[Note: The following is the prepared text for a Bible Study given on Wednesday, January 17th, for the Portland, Oregon congregation of the United Church of God.]

We are coming up in a time of year where there are a great many days where notable and famous people around the United States are honored, celebrated, and remembered. The following days that honor notable people within the United States until the end of next month include the following, mostly taken from timeanddate.com: On January 13th, Stephen Foster Remembrance Day occurred. On Monday, January 15th, the entire United States celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. day, though not all of us got the day off. In Arkansas and Alabama, this same day also served as Robert E. Lee day, while Florida celebrates that on January 19th. Texas, meanwhile, celebrates Confederate Heroes’ Day on January 19th. On Friday, February 4th, Rosa Parks day is celebrated as a state observance in New York and a local observance in California and Missouri, while California celebrates Ronald Reagan Day on February 6th. Abraham Lincoln’s birthday is celebrated in several states on February 12th, while Susan B. Anthony Day is celebrated in others on February 15th, while Elizabeth Petratovich Day is celebrated in Alaska on February 16th. President’s Day is celebrated throughout the country on February 19th this year of 2024, while Daisy Gatson Bates’ Day is celebrated in Arkansas on that same day. George Rogers Clark Day is celebrated on February 25th in Indiana, while Linus Pauling Day is celebrated as a local holiday in some parts of Oregon on February 28th. 

I must admit that I have never heard of all of these people, but I have heard of most of them, and I can confidently say that there have been bad things said about virtually all of these people, despite the fact that they are recognized within at least one state of the United States as being historically significant people, and some of them are well-known throughout the United States and even throughout the world as being people of immense historical importance. This subject and the timing of these various days leads to an obvious topical question as we engage days that are meant to memorialize particular historical individuals: how are we to honor the memory of people we know or believe bad things about? We all know, intellectually speaking, that there are no perfect people in existence nor, aside from Jesus Christ, has anyone ever walked the face of the earth blameless and without sin. Often, people who have served important roles in history have behaved win ways that we may consider to be loathsome and shameful, while we may feel at pains to justify the good deeds of others despite the fact that others point out their own shortcomings as being a reason why such people ought not to be universally celebrated. Such disputes often have a deeply political aspect about them, as the people we choose to celebrate in historical memory, and the reasons we do so, speak largely as to our own views of history and politics and related subjects. As Christians, though, we are not content to view such matters merely through a political lens, though, and we rightly seek to understand how it is that the Bible judges such cases. How are we to judge the worthiness of people to be celebrated and remembered based on the Bible? That is what I wish to begin discussing today, as the whole discussion will take both this and my next Bible study to cover.

When we look at the question of historical reputation, the Bible has a great deal to say. Some of it is said directly, but a great deal more of it is said indirectly, and we will make use of both of these sources of guidance and insight into how we are to deal with the question of the historical memory of highly imperfect people. Let us now turn to some scriptures about how the Bible commands us to honor others. Let us first turn to Exodus 20:12. This verse is best known as the first mention of the 5th commandment. Exodus 20:12 reads: ”Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.” This is a conditional blessing, but not a conditional command. While not all of us are fathers or mothers, we all have a father and a mother, and we are commanded to honor them, even though not all fathers and mothers are worthy of honor based on their own deeds. That is irrelevant; we are told to honor them, and told that if we honor them we will be blessed accordingly. Some fathers and mothers have done acts of unspeakable evil against their children and against others, and yet we are told to honor them anyway. How can we do this? I want you to hold that question, and to keep it in mind, as it is one we will be returning to.

If we go to the next chapter in Exodus, in Exodus 21:15, 17, we get a couple of elaborations on the importance of honoring our parents. Exodus 21:15 reads: ”And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death,” while verse 17 reads: ”And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” So far we are clear that honoring our parents means not striking them and not cursing them, again, with no conditions given where these commandments could be broken. If we continue to the very next chapter of the Bible again, in Exodus 22:28, we see an expansion of this commandment that relates to people in authority in general. Exodus 22:28 reads: ”You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.” These are not unfamiliar to us. Many of the people who we honor the memory of were once people of authority within society, and these verses apply to them, in that we are not to curse and revile people, even if we happen to think (often on good reason) that they did some very bad things. It is not always clear how we are to do this.

