had spared David, David also desired to spare Absolam death. Joab killed Absolam against the wishes of his king and thus dealt cruely with both David and Israel. When a man murders a sinner, God is not pleased, yet the sinner deserves to die.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 07:24 PM
The text deals with the situation at hand quite well, and one need not read anything into the text to get the gist of it.

Look, I offered up an excellent explanation that you haven't dealt with. Either admit that you're not studied up on the history or deal with it. Don't sit there though and tell me that such things aren't important. It's dishonest.

It's frustrating to sit there, explain a situation with its historical context, and have someone come along and go, "Nu uh" and give a one liner as a response. That's not fair discourse.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 07:25 PM
OK guys... let's lighten up a little. No need to get personal and yes, one liners are greatly discouraged in bible chat along with personal statements.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 08:14 PM
Not by God but by Joab. Joab wasn't exactly a great man of God. He even broke covenants of his king and brought a curse upon his head.

The cry of David is a great picture of the cry of God. But, Absolam should have been dealt with. Just as God had spared David, David also desired to spare Absolam death. Joab killed Absolam against the wishes of his king and thus dealt cruely with both David and Israel. When a man murders a sinner, God is not pleased, yet the sinner deserves to die.But this is not the cry of God over the unrepentant sinner, it was David's cry at his loss. David wished Absalom spared despite his sin which went against the plan of God that He was establishing thru David. That is why his great grief over his death was rebuked. I think you are missing the point of the whole story being conveyed in how God works His plan despite the sin of men.

That David was a man after God's own heart was clearly shown in his acceptance of the judgment which brought the death of his & Bathsheba's child. It however did not cause him to apply wisdom in raising his other children and allowed their sin to get out of hand. (Remember Eli's sons?) This is not God's cry for the unrepentant to be spared - Who rather desires they repent. And like Isaac before him, who preferred Esau rather than Jacob who was God's choice; so did David bestow his favor on Absalom when Solomon was God's choice.

Obviously there are many lessons to be learned in this whole tale - not the least of which is that if we love our children, we ought not to gloss over their sin. And the bigger picture of which is that the Church ought not to either when it shares the gospel with the sinner who also must come to repentance if he is to BE saved.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 08:18 PM
Look, I offered up an excellent explanation that you haven't dealt with. Either admit that you're not studied up on the history or deal with it. Don't sit there though and tell me that such things aren't important. It's dishonest.

It's frustrating to sit there, explain a situation with its historical context, and have someone come along and go, "Nu uh" and give a one liner as a response. That's not fair discourse.I believe my response was clear that there is enough in the text to see what is going on. You wanted to bring in something else from the outside as your reasonable interpretation for this text. Which I found to be in error. Because of that addition you have Paul sinning and repenting and apologizing, when nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that was clear.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 08:32 PM
I think the text shows how important authority is. ;)

You know an interesting question that one could ask regarding this situation with Paul is who really demonstrated true Godly authority and power within it. Was it Paul, or Ananias the high priest?

apothanein kerdos
Aug 6th 2008, 08:33 PM
I believe my response was clear that there is enough in the text to see what is going on. You wanted to bring in something else from the outside as your reasonable interpretation for this text. Which I found to be in error. Because of that addition you have Paul sinning and repenting and apologizing, when nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that was clear.

Paul wasn't a sinner?

We have to bring outside sources into the text. The text itself often isn't sufficient for a deeper understanding. We can get the gist, but until we understand the culture and historical time period, we're really just taking blind guesses at what is going on in the overall narrative.

The point being, when we place this incident in its proper historical and cultural setting, we see Paul apologizing because he had violated a Scriptural command. He had broken a Scriptural command to not speak out against your leaders - which he had done. Paul did sin and needed to ask for forgiveness.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 08:45 PM
You know an interesting question that one could ask regarding this situation with Paul is who really demonstrated true Godly authority and power within it. Was it Paul, or Ananias the high priest?

It's both Stephen. Romans 13 establishes government authority. There was the High Priest authority for Israel. Paul had authority as an apostle and they were wrong to treat him that way. When it was pointed out to Paul, that he had railed against a high priest, Paul said he did not know that. Was he lying? No. I don't think he was. Then he went on to quote a verse to indicate had he known, he would not have done it.

Everything he said up until the railing accusation was fine. But when he railed against a high priest, he was out of line. That's why he quoted the OT verse showing he was out of line. Of course, they were sinning against Paul too. The difference in the two, Paul repented of what he said to the high priest.

Acts 23:3-6
3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Upon his repentance, God gave him revelation of what was going on and he rescued him. Immediately after his repentance, he perceived what was happening and took a different tact that was a good tact.

Acts 23:6
6 But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"
NASB

Now, was Paul sining? I think he did what he did in ignorance. He quickly agreed he should not speak to the high priest in the way he spoke to him. And as I quoted earlier, Jesus himself listened to the high priest when the high priest questioned him. But when the others questioned him and accused him, he remained silent. Only when the high priest took authority and adjured him by God did Jesus speak.

The high priest had authority and all authority is from God. Paul should not have brought a railing accusation against the high priest for it was not right to speak evil of a ruler of the people.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 08:47 PM
But this is not the cry of God over the unrepentant sinner, it was David's cry at his loss.

Of course. But it is also a picture of the heart of God. God doesn't take any pleasure in the death of a sinner. He longs to die in the place of a sinner. God would have spared Absolam had he repented.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 08:53 PM
It's both Stephen. Romans 13 establishes government authority. There was the High Priest authority for Israel. Paul had authority as an apostle and they were wrong to treat him that way. When it was pointed out to Paul, that he had railed against a high priest, Paul said he did not know that. Was he lying? No. I don't think he was. Then he went on to quote a verse to indicate had he known, he would not have done it.

Everything he said up until the railing accusation was fine. But when he railed against a high priest, he was out of line. That's why he quoted the OT verse showing he was out of line. Of course, they were sinning against Paul too. The difference in the two, Paul repented of what he said to the high priest.

Acts 23:3-6
3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

Upon his repentance, God gave him revelation of what was going on and he rescued him. Immediately after his repentance, he perceived what was happening and took a different tact that was a good tact.

Acts 23:6
6 But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"
NASB

Now, was Paul sining? I think he did what he did in ignorance. He quickly agreed he should not speak to the high priest in the way he spoke to him. And as I quoted earlier, Jesus himself listened to the high priest when the high priest questioned him. But when the others questioned him and accused him, he remained silent. Only when the high priest took authority and adjured him by God did Jesus speak.

The high priest had authority and all authority is from God. Paul should not have brought a railing accusation against the high priest for it was not right to speak evil of a ruler of the people.

So if both men were acting in accordance with and demonstrating God's authority, which man do you think moreso was demonstrating that God's salvific grace and power was truly present within his life. Was it Paul or the High Priest?

Edit:

Follow up question:

Is authority something that can truly be present if God's grace and power isn't working in one's life?

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 09:04 PM
So if both men were acting in accordance with and demonstrating God's authority, which man do you think moreso was demonstrating that God's salvific grace and power was truly present within his life. Was it Paul or the High Priest?

Edit:

Follow up question:

Is authority something that can truly be present if God's grace and power isn't working in one's life?

If you are asking who was more right, clearly that would be Paul. Was Caesar aware of God's grace and power in his personal life? No. But Jesus recognized his authority to collect taxes. Look at the position of high priest in the following text.

