The Deeper Meanings in Paul’s Teachings.

Bob Russell
Jun 5
8 min read

Updated: 5 days ago

Northern lights in purple and green light up a starry sky above silhouetted pine trees, creating a serene and awe-inspiring scene. — unsplash.com

The Apostle Paul had a unique perspective on Jewish laws and practices. As a trained Pharisee, he had more exposure to the deep meanings of the Laws of Moses than any of the other Apostles.

However, that knowledge alone was meaningless after the arrival of the Holy Spirit.[1] Still, Paul’s teachings were deep and complex and often misunderstood.

The critical error in understanding Paul’s teachings is to miss the deeper spiritual message that underlines his teachings. These deeper matters often overlap old and new testament history together as a unified story with a singular message.

It is amazing that such a Jewish scholar among the Pharisees was appointed the Apostle to the Gentiles. An irony indeed, but necessary as Paul was perhaps the only person who could blend the entire bible story together for both Jews and Gentiles in preparation for the New Israel of all saved and grafted in people of God.

An example of Paul’s principles on marriage.

Moses allowed the right to divorce. This right was only given to the husband and not the wife. [2] The details of the certificate of divorce are such that once the woman is sent away and another man marries her — and, in turn, the second husband divorces her or dies, she cannot return to her first husband. The woman is considered defiled by her first husband, who sent her away.

Now, in a sense, marriage spiritually represents God’s relationship with His chosen people, starting with Israel.[3] The relationship between God and Israel was divisive and filled with torment; in fact, God considered it an adulterous relationship.[4] The act of spiritual adultery separated or divorced Israel from God.[5] Even while divorced, God still desires a relationship with Israel and continues to call her back to Him.[6]

Jesus compares his relationship with the church in a similar fashion, where He is the bridegroom and the church is his bride-to-be.[7] The core of God’s relationship is clearly a marriage contract and is destined to endure and be permanent — provided the bride also values the relationship.

Today, Western thought on the Law of Moses in granting divorce seems culturally abhorrent. It was cruel towards the wife and women in general. We also know that Jesus forbade it, claiming it was first done due to the hardness of man’s heart.[8]

Yet, in recent years, the laws of America on divorce have been changed to allow only no-fault divorce in seventeen states. Two-thirds of states have divorce laws that have options that require proof of fault, but all states enable both fault and no-fault divorce options.[9]

The first no-fault divorce in America occurred in California [10]. It quickly spread to other states.

The reasons given for easier divorces include eliminating the strife and deception of seeking a for-cause divorce. The contentiousness and bitterness of a messy divorce have the potential to inflame anger to the point of possibly harming one or both former marriage partners.

This also implies why Moses’ original purpose was to provide the writ or certification of divorce — to avoid deadly strife. However, as Christians and spiritually filled, those who seek to please God do not seek to divorce and are not to act out of anger or strife.

Jesus desires His people to have the fruits of the Spirit to maintain the marital bonds that God put together. This is only possible among those dedicated to Jesus and filled with his power.

Like Israel, one of the marriage partners might not desire to remain married or seek out another and defile the marriage bed. Like Israel of old, to commit adultery. For Jesus, this and only this is grounds for dissolving a marriage contract. However, if only one within a marriage desires to be separated from the marriage, a believer is called to peace and allowed it.[11]

I personally understand this and the implications of divorce, which tarnishes the soul and reputation of one committed to Jesus Christ. What can be said to the world of fallen people does not and should not apply to the elect of God. The Law of Moses was not directed to a holy, saved people filled with the Spirit.

That is why the compromise was allowed under the Law, and even then, it would be and has been misused and abused because of fallen human sinful nature.

Another of Paul’s teaching example.

In 1 Corinthians chapters 10 and 11, Paul provides an excellent example of Christ-like rules for Christians to observe. In verses 14–30, we see that eating foods offered to idols is technically ok if the believer understands that God created all things and is thankful that nothing is forbidden.

However, there comes a point when a non-believer or a new believer informs you that the food was offered to an idol. Paul claims that in these situations, it is best not to eat the food as the other person may see this as an idol sacrifice, thus your approval of them doing so.

Here, Paul warns the Christians to be an example and not offend the person who told them.

This makes sense as we do not want to give the wrong impression before others that may lead them to do wrong, seeing your actions as an example. Paul teaches that believers should strive not to be a bad influence or disgrace the image of Jesus before others.[12]

Paul on Sexual Immorality.

Sexual morality is one of those “hot-button” issues in Christian circles today. We are challenged by the ever-expanding modern understanding that men and women were not necessarily created in two sexes- that there is a plethora of sexual identities.

The ever-growing identity movement would have us believe that sexual identity can be chosen or that we are born with conflicting identities or no sexual identity at all. Large church denominations today have split based on accepting or rejecting these expanding identities.

The debate on sexual identity ultimately leads to lifestyle choices. There shouldn’t be a judgment on sexual orientation for those outside the faith; it’s not for us to judge.