Lest we think such commands are only to be found in the law, we can easily find such commandments reiterated to us in the letters of Paul and Peter. Romans 13:7 is one such familiar verse. Romans 13:7 reads: ”Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” Peter is similarly blunt in 1 Peter 2:17. 1 Peter 2:17 reads: ”Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” Again, this is said without qualification without exception. All rulers, indeed, all people, are to be honored. Does this mean that all people behave honorably? Far from it, but we are commanded to honor everyone, regardless of whether or not they deserve it. On the flip side of this coin is the implication that all people are also commanded to honor every single one of us, whether or not we happen to deserve it. 

When we look at the New Testament, we find that a concern for reputation was an important aspect of what qualified people for offices within the early Church of God. Let us consider, for example, what was said about the first deacons of the Church of God, mentioned in Acts 6:1-7. Acts 6:1-7 reads: ”Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.  Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.  Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; ⁴ but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. 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.” The next few chapters of Acts, indeed, are devoted to the experiences of two of these deacons, who quickly proved themselves to be capable of far more than serving tables and ensuring that the Greek-speaking widows of the early church were not neglected in the daily distribution of aid, as Stephen proved to be the first Christian martyr, while Philip’s evangelism helped to convert a diverse group of believers whose faith helped to expand the Christian faith beyond narrowly Jewish confines. Unfortunately, the historical record also records that Nicolas was likely the inspiration for the Nicolaitans, a heretical antinomian gnostic sect which preached an indifference to immortality for those who consider themselves to be spiritual, demonstrating that not all of the deacons remained of good reputation in the long term.

When we look at the qualifications for elders in Titus 1:5-9, we see a similar focus on the need for leaders within God’s church–and, we may add, leaders in general–to have good character. This ought not to surprise us, for reputation is merely the public face of private character. It is that part of the iceberg of someone’s thoughts and behavior that rises above the surface and is known or thought or believed by others. Titus 1:5-9 gives us the following qualifications for someone to be a leader of God’s people: ”For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.  For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” 

This is a tall order, and a heavy demand, but there are very good reasons why the requirements for being a leader of God’s people are so hard, and why having good character is so important to performing the offices of leadership. After all, the task that leaders appointed by God have to perform is an extremely tough one, and Paul lays out this responsibility in the passage following that which we have just read in Titus 1:10-16: ”For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.  One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”  This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.  To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.  They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.” What was said by Paul about the situation in Crete is not so dissimilar from what could be said about the people of our own time, as well as those people who are ambitious for public office but are not inclined either to work on their own character to bring it in line with God’s laws and ways nor to respect authority in general when they are not the ones in office. Let us note, because Paul brings it up twice here at the beginning of Titus, that one of the main qualifications of being a leader is to be self-controlled and avoid insubordination, and being rebellious and hostile to authority is one of the surest ways that someone can demonstrate themselves to be unfit for holding offices of authority to begin with. In our societal passion for harshness towards the authority and worthiness of people in past generations, we demonstrate our own disqualification for every good thing. Hopefully that is something that can only be said about the generation in which we live and not ourselves personally.

When we deal with the issue of bad things that are told about people in high places, whether they be alive or dead, we should be aware of the standard that the Bible applies for such allegations to be taken as truth. In our own corrupt day and age, we are told foolishness like “believe all accusers, especially if they are women or minorities,” but a wiser past generation said, “Don’t believe me, believe the Bible,” and that is how we shall proceed today. We find the standard by which we should accept accusations against leaders, again referring as we have been to leaders within the Church, although it is applicable in general, in 1 Timothy 5:20. This verse, though, is part of a larger context about the attitude of respect that people should have for offices of authority, and it is worth reading the entire passage from 1 Timothy 5:17-22, which reads: ”Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.  For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.  Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.  Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure.” It is worth noting that the standard by which one would receive an accusation against a leader was the same requirement of two or three witnesses that applied in criminal court in the Old Testament, specifically in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15. To accuse a leader of sin is to engage in a criminal accusation, and it must be taken with the same degree of seriousness to establishing the truth through sufficient eyewitness testimony to avoid being mere slander or libel.

This concern for establishing the truth is consistent with the biblical ethic. We live in an age of deception and lying, where lying is so rampant that we have developed a whole vocabulary of avoiding calling people out on their lying. Something is not a lie, but is instead a mistruth, “my truth,” misinformation, or disinformation, which may be the truth but is an inconvenient truth to those who seek to have authority over what people know and understand. What Jesus Christ Himself thinks about our ways may be well understood from what He tells us in John 8:42-47: ”Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.  Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.  You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.  But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.  Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?  He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”” Earlier in this conversation, he had told his audience: ”Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,” in verse 32. We are given the option to either know the truth, including the truth about ourselves and the world around us, or to listen to lies and follow dishonest and deceitful ways. The first of these ways leads us to be followers of God and Jesus Christ, and the second way shows that we are children of Satan and seek to follow in his ways.