John 11:48-53
49 But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." 51 Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
NASB

God used Caiaphas, the high priest for that year, to prophesy about Jesus. Was God's grace active in his life? Only in the sense that God raised him up as an authority. He prophesied and didn't even know it was God.

We see the same thing with Nebechedezzar in the OT. God raised him up and gave him authority. But he took credit for it. One reason God is so big on authority is because all authority is from Him. Even if one is evil, the authority he wields is given to him by God.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 09:18 PM
If you are asking who was more right, clearly that would be Paul. Was Caesar aware of God's grace and power in his personal life? No. But Jesus recognized his authority to collect taxes. Look at the position of high priest in the following text.

John 11:48-53
49 But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." 51 Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.
NASB

God used Caiaphas, the high priest for that year, to prophesy about Jesus. Was God's grace active in his life? Only in the sense that God raised him up as an authority. He prophesied and didn't even know it was God.

We see the same thing with Nebechedezzar in the OT. God raised him up and gave him authority. But he took credit for it. One reason God is so big on authority is because all authority is from Him. Even if one is evil, the authority he wields is given to him by God.

If you do not mind the honor. I celebrate God in your sharing and giving.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 09:22 PM
If you do not mind the honor. I celebrate God in your sharing and giving.

Thanks. Let me know about Ahithophel. If you like the stuff here, you're gonna love that one. It's a hidden gem that must be dug out. BTW, Project Peter told me you were different. I can see that indeed, you are different.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 09:31 PM
Thanks. Let me know about Ahithophel. If you like the stuff here, you're gonna love that one. It's a hidden gem that must be dug out. BTW, Project Peter told me you were different. I can see that indeed, you are different.


Hey what do you mean by different :hmm:.

What is funny is that I am currently rediscovering myself. I am in a transition in every area in my life. Suprisingly after talking to Project Peter, I am enjoying this change, when at first I was aprehensive.

I simply do not want to be superficial in my connections with fellow saints. We might not agree in our convictions, but that is okay, how should that stop us from relating as brothers in the Messiah.

I have never be this sure of my calling in my life so far. It is almost as things have been amplified. Understanding, dilligence, love, visions, revelations, and inspiration. I cannot stop stuff from leaking out. Every time I sit still and meditate, the Lord speaks. I am loving it. However, this what I asked for. And just like Project Peter said, there is another side to it, that I must prepare for.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 09:32 PM
Of course. But it is also a picture of the heart of God. God doesn't take any pleasure in the death of a sinner. He longs to die in the place of a sinner. God would have spared Absolam had he repented.
(2 Sam 19:5-8 KJV) And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; {6} In that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. {7} Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now. {8} Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told unto all the people, saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate.

You may not like Joab's words here, but he is speaking as the loyal servant of the king. Later under Solomon, Joab did evil and was slain. But here he was faithful to David and David heeds his words. Later we see that his words were wise, because those men who had followed Absalom caused trouble in the kingdom which brought judgment upon them when David numbers the people.

God does not compromise His kingdom either, as there will be no sinners who remain in it.

Edit:
"God longs to die in the place of the sinner." But David wishes that his own death could spare Absalom this judgment - yet not so as to cure him, only that he might continue to live. There lies the difference. Jesus is not winking at sin now because of the cross, He has brought the cure. David is showing his remorse only, due no doubt because of his own guilt which brought this judgment upon his son. The difference in his response to the two sons who died, is that with the first, he hoped to see him again. This hope seems absent in how he is grieving for Absalom. I think David knows this son is lost forever. And Joab's words would seem to nail this as to how David's grief here ought to be interpreted.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 09:32 PM
Thanks for answering that question Mark. I'm going to follow this up with something Jesus said to the high priest when stricken for answering(almost identical to the situation with Paul)


John 18:22-36
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

What's interesting is that Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world, thus signifying that his authority was different than that of Pilot's or the high priest. That being said, which authority do you think was demonstrative of God's grace and power within this scenario and do you think both men(Jesus and the high priest) were demonstrating the kingdom, authority, and power of God? Should Jesus had repented to both the high priest and Pilot for his testimony?

We know all power and authority comes from God, but who do you think held the greater testimony and power and both scenarios and was representing the Kingdom of God - Jesus and Paul, or the high priests?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 09:38 PM
I'm going to follow this up with something Jesus said to the high priest when stricken for answering(almost identical to the situation with Paul)


John 18:22-36
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

What's interesting is that Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world, thus signifying that his authority was different than that of Pilot's or the high priest. That being said, which authority do you think was demonstrative of God's grace and power within this scenario and do you think both men(Jesus and the high priest) were demonstrating the kingdom, authority, and power of God in this scenario? Should Jesus had repented to both the high priest and Pilot for his testimony?





<imgsrc="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-d56GGD3LGBwJk.gif"style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/> (http://www.quantcast.com/p-d56GGD3LGBwJk)

Man I am hype. I want to know more about this conversation. I know within my gut that Jesus and the others said a whole lot more between them in these conversations. I am sure it was a least a five minute conversation that was just filled with revelation. I need a time machine.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 09:43 PM
I'm going to follow this up with something Jesus said to the high priest when stricken for answering(almost identical to the situation with Paul)


John 18:22-36
The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

What's interesting is that Jesus stated that his kingdom was not of this world, thus signifying that his authority was different than that of Pilot's or the high priest. That being said, which authority do you think was demonstrative of God's grace and power within this scenario and do you think both men(Jesus and the high priest) were demonstrating the kingdom, authority, and power of God in this scenario? Should Jesus had repented to both the high priest and Pilot for his testimony?

Jesus words were not the same as Paul. Notice Paul made a railing judgment/accusation against the High Priest but Jesus did not.

Acts 23:3
3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?"
NASB

Had he left off the statement in bold, he would have been fine. Jesus didn't bring that railing accusation/judgment but rather spoke in his own defense and, like the law required, told the high priest to bring forth witnesses.

I have no issue with drawing a line between kingdom authority (i.e. spiritual authority), family authority, government authority, and employment authority. They are all different and I think scripture makes a distinction. The authority of God rested on Paul as a apostle. He was a spiritual authority. The High Priest also held a position of authority over the Jews. Thus Paul, being a Jew, was under the authority of the high priest. So was Jesus. That's why Jesus submitted and answered the high priest when the high priest commanded him. But even then, Jesus did not rail against him.

When Jesus rebuked Pilot, he did it meekly by saying "He who turned me over to you has the greater sin". He never said "God will smite you, you whitewashed wall". Therein lies the difference.

What's interesting about the scenario you bring up is that there are 3 forms of authority present. Jesus, the spiritual authority of all. Pilot, the governmental authority. And the high priest, which had both a spiritual authority and a political authority because of the position of high priest. Having said all that, here's another verse to consider...

Rom 13:1

13 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
NASB

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 09:45 PM
Thanks. Let me know about Ahithophel. If you like the stuff here, you're gonna love that one. It's a hidden gem that must be dug out. BTW, Project Peter told me you were different. I can see that indeed, you are different.

I would like to add, I am a hungry brother for truth and knowledge. It can consume me sometimes and become a sin. When I see a light of hope and truth, I run to it like a moth to a flame.

This is what the Spirit showed me about you, even before I understood why. I just naturally ran without thought because that is what I do. I see wisdom, character, and temperance and this old former soldier and cop joins the ranks of the forces that are off to battle and victory.

Have you ever heard that like spirits recognize one another?

