I've been enjoying this series; thanks. Where this quote is concerned, "One of the things that strikes me as most tragic here is that Saul really wanted to be 'right with God' but wanted that 'rightness' on his own terms. He wanted to be right with God without having to ascend the holy hill.", I have a question. Would it be wrong to say that Saul wanted "to enjoy the blessings of being right with God" rather than to say that he wanted "to be right with God?" Not disagreeing, but the distinction occurred to me and I thought I'd ask.

 

Bob, good question!

When Saul failed to obey God's command in devoting the Amalekites to destruction, I think he (eventually) gave an honest answer: he was afraid of the people. He wanted to obey God, but in the moment that he made his decision, the people were more real to him that God was. I think he wanted to obey, but "turtled" in the moment of truth.

Had he been contrite in heart, he would have admited that up front, but he wanted to hide the fact that he wasn't perfect, in this I think what you say has some merit -for Saul certainly wanted to be thought of as obedient, even when it was clear that he wasn't. Said another way, he wanted the reputation of a righteous man, but found hismelf (when push came to shove) both unwilling to earn it, and unwilling to own up to his failure.

In that way, I think it is safe to say that he both desired to actually be righteous, and (having found himself unwilling to obey fully in the face of his fears), he wanted to hide his failure by pursuing the reputation of being righteous.

Does that make any sense?

 

The things written beforehand are for our learning and admonition...truly!!

The spiritual parallels of the OT narrative are truly astounding. What a contrast between a life in the Spirit and a life in the flesh. The differences become enormous as the fruit is revealed.

Thanks again!

 

Daniel,

Great series you've got going here!

I only have one question and that is about the kingship of Saul at this point. I agree with you in a sense that Saul has been rejected as king, but it seems to me that as long as he was alive (unless he willingly relinquished his kingship) that he was effectively the king. David refused to lay a hand on him for this reason and even had the man who brought Saul's crown to him put to death. So what I don't understand is if David was king, and knew the throne was rightfully his, since it had been given to him by the Lord, then why was he so reluctant to kill Saul, whom he called "the Lord's anointed"?? I'm confused. :(

Thanks again for the commentary!

 

Hi Dan

This is totally unrelated to the current stuff, so I apologize for going off tangent. I was just wondering if you could comment on Paul having Timothy circumcised. I did a search on your blog but didn't come up with anything. I read a brief commentary by John Piper, but I still have some questions. Any thoughts you have when time is available would be appreciated. Thanks much!

 

Matt,

First and foremost let's look at what --wasn't-- the reason.

Paul didn't do that because Timothy needed to be circumcised in order to be a Christian or any such nonsense.

Paul's habit was to go to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. If Timothy was going to accompany Paul, then Timothy's lack of circumcision would be a problem.

I think it was just a matter of convenience. Everything we have in scripture tells us that Paul was not forcing Gentile converts to be circumcised. That leaves us with only practical considerations;

Does that help? I haven't read Piper, or anyone else on this, but that is what I expect was going on. Maybe I will change my opinion if I hear some convincing argument to the contrary?

 

Yeah, that's sorta what I got out of it. I guess I just don't understand why Timothy wasn't circumcised prior, since it appears he was probably raised in the Jewish tradition (his mother was Jewish). However, it is possible that he may not have been raised as a Jew, since his father was Greek, therefore, it makes sense that he ought to have been treated like any other Gentile. I realize Paul did not permit Gentiles to be circumcised, though, so I think the former is more likely than the latter. Practically, though, do you think Paul foresaw the Jews not accepting Timothy's testimony or evangelistic endeavors on the basis of circumcision? I don't want to sound crude, but would they ask for "evidence" of that? Since Paul performed the circumcision, I can only conclude he expected an encounter like that, which to my 20th century mind is hard to swallow. :) It's a different world we live in, that's for sure.

 

Matt,

I think that there were places that Paul preached where an uncircumcised Gentile would not be allowed to go.

Paul, if you will recall, upon returning to Jerusalem for the last time, purified himself according to the Mosaic laws. He shaved all his hair, offered up the appropriate sacrifices, etc. etc. Paul knew that these things were already empty pictures of what had already been fulfilled in Christ, and yet he did these things so that the Jews would have no reason to fault him on account of his keeping the law.

You see, it is all good and nice to preach that Christ fulfills the law, but if you are going to bring that message into a Jewish community, you have to be a Jew. Paul understood this, and so even though He knew there was no spiritual need to perform these old covenant rituals, yet he continued in them for the sake of the gospel - and it was this "all things to all men" attitude that I think carried over into the circumcising of Timothy. If Timothy was going to accompany Paul into places where Gentiles were considered unclean, and if the testimony of a Gentile or the testimony of a "renegade" and lawless Jew would have been dismissed without a hearing - then Paul was just being Paul - all things to all men for the gospel's sake.

That's what I think.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Double post there for some reason...

 

Ok. Wow. I had no idea Paul did those things (I just read a commentary on the Nazarite rites of purification). That is a lot more in depth adherence to the Law than I assumed Paul observed! Thank you for pointing that out. That definitely sheds light on my misunderstanding.

Can I ask you another question?