At this point we have a reasonable basis from which to examine the question of the biblical concern for the historical reputation of leaders and historical personages. We have seen the biblical concern for the honor and respect that is due to people in authority, discussed the way that accusations are not to even be heard against leaders unless it meets the standard for criminal prosecution, and also seen the deep biblical commitment to truth as being the basis of what the Bible has to say about people who have been in charge. How does this relate to the question our society struggles with, though, concerning the respect and honor we give to those in past generations? How do we see these concerns for truth and honor shown in how the Bible speaks about historical personages, though? Let us now turn our attention specifically to how the Bible deals with the unpleasant aspects of its most notable people as a model for how we should deal with such matters ourselves. Though this subject could be a massive one, let us focus our attention on three people and how the Bible deals with their reputation: Abraham, the Apostle Paul, and King David. Each of these three people lived in very different times and had different roles within society, but each of them demonstrate the way that the Bible faithfully records information that would be considered to be negative (but is nonetheless truthful) about all three of them without viewing them as being contemptible and dishonorable. Demonstrating how the Bible does so can help us to view the leaders of our own time and those of the past with the same combination of charity and honesty. We will finish our study for today by discussing the Bible’s criticism of Abraham and Paul, and in our next study we will take up the example of David and what it has to say about the Biblical view of the historical reputation of God’s people and how we can apply this example to historical figures that we are aware of.

A few years ago, I took the opportunity to read a humorous and large book that viewed itself as a treasury of historical stories about Jews, and it was striking to read the myths that have been recorded about Abraham. The fables that have been written about Abraham include a discussion of him opposing idolatry as a child and generally being a perfectly heroic and godly young person of the kind that mythologizers love to present when writing stories about historical heroes. The character of Abraham is just as one would expect when one has read a diet of hagiography about George Washington and others that have been written in a similar light. The Bible, though, does not present Abraham as being entirely without flaw or blemish. Indeed, both during the account of Abraham in the Genesis account as well as in the record of the Bible afterwords, there are negative aspects about Abraham’s life and behavior that have been recorded. I would like to look at three aspects of Abraham’s life and behavior that are worthy of criticism, even though the Bible views him fondly as the Father of the Faithful, one of the genuine heroes of faith within the Bible who was so godly that he walked with God as a friend, which any of us would be thrilled to do.

First, let us comment on what, to contemporary readers, is one of Abraham’s blackest marks, and that is the way that he interacted with his Egyptian servant Hagar. We read of this story most notably in Genesis 16:1-10. Genesis 16:1-10 reads: ”Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.  So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall ^[a]obtain children by her.” And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai.  Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.  So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes. Then Sarai said to Abram, “My wrong be upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me.” So Abram said to Sarai, “Indeed your maid is in your hand; do to her as you please.” And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence. Now the Angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur.  And He said, “Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where have you come from, and where are you going?” She said, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.” The Angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself under her hand.”  Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.””

This is not a story that tends to make any of the people in it look particularly good. Sarah, exasperated by her barrenness, uses a traditional and socially acceptable means of having a surrogate child through giving one of her servants to her husband to have a child on her behalf. During ancient times, women were generally blamed for a lack of children within a marriage, and the text here indicates that Abraham, even at 85 years of age or so, was certainly virile enough to sire children. We are nowhere told that Hagar’s own opinion was sought as to whether she wanted to be with Abraham or not. Yet being able to bear children when her mistress could not led the presumably young Hagar to taunt her mistress and provoke her to wrath. Abraham, seeking ineffectually to keep peace within the household, lets his wife behave abusively towards her servant and the servant runs away into the wilderness, and is told by the Angel of the Lord, presumably the one who became Jesus Christ, to submit herself to her mistress’ hand, and gave a prophecy that Hagar’s children would be numerous, as indeed the Arab peoples descended from Ishmael are numerous and powerful. In looking at this situation, we would fault Abraham for being willing to go along with Sarah’s solution rather than waiting on God to resolve the issue, for exploiting the womb of a vulnerable servant, and for abandoning that servant to his wife’s abuse when she became pregnant with Abraham’s son. This story gives us a look at an ancient slaveowning household and the look is not a flattering one.