That is not to say we know one another. However, some manifestation of your character came accross over the internet to your credit and God's glory.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 09:48 PM
(2 Sam 19:5-8 KJV) And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; {6} In that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. {7} Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now. {8} Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told unto all the people, saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate.

You may not like Joab's words here, but he is speaking as the loyal servant of the king. Later under Solomon, Joab did evil and was slain. But here he was faithful to David and David heeds his words. Later we see that his words were wise, because those men who had followed Absalom caused trouble in the kingdom which brought judgment upon them when David numbers the people.

God does not compromise His kingdom either, as there will be no sinners who remain in it.

Joab was evil way before Solomon came on the scene. David complained of him often. And of course, Joab broke the covenant David had with Abner and the curse of the covenant fell on Joab.

Joab disobeyed the order of his king. The king told him to spare the life of Absolam and he could have as Absolam was caught up in a tree and defenseless. Joab as not a good man. He sinned against God, David and Israel when he killed Absolam. Absolam had to be dealt with. But unfortunately for David, David's own sin kept him from being able to deal with his family.

God does not comprise his kingdom. That is why he is sad when people die and go to hell. They go over his dead body. His hearts cry is that he die in their stead. But they would not, and so they go to hell. He longs to spread his wings over them as a hen does her chicks. But often, they do not recognize the time of their visitation. Truly, the heart of God for the sinner was revealed in King David's feelings towards his son.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 09:50 PM
I would like to add, I am a hungry brother for truth and knowledge. It can consume me sometimes and become a sin. When I see a light of hope and truth, I run to it like a moth to a flame.

This is what the Spirit showed me about you, even before I understood why. I just naturally ran without thought because that is what I do. I see wisdom, character, and temperance and this old former soldier and cop joins the ranks of the forces that are off to battle and victory.

Have you ever heard that like spirits recognize one another?

That is not to say we know one another. However, some manifestation of your character came accross over the internet to your credit and God's glory.

I know exactly what you mean! Exactly! I too have to be balanced by the Lord. Too often like Peter I have said "No Lord" and he responded "Then you have nothing to do with me". And I said "Then wash all of me Lord". And he said "No, only your feet which are dirty. The rest of you is clean". God is often getting me out of ditches. I run from one ditch to the other while he stays on the Highway of Holiness where there are no beasts. But yes, like spirits do know one another and our love for the OT and the Lord God is evident.

Here's an interesting verse.

2 Sam 23:34
34 Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,
NASB

What is important about Eliam?

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 10:02 PM
Joab was evil way before Solomon came on the scene. David complained of him often. And of course, Joab broke the covenant David had with Abner and the curse of the covenant fell on Joab.

Joab disobeyed the order of his king. The king told him to spare the life of Absolam and he could have as Absolam was caught up in a tree and defenseless. Joab as not a good man. He sinned against God, David and Israel when he killed Absolam. Absolam had to be dealt with. But unfortunately for David, David's own sin kept him from being able to deal with his family.

God does not comprise his kingdom. That is why he is sad when people die and go to hell. They go over his dead body. His hearts cry is that he die in their stead. But they would not, and so they go to hell. He longs to spread his wings over them as a hen does her chicks. But often, they do not recognize the time of their visitation. Truly, the heart of God for the sinner was revealed in King David's feelings towards his son.

Joab was also David's nephew, He ordered His family member killed after His death. I believe Joab would have gave Solomon problems as well. I often thought that Joab must have been a real good soldier of legend as well as David. It seems like people feared him, to include David. I don't know however. I have taught that David and Joab had a on and off again relationship of uncle to nephew.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 10:08 PM
Joab was also David's nephew, He ordered His family member killed after His death. I believe Joab would have gave Solomon problems as well. I often thought that Joab must have been a real good soldier of legend as well as David. It seems like people feared him, to include David. I don't know however. I have taught that David and Joab had a on and off again relationship of uncle to nephew.

Joab had a temper that was difficult for David to control. But he was a mighty man of war.

2 Sam 16:9-10

9 Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now, and cut off his head." 10 But the king said, "What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah? If he curses, and if the Lord has told him, 'Curse David,' then who shall say, 'Why have you done so?'"
NASB

Abishai was the man that Abner killed and was Joab's little brother. It was for this reason that Joab killed Abner outside of Hebron and broke the covenant. David had a hard time with their "no talk, all action" kind of existence. David was far wiser than Joab and Abishai and more patient. They tried his soul.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 10:10 PM
I know exactly what you mean! Exactly! I too have to be balanced by the Lord. Too often like Peter I have said "No Lord" and he responded "Then you have nothing to do with me". And I said "Then wash all of me Lord". And he said "No, only your feet which are dirty. The rest of you is clean". God is often getting me out of ditches. I run from one ditch to the other while he stays on the Highway of Holiness where there are no beasts. But yes, like spirits do know one another and our love for the OT and the Lord God is evident.

Here's an interesting verse.

2 Sam 23:34
34 Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,
NASB

What is important about Eliam?

The man had vengeance on his mind. Some of His relatives had been with David during his wilderness journies. What did your pastor teach from this experience of Ahithophel. Was he going all son of perdition like Judas.

How is it said that I am different?

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 10:15 PM
The man had vengeance on his mind. Some of His relatives had been with David during his wilderness journies. What did your pastor teach from this experience of Ahithophel. Was he going all son of perdition like Judas.

How is said that I am different?

He did have vengeance on his mind. Here are two verses that will put it together.

2 Sam 23:34
34 Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,
NASB

and

2 Sam 11:2-3
3 So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, "Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"
NASB

Bathsheba was Ahithophel's granddaughter! He was still bitter with over how David had treated her. God forgave David but Ahithophel did not. The bitterness ate at him. When Absolam became king, Ahithophel saw his chance for revenge. However, Hushai thwarted the sound advice of Ahithophel and used Absolam's pride against him. When Ahithophel saw his advice was ignored, he knew David would be king again and set his house in order, and committed suicide.

The lesson? Bitterness will lead to death. Forgive your brother even if he murders your precious granddaughter's husband and commits adultery with her.

It is said you are different in that you are not interested as much in the letter of the law as you are the spirit of the law. Often people come here preaching torah, torah, torah. And they mean by that that we should stop eating pork, and live by the Law of Moses in all things, taking us back to the letter of the law.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 10:18 PM
Joab had a temper that was difficult for David to control. But he was a mighty man of war.

2 Sam 16:9-10

9 Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now, and cut off his head." 10 But the king said, "What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah? If he curses, and if the Lord has told him, 'Curse David,' then who shall say, 'Why have you done so?'"
NASB

Abishai was the man that Abner killed and was Joab's little brother. It was for this reason that Joab killed Abner outside of Hebron and broke the covenant. David had a hard time with their "no talk, all action" kind of existence. David was far wiser than Joab and Abishai and more patient. They tried his soul.