How do you think that relates to us today? I mean the "be all things to all people". Do you think Paul did that just because he was already a Jew? Of course, a Gentile would not have been allowed to enter the Temple, but if they could have, do you think he would have wanted them to? If we subjectively apply it to ourselves, it seems like it could turn into a very dangerous concept in our society, and may explain a lot of the "seeker sensitive" evangelism models that denigrate the Gospel itself. I wonder if I have created a "limit" on what I should be willing to do for Christ's sake, yet at the same time I do not want to step outside any bounds that God has set. I don't want to compromise the message of the Gospel, first and foremost, but to be honest I almost feel like Paul did in a way. So that shows my thinking is wrong. How wrong? I don't know. I've heard of people in the name of evangelism doing really strange things "for Jesus", and frankly have thought they were crazy, or being selfish, or both. But maybe I'm the one who needs to lighten up a bit.

 

Matt,

Like most believers (who read the bible) I find myself comparing my own walk of faith to the people scripture describes, and like most, I find myself dearly wanting. In fact, (like most) I began to feel like maybe I wasn't really a Christian because even though I hated myself for it, I still continued to sin.

When I read in Galatians that Peter -- Peter -- sinned at Antioch by schmoozing up to the Judaizers in a way that presented a corrupted understanding of the gospel itself (and Peter of all people knew better given his roof top vision, and his visit to the household of Cornelius). I look at this man and see that for all his Apostleship, for all his time spent with Christ, and for all the miracles that were performed by him in the name of Christ - he was still able to sin. That understanding alone has kept me from such errors as perfectionism, etc.

But it also reminds me that even the Apostles weren't perfect.

Paul was a Jew. He had kept the law according to the traditions of the Pharisees. I am completely convinced that Paul understood perfectly that the Nazarite vow, and circumcision were all associated with a promise that was no longer in effect.

Recall that the canon of scripture was not yet closed - that is, Paul's ministry took place at a time when Jews who were saved under the old testament, had yet to understand that a new testament was in effect. They had been saved already under the old covenant already, but had yet to be ushered into the new covenant and receive the promise of the new covenant (the indwelling Holy Spirit). On the one hand Paul was preaching that it wasn't the keeping of the law that saved a man, nor was the keeping of the old covenant necessary under this new covenant, but this was being misunderstood by Jews who heard word of it as though Paul were simply preaching against the Jews, against the law, and against the temple (c.f. Acts 21:28).

Didn't Paul use his status as a Roman citizen to get out of a whipping once? I mean, seriously - Paul used whatever he had with all his might, to do what he was called to do. He was born a Jew and raised a Pharisee - sometimes he used these things - even taking advantage of doctrinal disagreements between the Pharisees and the Sadducees to save his neck when he was on trial.

I think that we should do the same. If I were a Jew who came to Christ, I would probably use the doors that opened to me on that account to share the gospel. If I were not a Jew, then trying to imitate one for the sake of the gospel would be ridiculous and, well, it would be a zeal without knowledge.

I have to go to work or I would ramble on a bit more.

 

Matt,

I was just about to write the fifth post, when I remembered that I had yet to answer you on a point (Sorry about that), you said, ...what I don't understand is if David was king, and knew the throne was rightfully his, since it had been given to him by the Lord, then why was he so reluctant to kill Saul, whom he called "the Lord's anointed"?? I'm confused. :(

This is too good a question to answer here in the comments. I didn't plan to, but as I read it again, I think I should address it as an installment in the series.

Stay tuned.

 

I am enjoying your series and look forward to your next installment. I try to read your posts every day. They are very informative and enlightening.

 

Sabeian, thanks for the encouragement. My hope is that in discussing these things two things happen, first I want to take nothing I am already convinced of for granted, so this is an exercise in challenging myself to be sure that what I regard as fact, can be found in scripture, and secondly, as I go through the procerss, to show how I think and why I think what I think so that others may either benefit from it (if it is sound), or correct it (if it is faulty).

Whether my convictions stand at the end of the day, or require modification, one thing is certain, my understanding (not only of this point, but of several others) will have been deepened for my efforts.

In the end, it ends up feeding me, more than anyone else who reads it. In a very real way, I pity people who refuse to study the scriptures, but just read them all namby-pamby. They deny themselves a great joy, having tried to learn who God is through some other means.

Glad to hear that my efforts are not all in vain. ;)

 

Daniel,

thanks for all your answers to me personally and for the encouragement to those of us who are blessed enough to know about your blog. There are a lot of solid Reformed blogs out there, but very few provide the depth of yours. I almost always leave this blog challenged in my thinking, convicted of my sin, and thirsting for righteousness and God's truth. I hope you never quit blogging.

Regarding the conversation we were having about Paul, God providentially had one of the chapters of my daily Bible reading as Matthew 17. I read it after I read your reply last night. I thought this was interesting:

Mat 17:24 When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the tax?"
Mat 17:25 He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?"
Mat 17:26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
Mat 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

Jesus' was Paul's example. That sums it up for me and in fact reveals to me personally that what I might think is a boundary or roadblock in sharing the Gospel may not be so at all. It reminds me of another verse where I think it was Paul who said something along the lines of "don't condemn yourself by what you approve." You I am sure understand it already, but I just discovered the FREEDOM that idea prescribes! That's awesome!