After this story, we soon come along the second of two incidents when Abraham and Sarah pretended to be brother and sister rather than husband and wife because Abraham’s fear that the beauty of the elderly Sarah would provoke rulers to kill him to add her to their harems. This fear-based motivation to lie about their marriage does not make Abraham come off very well, and it was viewed in a threatening way by those rulers who took Abraham at his word. Let us look at what is said about the second of these two incidents in Genesis 20:1-13. Genesis 20:1-13 reads: ”And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar.  Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, “Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also?  Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she, even she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this.” And God said to him in a dream, “Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.  Now therefore, restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.” So Abimelech rose early in the morning, called all his servants, and told all these things in their hearing; and the men were very much afraid.  And Abimelech called Abraham and said to him, “What have you done to us? How have I offended you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? You have done deeds to me that ought not to be done.”  Then Abimelech said to Abraham, “What did you have in view, that you have done this thing?” And Abraham said, “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.  But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.  And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, ‘This is your kindness that you should do for me: in every place, wherever we go, say of me, “He is my brother.” ’ ”

Again, this story certainly does not make Abraham appear to be the most courageous man, to be sure. In order to avoid problems, he asks his wife to present to only be his sister and not admit to being his wife as well, and acting on this information, Abimelech put himself and all of his people at risk for god’s judgment because they were acting on incomplete information. Naturally, Abimelech justifies himself and seeks to understand why it is that Abraham deceived him, only to be told that this was Abraham’s habit because he feared that marriage rights were not respected in Gentile kingdoms like Egypt and the proto-Philistine colony at Gerar. God intervened in this situation and it was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of everyone involved, and Abraham and Abimelech eventually came to a treaty of friendship that was renewed by Isaac a generation later. Yet this is no thanks to Abraham, whose deception nearly led to the destruction of an entire city and led to the wombs of the women of Abimelech’s household being closed up in the meantime like that of Sarah’s. 

Finally, even after Abraham’s death we learn some negative information about him at the time of Joshua. Rather than the Jewish myths that we talked about which earlier that claimed Abraham to have always been against the idolatry of the people of Ur and of the heathen society in which he grew up, Joshua 24:1-2 tells us a different story. Joshua 24:1-2 tells us: ”Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and called for the elders of Israel, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.  And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times; and they served other gods.” Far from being opposed to idolatry, Abraham’s family served other gods besides the true God when they lived in Mesopotamia, and yet God in His grace called Abraham out of this family and out of their idolatrous practices to follow Him. And to his credit, Abraham did so, not perfectly but certainly faithfully. Yet while the Bible views Abraham as a hero of faith, it does not view him as perfect, and the Bible itself records information that can lead us to view Abraham negatively. Why does the bible do this, and what does it mean for our view of historical people and whether or not their lives and deeds are to be remembered and celebrated?

I would like us to keep this question in mind as we turn to our next person of interest, the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul is particularly interesting because he finds himself multiple sides of the issue of historical reputation. As a writer of thirteen or fourteen books of the Bible, he has recorded negative information about plenty of people, some of whom are themselves notable people. As we have seen, he also gave counsel about how we are to honor those in authority that we have previously discussed. In addition, though, other people have recorded information about him that could easily be viewed as negative. How are we to account for this? Let us see how the biblical record sorts it all out.

First, let us briefly discuss a time in the Bible where Paul himself recorded negative information about others. Perhaps the most obvious location this took place is in Galatians 2:11-16. Galatians 2:11-16 reads: ”Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.  And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?  We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” Here we see Paul giving very harsh criticism to Peter, Barnabas, and others, calling them hypocrites for being willing to eat with Gentiles when other Jews weren’t around, but then withdrawing himself from fellowship with Gentiles when he thought he might be negatively judged by it. Paul viewed the very integrity of the Gospel at stake here, but his criticism of Peter and others is certainly a harsh one, and paints the leadership of the early church in a bad light in their lack of willingness to stand up for the importance of eating and fellowshipping with Gentile believers.

Peter, for his part, also had some criticism of Paul in 2 Peter 3:14-18, at the end of his second letter. 2 Peter 3:14-18 reads: ”Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Here we see Peter making the sort of criticism we would expect to hear in a Speaker’s club meeting or a Graduate club evaluation about someone’s message being hard to understand and easy to misunderstand and misinterpret, but it is true, and Peter not only knows Paul’s writing to be hard to understand and easily twisted to destruction by those who are hostile to God’s laws and ways, but he expects his readers (including we ourselves) to be equally aware of how obvious that truth is, as we should all be. 