Yeah, the Lord had me study this last week concerning me showing mercy as well. This story regarding Joab and Abner was the exact same one. Joab was not willing to let it go. Abner begged Joab's brother to leave him alone and not fight him, but Joab's brother must have been just like his brother. He refused, and Abner probaly had his back against the wall and slayed Abishai because he would not stop fighting with Abner. Abner was just trying to go home and be about his business. Abishai would not stop swinging his sword at Abner. :B

What was cowardly about Joab was that he did not killed Abner in battle. He sneaked attack Abner. Abner that everything was cool between him and Joab, then Joab knife him after a gentleman's greeting. :o

Well God was personaly teaching me to let things go in this passage during personal study. It did have me laughing a lot learning about the real life dramas of the Bible. LOL :rofl:

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 10:26 PM
Yeah, the Lord had me study this last week concerning me showing mercy as well. This story regarding Joab and Abner was the exact same one. Joab was not willing to let it go. Abner begged Joab's brother to leave him alone and not fight him, but Joab's brother must have been just like his brother. He refused, and Abner probaly had his back against the wall and slayed Abishai because he would not stop fighting with Abner. Abner was just trying to go home and be about his business. Abishai would not stop swinging his sword at Abner. :B

Those two were a blessing and a curse to David. Abner was a wise man and knew he could kill Abishai but didn't want to.


What was cowardly about Joab was that he did not killed Abner in battle. He sneaked attack Abner. Abner that everything was cool between him and Joab, then Joab knife him after a gentleman's greeting. :oYes indeed! And David said Abner died like a fool dies. Why? Because he knew Joab was an avenger of blood because he knew Abishai was Joab's younger brother. But Abner and David had gone into covenant together so Abner had the protection of the king. But Joab broke that covenant and called Abner aside. Hebron was a city of refuge and Joab could not have killed him there. So he called Abner out to the gate and slew him outside the city!!! That's why David said "Abner died as a fool dies". How many people die outside the city of refuge! They die as fools die outside of Jesus, the City Of Refuge. When David heard what Joab had done, he told God "I am innocent of this Oh God..." and

2 Sam 3:29
29 May it fall on the head of Joab and on all his father's house; and may there not fail from the house of Joab one who has a discharge, or who is a leper, or who takes hold of a distaff, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks bread."
NASB

David was making sure the curse of breaking the covenant fell on Joab and not on him. Joab did not listen to David very well. He was disobedient in many ways but still useful. Abner was a much wiser man but should have known better than to trust Joab even though he had a covenant with the King. He had chastised Joab in the past about his violence.

2 Sam 2:26-28
26 Then Abner called to Joab and said, "Shall the sword devour forever? Do you not know that it will be bitter in the end? How long will you refrain from telling the people to turn back from following their brothers?" 27 And Joab said, "As God lives, if you had not spoken, surely then the people would have gone away in the morning, each from following his brother."
NASB


Well God was personaly teaching me to let things go in this passage during personal study. It did have me laughing a lot learning about the real life dramas of the Bible. LOL :rofl:

Oh yea. You can say that again. I am constantly amazed at how personal the OT can be. So much of what happens there still happens in my life. I can see them struggle with the same exact things I struggle with.

Mograce2U
Aug 6th 2008, 10:27 PM
Joab was evil way before Solomon came on the scene. David complained of him often. And of course, Joab broke the covenant David had with Abner and the curse of the covenant fell on Joab.

Joab disobeyed the order of his king. The king told him to spare the life of Absolam and he could have as Absolam was caught up in a tree and defenseless. Joab as not a good man. He sinned against God, David and Israel when he killed Absolam. Absolam had to be dealt with. But unfortunately for David, David's own sin kept him from being able to deal with his family.

God does not comprise his kingdom. That is why he is sad when people die and go to hell. They go over his dead body. His hearts cry is that he die in their stead. But they would not, and so they go to hell. He longs to spread his wings over them as a hen does her chicks. But often, they do not recognize the time of their visitation. Truly, the heart of God for the sinner was revealed in King David's feelings towards his son.I went back to read the story of Joab again and you are right and I was wrong. Joab was an ambitious man and David was not trusting him as he once had. In David's final instructions to Solomon he calls for Joab's death - as well as a few others. I am not sure David knew for certain that Joab had a hand in Absalom's death but he no doubt suspected it. That he killed the man David had chosen to succeed him, Amasa, seems to be the reason David gives Solomon. There is so much treachery recorded for us that it is hard to keep it all straight!

I don't think (yet) that David's grief is as you say. He did however go about trying to right the wrongs that Absalom had done. Shutting up the 10 concubines for instance. Clean up is always the worst part of sin... but the fruit of repentance.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 10:30 PM
I went back to read the story of Joab again and you are right and I was wrong. Joab was an ambitious man and David was not trusting him as he once had. In David's final instructions to Solomon he calls for Joab's death - as well as a few others. I am not sure David knew for certain that Joab had a hand in Absalom's death but he no doubt suspected it. That he killed the man David had chosen to succeed him, Amasa, seems to be the reason David gives Solomon. There is so much treachery recorded for us that it is hard to keep it all straight!

Indeed there is! I am often saddened at the treachery of my own heart when God reveals it to me. Thank you for setting the record straight.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 10:32 PM
He did have vengeance on his mind. Here are two verses that will put it together.

2 Sam 23:34
34 Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,
NASB

and

2 Sam 11:2-3
3 So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, "Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"
NASB

Bathsheba was Ahithophel's granddaughter! He was still bitter with over how David had treated her. God forgave David but Ahithophel did not. The bitterness ate at him. When Absolam became king, Ahithophel saw his chance for revenge. However, Hushai thwarted the sound advice of Ahithophel and used Absolam's pride against him. When Ahithophel saw his advice was ignored, he knew David would be king again and set his house in order, and committed suicide.

The lesson? Bitterness will lead to death. Forgive your brother even if he murders your precious granddaughter's husband and commits adultery with her.

It is said you are different in that you are not interested as much in the letter of the law as you are the spirit of the law. Often people come here preaching torah, torah, torah. And they mean by that that we should stop eating pork, and live by the Law of Moses in all things, taking us back to the letter of the law.


I just simply want to know the Lord more intimately and this requires that I know the means of how that can be done. This is what God has produced out of me through a great many of hardships and experiences.

I know that no letter of the torah does not justify my salvation, because I received my salvation in 1992 without even knowing what a Torah was. Jesus took me under His wing and raised me through my college, military, and law enforcement experiences.

I knew I was different myself because I never fit in. I was never interested in being religious eventhough I knew Jesus both before (that is knew of) and after salvation (actually knew). I made a declaration and vow in 1999 to the Lord. I stated that I wanted to be real no matter what. And God is keeping me to my vow is all I can say.

Now He is teaching me how to relate to my brothers and sisters in true love. Again I am not interested in religion, but genuine relationships of spirit and not letter. I believe that the letter is any thing is restricted to and acted in out in our flesh, not just Torah in its application by carnal means, but the means in which we supercially and casual love one another. We chat over the net, go to church with other believers, and work around believers, but no one can tell that their is love between the saints. I think this very much the letter of grace.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 10:36 PM
I just simply want to know the Lord more intimately and this requires that I know the means of how that can be done. This is what God has produced out of me through a great many of hardships and experiences.

All his treasured ones go through the desert. I hear you bro. Life can be very hard.


I knew I was different myself because I never fit in.Check out this thread.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=99363

You will love it.

BTW, I now understand your chosen board name. ;)

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 10:50 PM
Rom 13:1

13 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
NASB


I don't mean to edit out the rest of your testimony, but I'm just going to adress this scripture right here and extrapolate upon it. God is sovereign above all powers and principalities, so it is very true that all power granted to anyone in this life comes from him. That being stated, to whom are we fighting against in our Christian walk if we're not fighting against God. I think Jesus and the Apostle Paul make clear distinctions that the Kingdom of Heaven itself is not represented by the Dark powers of this world. Here are some verses to prove this to be the case.

Ephesians 6:12-15
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastWeplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.