Difficulties come based on how individuals practice their choices within the faith. In the world, everyone should be free to make their own personal choices and not be restricted by religious laws.

That, however, doesn’t mean the church should encourage, teach, or join in such behaviors!

The Holy Spirit is the agency for the conviction of sins within a person outside the faith and leads to repentance — not by enforcement of laws or by the church.[13]

Consider the history of the Catholic Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the English Crown and Church persecutions, Oliver Cromwell's rebellion, torture of suspected witches and burnings, Joan of Arc's burning, etc… Judgements of the religious can be quite cruel.

The real question is: How should the church respond to lifestyle choices such as woman-woman and man-man marriages or male-female cohabitation outside marriage?

To start this discussion, let’s expand on the question: What if these lifestyle choices eventually expand to human-machine (AI, robots) or human-animal sexual relationships? Some would say this is ludicrous to consider, but is it so?

The problem with sin is that it breeds desires to expand and grow. Human rebellion is a hunger that knows no end and will seek new opportunities for expression anyway it can.[14] Essentially, sin evolves and continues to grow, devour, and destroy unless checked or stopped.

Emerging new media reports of people having intimate conversations with Artificial Intelligence AI applications online. Robotics is still in its infancy, but the use of dolls as sex objects isn’t unknown. More human-like robotics will open the door to more intimate options. Rising technology will introduce new opportunities for developing attachments, such as genetically modified humans with greater sexual and intimate capabilities. The ability to create new sins in the hearts of fallen sinful people has no limits.

I know it seems unfair to compare fundamental issues in human sexuality to what some call extremes. Still, we, as flawed humans, all can experience a desire for a new type of sexual fluidity as part of lust and passion.

Some debate and deny that the New Testament has any position on the subject. Yes, we can cite Old Testament law, which requires the immediate death of individuals living in such fluid sexual relationships.

But what does the New Testament actually teach on this subject?

Paul and other disciples of Jesus provide the following New Testament verses have much to say on the matter. Verses such as Romans 1:24–32, Jude 7, and 2 Peter 2:10 show God’s attitude toward those who change the proper sexual relations as created by God in the beginning. Again, it isn’t just Paul’s teachings!

This implies that God created an order in nature and wants that order to be obeyed within the churches and among the elect. If we conclude that God created human beings as man and woman as complementary pairs, then this, in turn, is God’s order — which is good in His eyes.

It seems so black and white when presented in that fashion; today, this is far more complicated. Not that sexual identity issues didn’t exist in the past; they most certainly did!

However, the suppression of such behaviors did not allow for open dialogue, unlike today. Still, there is strong resistance in society against sexual fluidity, but most of all, the teaching of such practices.

God’s proper order is what Jesus referred to in his alteration of Moses’s law on divorce.[15] God’s ways are not human ways; we do not understand His ways, but as citizens of the Kingdom of God, we are obligated to follow His ways!

Much of this discussion and Paul’s point of view show that we must adapt to the principles of God, and therefore increase our fitness to inherit the Kingdom. A hard position against the commands of God will not take part within the Kingdom of God — no matter what label one desires to use or think of themselves.

Does this mean the churches should shun or hate those with different (non-binary) sexual desires? No, these types of struggles are examples of the confused nature of living in the flesh. Those facing identity challenges deserve love and mercy, but I must confess that such lifestyle practices are incompatible with New Testament teachings; those desiring to follow such practices should be made aware and warned.

The church can’t be double-minded on such matters!

To desire to enter the full Kingdom of God is to desire to live according to God’s commands. It’s not that we won’t sin or occasionally fall into sin — we will even as believers. This is why the grace afforded us through Jesus is so very important.[16]

But empathy and compassion must abound all the more, as no one is without sin or invulnerable to evil influence! Recall the love for God is the first and foremost of the commandments — followed by love for others.

To truly love others, you must show empathy towards the fallen human condition, yet teach them God’s ways and God’s truths. If they are born of the Spirit, they will be convicted to change, or they’ll resist.

Nothing should be done out of anger, resentment, or self-righteousness.

Self-righteousness is very evil as it reflects on one’s own ability to resist certain sins while exposing a blindness to other types of sinning. Self-righteous people become essentially blind to themselves, and that is a terrible tragedy. That is why scripture warns again and again that we must not judge![17]

If, after two to three admonitions and warnings, the church is to consider a “practicing sinful person” who resists God’s commands like the unbelieving Gentiles — an outsider. Even so, you do this with love and a willingness to welcome them back with open arms if they repent.

This is the delicate balance required in the churches according to the teachings of Paul.[18] Also, consistent with the teachings of Jesus and other disciples.

Too far conservative is cold and unloving, judgmental, and cruel. Too far progressive is to ignore sin and allow the church to drift into compromise outside the standards of God.

Both sides have their good attributes up front, but neither is perfect — the churches must strive to work between such extremes while striving to be perfect.[19] And to be perfect, start with learning to love first, and judge less.