So far, at least, what we have seen is that whether Paul is giving or receiving criticism in the Bible, that criticism is just, and not inclined to make us think poorly of him as a person, if someone who might strike us as being a bit combative. This impression is borne out by the account of Paul that we read in the book of Acts. When we look at how Luke portrays Paul in the book of Acts, and we will only look at a few brief incidents, it is important to note that Luke was Paul’s friend, and writes about him as a friend. This is not the account of an enemy who wishes to make someone look bad, but rather the account of someone who is an honest and faithful historian who happens to have gotten along with and been able to work successfully alongside Paul, which could not have been an easy task given what Acts has to say about his somewhat prickly nature, which we have already seen a bit of already in this study.

Let us therefore look at the nature of what Acts has to say that is critical of Paul in three situations. The first of these is in Acts 15:36-41. This particular incident is the fierce contention that Paul and Barnabas had over taking with them John Mark (author of the Gospel of Mark, and Barnabas’ cousin). John 15:36-41 reads: Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.”  Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark.  But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work.  Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God.  And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.” In this particular situation Barnabas comes off as being a kind-hearted and generous soul when it comes to dealing with the immaturity of his relative, while Paul comes off as being demanding, harsh, and not inclined to give people second chances very easily. The end result is that the two of them were unable to work together any longer and went their separate ways, Barnabas to his home area of Cyprus, and Paul to his home area of Cilicia, each of them preaching God’s word but unable to do so as partners in faith any longer. To his credit, it should be noted, by the end of Paul’s life he had come to appreciate Mark and later in his letters mentions Barnabas with considerable affection as well.

We also see Paul being shown to treat the corrupt Jewish high priest with less respect than he had commanded other people to do so in Acts 23:1-6. Acts 23:1-6 reads: ”Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”  And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ” But when Paul perceived that 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; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!”” This particular passage shows Paul in a particularly combative light as well. While he is justifying his own righteousness, itself always the sort of mood that makes us particularly prickly towards those who are hostile towards us, the priest orders someone to hit him on the mouth, after which Paul responds by reviling the high priest–contrary to God’s law–as a whitewashed wall, and then has to accept that he broke the law in speaking so, before then splitting up the council by discussing his faith in the resurrection, which the Sadducees denied.

The third aspect that I would like to comment on is not necessarily one that makes Paul look bad, but it points out the difficulty that Paul had in dealing with his own life and his own personal record of what he had done before becoming a Christian. We find this in Acts 26:9-15. Acts 26:9-15 reads: ”“Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things ^[a]contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.  This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.  And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me.  And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’  So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”

Here we see Paul as a middle-aged man, probably in his 50’s by this time, talking about what he had done more than 25 years before in persecuting the Christians and then being struck down and brought face to face with Jesus Christ whom he had persecuted. Despite the fact that God had forgiven him a long time before, Paul was never able to get over the old news of what he had done, and he had to keep bringing it up over and over again. In the Book of Acts we get at least 4 different cases of him talking about it in one form or another, and he mentions it at other times in his letters, never able to get beyond having to talk about himself as the least of the apostles, one who had been compelled to serve God, and one who had sought to destroy the faith he now proclaimed, accepting the injuries and indignities that came along the way because of his own prior conduct. Imagine having lived a life contrary to God’s way but not being able to have it be tactfully overlooked but instead having to continually bring it up and deal with it because one was always dealing with the repercussions of it. The biblical standard of candor and truth-telling was hard on Paul, and was a difficult burden that he had to bear his entire mature adult life. How many of us would want to keep dragging around our mistakes with us for the rest of our lives, always having to bring them up as part of our life story while dealing with those who wished to accuse us of crimes to put us to death?

So far, at least, in our discussion, we have seen that there are principles of both honoring authorities and a high standard of truth-telling. We have seen the Bible has some critical comments to make about both Abraham and the Apostle Paul, figures who the Bible gives great honor to but also points out their flaws honestly. We are not commanded to view the heroes of the faith as plaster saints who never do anything wrong, but we are still commanded to honor them anyway. We have now come to the example of King David, an example that is commonly used to show how it is that God forgives even great and terrible sins. We do not have time to cover this example, though, so we will begin with that example in my next Bible study. I hope you all have a good rest of the week, and I look forward to seeing you all this coming Sabbath as well.