Jesus himself goes on to state the following when the Pharisees accussed him of being Belzubub:

Matthew 12:26
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So we know from both Paul and Jesus's testimony that he is not representing the worldly authorities when he comes to testify(or when we testify for him) We are representing the Kingdom of Heaven, which has true authority over the entirety of creation, whether that authority be deemed good or evil.

So what if the governing authorities ask us to do something against God though? Whose authority are we then to put above that of the governing authorities of men's governments.(or the power that God has allowed men's governments to think they have) I think Peter makes it clear within his epistles.


We are to Obey God first and not men.

That being stated,I think both Jesus and the Apostle Paul were representing the greater authority(and truly possessed power) with their testimonies, that power being represented by Christ's Kingdom of Love(meekness, humility, righteousnous, and Truth) which is still coming into it's fullness to this day. We are to respect authority in the best way that we can within our walks, without compromising our relationship(or obedience) to God. We must obey God and not the wills or whims of men, their doctrines, and there schemes should we hope to reach the fullness of the kingdom the Christ has established. God bless in Christ. Stephen

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 10:56 PM
That being stated,I think both Jesus and the Apostle Paul were representing the greater authority(and truly possessed power) with their testimonies, that power being represented by Christ's Kingdom of Love(meekness, humility, righteousnous, and Truth) which is still coming into it's fullness to this day. That being stated, we are to respect authority in the best way that we can within our walks, without compromising our relationship(or obedience) to God. We must obey God and not the wills or whims of men, their doctrines, and there schemes should we hope to reach the fullness of the kingdom the Christ has established. God bless in Christ. Stephen


Jesus showed how Paul should have handled it. Paul wasn't representing God when he made a railing accusation/judgment against the high priest. That's why he quoted the OT verse. He would have been sinning against that verse had he done so knowingly. He quickly made it known his response was due to his ignorance.

Of course we obey God. When it was pointed out to Paul who he was dealing with, he immediately changed tactics and agreed he should not speak that way to the high priest.

Jesus however, never once made such a railing accusation/judgment against the high priest as Paul did.

As for kingdom authority having authority over all other authority, that's not biblical either, though it is true in the spiritual realm. God requires even his men, including Christ, to submit to the laws of the land except where those laws go against God's written and eternal law. As such, Daniel submitted to Babylonian authority except when they wouldn't let him pray. Ditto the three Hebrew children. Jesus paid taxes to Caesar and submitted to Caesar's authority even though he was King of Kings.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 10:58 PM
All his treasured ones go through the desert. I hear you bro. Life can be very hard.

Check out this thread.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=99363

You will love it.

BTW, I now understand your chosen board name. ;)

My paster calls me all kinds of name. Superman, Knowledge seeker, Jacob, and a few others because of my character and efforts.

Now that I have assumed pastorial duties, it is getting tougher, but that is okay.

One thing that I do not want to pretend with as I told Project Peter, I am a pup in comparison to him who is my elder. I am not talking about age, but experience as well. In my learning how to shepherd, you can value life experiences enough. Hence, I cannot pretend to not honor you as well as someone to add to my walk in Jesus.

That was a hard lesson I had to learn regarding my elders. I can know a world of knowledge and still know nothing, because I have not been through anything personaly. Knowledge without love and experiences to refine it has no choice but to puff a person up. I know, I have been there and go a collection of T-shirts.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 10:59 PM
Jesus showed how Paul should have handled it. Paul wasn't representing God when he made a railing accusation/judgment against the high priest. That's why he quoted the OT verse. He would have been sinning against that verse had he done so knowingly. He quickly made it known his response was due to his ignorance.

Of course we obey God. When it was pointed out to Paul who he was dealing with, he immediately changed tactics and agreed he should not speak that way to the high priest.

Jesus however, never once made such a railing accusation/judgment against the high priest as Paul did.

Is it possible that Paul being full of the spirit of God, made the accusation on God's account? Is it possible that God knew that Paul would make this accusation, and knew that he would relent of it, for the purpose of demonstrating humility, mercy, and kindness to the Pharisees?

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 11:03 PM
My paster calls me all kinds of name. Superman, Knowledge seeker, Jacob, and a few others because of my character and efforts.

Now that I have assumed pastorial duties, it is getting tougher, but that is okay.

One thing that I do not want to pretend with as I told Project Peter, I am a pup in comparison to him who is my elder. I am not talking about age, but experience as well. In my learning how to shepherd, you can value life experiences enough. Hence, I cannot pretend to not honor you as well as someone to add to my walk in Jesus.

That was a hard lesson I had to learn regarding my elders. I can know a world of knowledge and still know nothing, because I have not been through anything personaly. Knowledge without love and experiences to refine it has no choice but to puff a person up. I know, I have been there and go a collection of T-shirts.

I once told my pastor that I loved the word and enjoyed teaching but I lacked the experience he had. I remember feeling so inadequate because I had knowledge but not the life experiences for examples. Little did I know how easy it is to learn and how hard it is to walk. Life has crushed me. I would have left God if I could. But where could I go? Like Asaph in Psalms 73, I was a beast before Him. Yet, he held me by his right hand. I am not sure that I will ever fully understand his grace and mercy.

Knowledge can puff up. But life and God have a way of deflating that balloon. Thank God he is patient with us, and especially with me. He intends to mature us all and he will see to it that he brings along trials that will do just that.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 11:04 PM
All his treasured ones go through the desert. I hear you bro. Life can be very hard.

Check out this thread.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=99363

You will love it.

BTW, I now understand your chosen board name. ;)

Man that was some good sharing. The Torah of God being written on my heart of flesh. I wonder why God had to change our heart from one of stone to flesh. It might have to do with us actually being lively..... I have seen Talmidim around, but He has not stopped by. I guest I will have to go see him.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 11:07 PM
I once told my pastor that I loved the word and enjoyed teaching but I lacked the experience he had. I remember feeling so inadequate because I had knowledge but not the life experiences for examples. Little did I know how easy it is to learn and how hard it is to walk. Life has crushed me. I would have left God if I could. But where could I go? Like Asaph in Psalms 73, I was a beast before Him. Yet, he held me by his right hand. I am not sure that I will ever fully understand his grace and mercy.

Knowledge can puff up. But life and God have a way of deflating that balloon. Thank God he is patient with us, and especially with me. He intends to mature us all and he will see to it that he brings along trials that will do just that.

I'm glad to hear that God turned you away from the lifestyle you once had. It is true that knowledge in itself can puff up, and many times we need to be careful in our walks, to make sure that we don't become puffed up with the knowledge given to us from God. Everything should be done out of love, as oppossed to personal desire for power or authority. I hope this discussion has brought you and others a better understanding of what true power and authority means. God bless in Christ.

Edit: Wanted to add that I believe that Paul's testimony was truly done out of love, as oppossed to condemning the Pharisees. If you look at the after affects of the incident, they let him go and acknowledged the possibility that a spirit or angel had spoken to him. Although the bible doesn't specifically speak about it, I'm sure he brought about repentance to some of them by his testimony.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 11:12 PM
Is it possible that Paul being full of the spirit of God, made the accusation on God's account? Is it possible that God knew that Paul would make this accusation, and knew that he would relent of it, for the purpose of demonstrating humility, mercy, and kindness to the Pharisees?

I don't think so. We know God will judge all men and kill them. But could I be acting in God's stead and kill a man at his prompting? By what authority can I do that? The only way I could so do that would be if my government declared a man guilty and then told me to execute him. Then I could be in keeping with Romans 13. But without the proper authority, I could do no such thing. So it was with Paul. He was under the authority of the high priest and spoke a railing accusation against him.

Look at how Michael handled Satan in Jude. He refused to bring a railing accusation against his former authority because he knew how God dealt with those that revile authority.

Jude 8-11
8 Yet in the same manner these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
NASB

The rebellion of Korah was when he came against the authority of Moses. God used Michael as an example in Jude of how we are to deal with authority that is evil. We are not to rail against them a judgment.

Here's another verse.

1 Peter 2:13-16

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
NASB

1 Peter 2:18-19

18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
NASB

The high priest was being unreasonable, yet Paul spoke against him a railing judgment. Something that Michael the arch angel would not do against Satan himself.

Acts 23:3-4
3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?"
NASB

Is God going to strike Satan? Yes indeed he is! But Michael did not bring that judgment against Satan. Paul should not have brought it against the high priest either. It was too personal, and it was directed to one in authority. He quickly relented when he realized the man was the high priest, as well he should have.

Now, let's compare another example. John the Baptist preached to Herod, an authority figure. He told Herod it was not lawful for him to have his brother's wife. He preached boldly against Herod's sin. But he did not bring against Herod a judgment such as "God will judge you, you whitewashed wall".

Matt 14:2-5
3 For when Herod had John arrested, he bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. 4 For John had been saying to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her." 5 And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they regarded him as a prophet.
NASB

So we can stand with God and preach against sin, even against those that rule over us. But we cannot bring against them a railing judgment. For then we have done evil in the sight of God. And as Peter instructed above, better to submit to them and that through our submission, we please God. So even our rebuke is done in humility and submission and respect for the position of authority they have over us.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 11:18 PM
Man that was some good sharing. The Torah of God being written on my heart of flesh. I wonder why God had to change our heart from one of stone to flesh. It might have to do with us actually being lively..... I have seen Talmidim around, but He has not stopped by. I guest I will have to go see him.

An altar made of stones doesn't fit together too well. It has to have the mortar of the holy spirit to make us all fit. Some folks want everyone to be the same and they like making bricks. It's amazing how defiling it can be when others try to make us into a brick!

I like Tal. he has some interesting things to share. Another person to look up is Kahtar. Both are wise men.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 11:21 PM
Edit: Wanted to add that I believe that Paul's testimony was truly done out of love, as oppossed to condemning the Pharisees. If you look at the after affects of the incident, they let him go and acknowledged the possibility that a spirit or angel had spoken to him. Although the bible doesn't specifically speak about it, I'm sure he brought about repentance to some of them by his testimony.

His testimony had great impact. I believe also his response concerning his judgment also had an impact. Had he not repented, they would have known he wasn't keeping the law concerning authority. It would have been a big issue with them. But when he repented, it gave them pause along with the rest of his testimony. I'll not say more till you have a chance to respond to my post above.

manichunter
Aug 6th 2008, 11:22 PM
An altar made of stones doesn't fit together too well. It has to have the mortar of the holy spirit to make us all fit. Some folks want everyone to be the same and they like making bricks. It's amazing how defiling it can be when others try to make us into a brick!

I like Tal. he has some interesting things to share. Another person to look up is Kahtar. Both are wise men.

Me and K talk all the time. I love the avatar that he uses. I wonder if it matches his character. I sure it does. My avatar matches my character to a degree. I probaly should change it. It probaly scares some people. However, I like to hunt, chase, and run with a pack.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 11:23 PM
I don't think so. We know God will judge all men and kill them. But could I be acting in God's stead and kill a man at his prompting? By what authority can I do that? The only way I could so do that would be if my government declared a man guilty and then told me to execute him. Then I could be in keeping with Romans 13. But without the proper authority, I could do no such thing. So it was with Paul. He was under the authority of the high priest and spoke a railing accusation against him.


I do indeed believe that God knew what Paul would say(being that God is omniscient), as he was under the authority of God and being lead by the spirit from Damascus to the point where he was before the Pharisees, thus what he said and did on both accounts was prompted by God. The fact that God prompted him to continue with his testimony I believe is evidence of his support and approval of Paul's testimony before them. You have the right to disagree with me otherwise though, as this is a gray area that isn't specifically spoken of within the Word within that passage. I truly think God's power and grace was only demonstrative in Paul's testimony, as he was the only one who showed reservation, sound judgement, and mercy upon his accussers. God bless in Christ. This has been an interesting discussion and I think edifying to everyone within the forum.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 11:27 PM
I do indeed believe that God knew what Paul would say(being that God is omniscient), as he was under the authority of God and being lead by the spirit from Damascus to the point where he was before the Pharisees, thus what he said and did on both accounts was prompted by God. You have the right to disagree with me otherwise though. I think God's power and grace was only demonstrative in Paul's testimony, as he was the only one who showed reservation, sound judgement, and mercy upon his accussers. God bless in Christ. This has been an interesting discussion and I think edifying to everyone within the forum.

Here's the thing though Stephen, Paul has to go against the very verse he quoted in order to say what he said. He called the high priest a whitewashed wall. That was a railing judgment.

Acts 23:3-5
3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

God will not lead us to break his word. I gave a more full explanation in post 116 above. Maybe you haven't seen it yet. In that post there are several verses on how to deal with authority when it is just or unjust. Jesus did right but Paul did not.

Friend of I AM
Aug 6th 2008, 11:36 PM
Here's the thing though Stephen, Paul has to go against the very verse he quoted in order to say what he said. He called the high priest a whitewashed wall. That was a railing judgment.

Acts 23:3-5
3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"
NASB

God will not lead us to break his word. I gave a more full explanation in post 116 above. Maybe you haven't seen it yet. In that post there are several verses on how to deal with authority when it is just or unjust. Jesus did right but Paul did not.

Do I believe that God knew what Paul would say? Yes he most certainly did. One has to ask the question, why did he allow him to say it? I have no idea. But he did encourage Paul to testify further by stating the following..

Acts 23:11
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Why would God stand by someone who disrespected him and deemed as a lawbreaker and encourage him to testify more? I think this is very open to interpretation Mark, and neither you nor I can say clearly what God's intention was in allowing Paul to speak in the way that he did. That being stated I think we have come to a conclusion with this discussion, as you are entitled to your opinion of this situation, and I am also entitled to mine. If there is anything said that has offended you within this discussion, I truly apologize. God bless in Christ.

Brother Mark
Aug 6th 2008, 11:49 PM
Do I believe that God knew what Paul would say? Yes he most certainly did. One has to ask the question, why did he allow him to say it? I have no idea. But he did encourage Paul to testify further by stating the following..

God allows us to sin. There was nothing wrong with Paul's testimony. It was excellent! His repentance was also excellent and spoke to the crowd as well.


Why would God stand by someone who disrespected him and deemed as a lawbreaker and encourage him to testify more?Because he repented Stephen. Had he continued to rail against the high priest, he would have been wrong. He should not have called the high priest was he did.


I think this is very open to interpretation Mark, and neither you nor I can say clearly what God's intention was in allowing Paul to speak in the way that he did. That being stated I think we have come to a conclusion with this discussion, as you are entitled to your opinion of this situation, and I am also entitled to mine. If there is anything said that has offended you within this discussion, I truly apologize. God bless in Christ.I am not offended.

Here's another thought. If you heard God tell you to have sex with a woman out of wedlock, would you? No! Because you would know God would not tell you to say something like that. God would not have Paul rail against the high priest either because that breaks a principle of God that is spoken about throughout the scripture. Authority is a very big deal to God.

We see with Daniel how he handled being under the authority of an evil king. They wanted him to eat things not permitted by the law. He first appealed to the authority and his authority relented. Then he was told he could not pray but he prayed anyway. They through him in the den of lions. His response to the authority? "Oh king live forever."

Paul was Spirit filled and spoke a great testimony before the high priest and the pharisees. When he discovered who he spoke to, he said he should not speak that way to a ruler of the people. God never had to bring it up to him and it was over. Why would God bring up that which Paul had already repented of? To God, it was no longer remembered the minute Paul repented of it. God wanted him to go and testify again. Notice Paul didn't make a habit of calling authority "whitewashed wall". He didn't do it again. Jesus didn't call the high priest that either though he did say it about the pharisees in general.

God will not order his man to go against his word. He would no more tell you to have sex out of wedlock than he would tell you to rail against the authority that was over you, good or bad. Will God allow us to make mistakes? Oh yea. He let Paul make one here. But Paul quickly corrected it and continued in the power and might of the Holy Spirit.

Friend of I AM
Aug 7th 2008, 12:06 AM
I am not offended.

Here's another thought. If you heard God tell you to have sex with a woman out of wedlock, would you? No! Because you would know God would not tell you to say something like that. God would not have Paul rail against the high priest either because that breaks a principle of God that is spoken about throughout the scripture. Authority is a very big deal to God.

We see with Daniel how he handled being under the authority of an evil king. They wanted him to eat things not permitted by the law. He first appealed to the authority and his authority relented. Then he was told he could not pray but he prayed anyway. They through him in the den of lions. His response to the authority? "Oh king live forever."

Paul was Spirit filled and spoke a great testimony before the high priest and the pharisees. When he discovered who he spoke to, he said he should not speak that way to a ruler of the people. God never had to bring it up to him and it was over. Why would God bring up that which Paul had already repented of? To God, it was no longer remembered the minute Paul repented of it. God wanted him to go and testify again. Notice Paul didn't make a habit of calling authority "whitewashed wall". He didn't do it again. Jesus didn't call the high priest that either though he did say it about the pharisees in general.

God will not order his man to go against his word. He would no more tell you to have sex out of wedlock than he would tell you to rail against the authority that was over you, good or bad. Will God allow us to make mistakes? Oh yea. He let Paul make one here. But Paul quickly corrected it and continued in the power and might of the Holy Spirit.

I'm going to have to reply back very quickly to you, and I will assert this indeed to be my final post on said topic. Many of the apostles said things that were deemed offensive by men, which were actually meant by God to bring them to repentance. Jesus himself actually stated that those who were not offended by what he stated to them were blessed. Sad state that it is, many of us under those guidelines would not be blessed, as none of us could truly handle what Jesus would have to say about us knowing our hearts, and what types of people we truly are.

Now that being stated, Paul(and the other apostles), and many of us within our walks say many things that individuals may find offensive, even if we are speaking with the Spirit and authority of Christ in our testimony. We have to be careful when we hear the word of God, not to mix our emotions up with what's being testified to us. Sometimes rebuke may come across as abrasive, but we must pray to God that we are receptive to hearing this rebuke with humility, as oppossed to being quick to take offense on anything that can bring us to repentance and truth. God bless in Christ. Stephen

Brother Mark
Aug 7th 2008, 01:20 AM
I'm going to have to reply back very quickly to you, and I will assert this indeed to be my final post on said topic. Many of the apostles said things that were deemed offensive by men, which were actually meant by God to bring them to repentance. Jesus himself actually stated that those who were not offended by what he stated to them were blessed. Sad state that it is, many of us under those guidelines would not be blessed, as none of us could truly handle what Jesus would have to say about us knowing our hearts, and what types of people we truly are.

Now that being stated, Paul(and the other apostles), and many of us within our walks say many things that individuals may find offensive, even if we are speaking with the Spirit and authority of Christ in our testimony. We have to be careful when we hear the word of God, not to mix our emotions up with what's being testified to us. Sometimes rebuke may come across as abrasive, but we must pray to God that we are receptive to hearing this rebuke with humility, as oppossed to being quick to take offense on anything that can bring us to repentance and truth. God bless in Christ. Stephen

Things of the cross can be very offensive. Jesus said things that would be thought of as offensive today. Being offensive is not sinful. A railing judgment against authority is sinful, IMO. There is a difference between the two. I am not saying we can't say strong things. John the Baptist told Herod, an authority figure, that what he was doing was not lawful. Jesus spoke to the high priest about what was lawful. He even asked the high priest why he was asking Him (Jesus) for an answer when he should be asking a witness for an answer. The law required 2 witnesses for them to kill Jesus and Jesus was pointing that out. Nothing wrong there. It's not the offensive words, or even speaking on issues concerning the law, it is the railing judgment against authority that we must be careful about.

Or as Paul said, it is unlawful to speak evil of the ruler of the people.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion Stephen. May God continue to bless you with insight as he has already.

manichunter
Aug 7th 2008, 03:35 AM
Things of the cross can be very offensive. Jesus said things that would be thought of as offensive today. Being offensive is not sinful. A railing judgment against authority is sinful, IMO. There is a difference between the two. I am not saying we can't say strong things. John the Baptist told Herod, an authority figure, that what he was doing was not lawful. Jesus spoke to the high priest about what was lawful. He even asked the high priest why he was asking Him (Jesus) for an answer when he should be asking a witness for an answer. The law required 2 witnesses for them to kill Jesus and Jesus was pointing that out. Nothing wrong there. It's not the offensive words, or even speaking on issues concerning the law, it is the railing judgment against authority that we must be careful about.

Or as Paul said, it is unlawful to speak evil of the ruler of the people.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion Stephen. May God continue to bless you with insight as he has already.

It is funny how we in our carnality take hearing things that are hard to accept as offensive even to the point that we want to hurt the messenger. This is a big indicator that carnality is in control. There is an invisible line between carnality and spiritual, not a then line. We cross it without even knowing most of the time.

manichunter
Aug 7th 2008, 02:42 PM
Problem is the Holy Days and Sabbath aren't finished. The last four Holy Days are yet to be fulfilled and most think God will be keeping them when they are. todd

What can you tell me about these last four remaining Holy Days prophetically dear sir. What do I have to look forward too concerning the Son of God performing a work for Mankinds salvation. Does this have something to do with the prophecies of Daniel, Eze, and John. Can you give me some Scriptural references to point me in the right direction? That would help me a great amount, thanks.

Mograce2U
Aug 7th 2008, 04:13 PM
If one of us saw a man jaywalking and rebuked him for breaking the law only to find out he was a policeman in plain clothes; would we have still rebuked him for this had we known it beforehand - like if he was in uniform instead? While we still would have known what he was doing was "against the law", we would have kept our silence. Why would Paul have done anything different? Could it be he knew exactly what he was doing?

Rather the way this occasion played out, allowed him to speak words of rebuke to these men - very similar words which they had heard the Lord speak against them before. The ones who sat in the seat of Moses were this very council comprised of judges and priests - scribes and Pharisees and Levites. I haven't found yet whether the high priest had any business there or not since his office is after that of Aaron. But Aaron did wear the Urim and Thummin in his breastplate of judgment when he stood before the Lord. So it seems this Ananias was "incognito", much like the policeman in my analogy.

The scripture Paul quotes includes judges (gods) and the ruler of the people. So if Paul was wrong in his rebuke then he was breaking this law whether he knew the high priest was present or not.

One of the purposes of the council was to hear the case of a false witness when he made an accusation of iniquity against a man. They were to determine whether the charge was true or not. If not then they were to carry out the sentence which the false witness desired to bring upon the accused against him instead.

In other cases where the testimony of 2 or more witnesses is proved true the council is who determines the sentence to be carried out. Which if the accused refuses to do, he is to be put to death. Otherwise 39 stripes is what is meted out.

What we see here with this council gathering is that these men had no intention of judging Paul according to the law at all. The high priest has him struck before they even hear the charges or his defense. The irony of the procedings is that the people who object to Paul's supposed "breaking of the law" had nothing to say about the illegality of the procedings themselves or how they were being handled. The men who call upon the law when it is convenient for them to do so, are members of this same council who are in attendance.

Paul's mention of Ex 22:28 as his "defense" to this charge, notably omits that he ought not to have cursed these judges he was facing either whether he knew the high priest was there or not! This apparently placates the men when Paul acknowleges his position (as the man of God?), but certainly leaves hanging that his rebuke WAS for them all. Paul thus selectively quotes the portion of the law to which he can rightfully claim ignorance of breaking. Which to me takes nothing away from his rebuke of these men, in that he does not repent of his intent which was to aim his rebuke at the judges who cared not for the law at all.

Paul is clearly speaking by the Lord here and the irony of this scenario ought not to be missed. As we move on in this story leading up to Paul's trial at Rome, we see that there is no charge set forth which actually involves his breaking of the law - he is clearly being falsely accused. Had these men understand what Paul accomplished here, they could have charged him for it and had him beaten. But men who do not keep the law, rarely understand what it requires at all.

Paul knew that in this council he was standing before the Lord, the point of which these men had forgotten was the purpose in there being a council in the first place. And the Lord commends his testimony.

Mat 23:27; Deut 17:8; 19:15; Ex 28:29-30; Acts 24:20

manichunter
Aug 7th 2008, 04:20 PM
If one of us saw a man jaywalking and rebuked him for breaking the law only to find out he was a policeman in plain clothes; would we have still rebuked him for this had we known it beforehand - like if he was in uniform instead? While we still would have known what he was doing was "against the law", we would have kept our silence. Why would Paul have done anything different? Could it be he knew exactly what he was doing?

Mat 23:27; Deut 17:8; 19:15; Ex 28:29-30; Acts 24:20


I am a police officer, most of what people think and know about police authority and power is myth. Police play upon the people's ignorance of the law. I thought I would just let the cat out of the bag. A policeman or detective can only do what you let them do based on your level of knowledge. The average citizen does not know the law or the authority of police officer. A citizen can have a police officer arrested for the same offense if he reports it. Most feel that they do not have this authority. If you see a crime being committed, it is a crime regardless. I have been on the bad end of the stick as a police officer, I know.

Brother Mark
Aug 7th 2008, 04:21 PM
If one of us saw a man jaywalking and rebuked him for breaking the law only to find out he was a policeman in plain clothes; would we have still rebuked him for this had we known it beforehand - like if he was in uniform instead? While we still would have known what he was doing was "against the law", we would have kept our silence. Why would Paul have done anything different? Could it be he knew exactly what he was doing?

I didn't say he was wrong in his rebuke concerning the law. Jesus too used the law in his defense when the high priest was questioning him. I am saying Paul was wrong to call the high priest a whitewashed wall. That was a railing judgment he had no business making. That's why he quoted the verse later concerning not speaking evil of a ruler.

John the Baptist was fine to tell Herod his marriage to his brothers wife was unlawful. That was a rebuke too. But John did not call him a "whitewashed wall". The railing judgment was something that should not have happened.

Mograce2U
Aug 7th 2008, 05:03 PM
I am a police officer, most of what people think and know about police authority and power is myth. Police play upon the people's ignorance of the law. I thought I would just let the cat out of the bag. A policeman or detective can only do what you let them do based on your level of knowledge. The average citizen does not know the law or the authority of police officer. A citizen can have a police officer arrested for the same offense if he reports it. Most feel that they do not have this authority. If you see a crime being committed, it is a crime regardless. I have been on the bad end of the stick as a police officer, I know.In reference to civil authority I recognize that. But Paul knew coming before this council was the same as coming before the Lord to be tried and judged. That is the authority he rebuked as being cursed of God. Much like someone merely dressed as a police officer has no real authority at all. And the law would not uphold such a one but actually condemn him for his ruse. These men Paul stood before may have the position according to law but they were not approved by God.

valleybldr
Aug 7th 2008, 10:57 PM
What can you tell me about these last four remaining Holy Days prophetically dear sir. What do I have to look forward too concerning the Son of God performing a work for Mankinds salvation. Does this have something to do with the prophecies of Daniel, Eze, and John. Can you give me some Scriptural references to point me in the right direction? That would help me a great amount, thanks. The speculation on the remaining four Holy Days can be found in books such as Eddie Chumney "The Seven Festivals of the Messiah." I do powerpoint teachings on the Holy Days and keep a chart (a work always in progress) that I could email you. There are many charts like the one at http://www.ltradio.org/charts/Feasts%20of%20the%20Messiah/The%20seven%20month%20Feast%20cycle.jpg (http://www.ltradio.org/charts/Feasts%20of%20the%20Messiah/The%20seven%20month%20Feast%20cycle.jpg) though this one does not list the 7 Holy Days correctly (it includes the wave sheaf offering and excludes the Eighth Day of Assembly as does Chumney) it's still a good basic overview. todd

manichunter
Aug 9th 2008, 05:09 AM
The speculation on the remaining four Holy Days can be found in books such as Eddie Chumney "The Seven Festivals of the Messiah." I do powerpoint teachings on the Holy Days and keep a chart (a work always in progress) that I could email you. There are many charts like the one at http://www.ltradio.org/charts/Feasts%20of%20the%20Messiah/The%20seven%20month%20Feast%20cycle.jpg (http://www.ltradio.org/charts/Feasts%20of%20the%20Messiah/The%20seven%20month%20Feast%20cycle.jpg) though this one does not list the 7 Holy Days correctly (it includes the wave sheaf offering and excludes the Eighth Day of Assembly as does Chumney) it's still a good basic overview. todd

Thanks.......... greatly

manichunter
Aug 10th 2008, 01:59 AM
I'm going to have to reply back very quickly to you, and I will assert this indeed to be my final post on said topic. Many of the apostles said things that were deemed offensive by men, which were actually meant by God to bring them to repentance. Jesus himself actually stated that those who were not offended by what he stated to them were blessed. Sad state that it is, many of us under those guidelines would not be blessed, as none of us could truly handle what Jesus would have to say about us knowing our hearts, and what types of people we truly are.

Now that being stated, Paul(and the other apostles), and many of us within our walks say many things that individuals may find offensive, even if we are speaking with the Spirit and authority of Christ in our testimony. We have to be careful when we hear the word of God, not to mix our emotions up with what's being testified to us. Sometimes rebuke may come across as abrasive, but we must pray to God that we are receptive to hearing this rebuke with humility, as oppossed to being quick to take offense on anything that can bring us to repentance and truth. God bless in Christ. Stephen


Stephen you are a deep and learned brother. I see you search for insight.