2026 02 15 Jesus Displayed

First passage 1 Corinthians 9:16-18

…I have no reason to boast…

You have no reason to boast? Why are you always talking about boasting, Paul? How can we not escape that theme with you?

…if I do this…

Willingly: I have a reward

Unwillingly: I am entrusted with a commission.

Okay, I understand why you are exclusively either willing or unwilling. I do not understand why your “reward” is due you based on your willingness. By the way, ARE you willing? You don’t exactly say yay or nay.

…then what is my reward?

Aha, now we know. You’re on the willingly side, because that goes with the reward concept.

…my reward? To preach the gospel…"

Gospel? Which gospel? Oh yeah, the “my gospel” you mentioned in Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25 and 2 Timothy 2:8 calling it *my gospel". In Galatians 1:6-9, you acknowledged your gospel was different from others, and you pronounced a curse on anyone deviating from your gospel.

…my reward? …to offer it free of charge and not make full use of my rights in the gospel.

Whoa, your rights? What rights are we talking about? Like today’s copyrights maybe? A patent? Or the ability to profit from what you invented?

Free? At this moment, you’re going to present yourself some sort of selfless hero even though you frequently engage in cheesy fundraising, and make us all feel indebted to you.

The quarterly uses this to deduce the following: “Jesus has commissioned us”.

No, Paul claims here he was only “commissioned” if he “did so unwillingly”. Are you saying we’re “commissioned” because we’re “unwilling”? I don’t think so. I think confronted, you would be become frustrated by Paul’s confusing false dilemma here, but would be reluctant to say he often speaks nonsense.

The author then equates Paul’s gospel to the one declared by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20. (p. 127)

Vastly different gospel my friend. Paul didn’t “teach them to observe everything I have commanded you.” He only quoted Jesus once, ever, the “take this cup, this is my body” passage. That’s it. No quotes from the Sermon on the mount. Nothing Jesus said in his lifetime was worth repeating from Paul’s “my gospel” point of view. Paul taught obedience to everything Paul commanded, not what Jesus commanded. Just review 2 Thessalonians 3 if you doubt me.

Second passage 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

"…I have made myself a slave to everyone…"

Bullcrap. A slave is humble and submissive. Show me where Paul was submissive to anyone. He pretended to be submissive in Acts 15, but then mocked them all in his epistles later, even disputing the four commandments he had pretended to accept during that meeting. Paul does not submit to anyone. He boasts of this in Galatians 1:11-17. He goes on to express contempt in Galatians 2:6 and mocking those who “SEEMED to be pillars” in Galatians 2:9, speaking of the very friends and family of Jesus. Paul has no intention of being anyone’s slave.

“…in order to WIN more people…”

Aha, here is the true Paul. It is about “winning people”. What is he willing to do to win? Maybe he will be honest and tell us.

“To the Jews, I became like a Jew; to win Jews; to those under the law like one under the law - though myself am not under the law…”

He faked. Pretended. Lied. Deceived. Oh, it was for a “good purpose” though, to “win people”. That’s what makes it okay. The “end” of “winning people” justifies the means, lying outright about your own position. This is what people later referred to as Situational Ethics.

"…to those without the law as one without the law…to WIN THOSE…"

He’s going to accomplish his goal to “win people” by being like a chameleon, that changes based on who he’s with. If Paul REALLY believes this, then WHY did he humiliate Peter in front of everyone in Galatians 2:11-14? Let’s face it, the worst thing Peter could possibly be guilty of would be using the same ethics as Paul teaches here. Peter acted one way with people under the law, and a different way with people NOT under the law. That’s the accusation. So who is the hypocrite here, Peter? Or Paul?

This is deeper than just misguided ethics. It’s a well-known psychosis. As noted by legal firm Ayo & Iken in 20 Ways to Spot the Psychopath in Your Life:

Superficially Charming – They are almost universally superficially charming, able to make their “target” feel special. This charm, however, is almost never real. The true psychopath is a chameleon—a shapeshifter who is a master at fitting their personality to the needs of the individual. If you solicited a description of the psychopath from 30 different people who knew him or her, you might find that you receive significantly different descriptions. To the shy, reticent person, the psychopath adjusts his charm, toning it down to meet that person’s individual needs, and to the extrovert, he dials up the charm and exuberance.

Wow, that is EXACTLY what Paul is teaching here, and making it sound like DESIRABLE BEHAVIOR!. But what about the whole thing about “winning”?

Winning and Money is Everything – Psychopaths place a high premium on “winning,” money and power, and may have little regard for social or moral rules as they manipulate and lie to others. While the manipulation of a psychopath may be to achieve personal gain, often it is simply an impulse that the psychopath is unable to control, or simply for fun, just because they can.

But how did Paul succeed in flip-flopping on sides like that?

Change Allegiances Quickly – The psychopath can change allegiances on a dime, with no second thoughts involved. When you met the psychopath you likely felt an instant connection and trust in the person, however the longer you know the psychopath, the more you will realize everyone who meets the person feels that same instant connection and trust—until they don’t. There is no loyalty, no love, no attachment possible in the true psychopath who will leave a trail of destruction behind, always blaming the victim.

“I have become all things to all people…”

I find this to be true even today. My Christian friends tell me Paul came to declare the “end of the law” to be “finished” and “nailed to the cross”. My Messianic Christian friends say, “no, poor Paul is must misunderstood. His message was to UPHOLD the Torah, you just have to *listen with a Hebrew mindset”. Paul is literally on BOTH sides of issues, depending on who you ask. 2000 years later, he is still all things to all people so he can WIN you.

On page 139, the author of the quarterly tells the story of a man with a “PAGAN” hat, and how several youngsters “witnessed” to him.

This was striking. Why? Because they didn’t “become as a pagan” to talk to him. They didn’t pretend to believe what he believed. They were a shining example of NOT following the chameleon-like behavior that Paul considers virtuous.

Third passage 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

“…only one receives the prize?”

It’s a dilemma in Paul’s philosophy he is trying to motivate many, but they all apparently compete with each other. After defining the racetrack, he’s clearly trying to “inspire” competition among them.

“Run in a way to win the prize…self control…I discipline my body…so…not be disqualified.”

What kind of self-control? Is he talking about the “better to be unmarried” kind again? Who knows….

The author in the middle-left on page 142 says “Sharing Jesus with others also requires self-discipline.” Okay, that’s apparently his understanding of what Paul speaks of. I’m a proponent of self-discipline. However, when the author speaks of “sharing Jesus”, is that the message of the living breathing Jesus, that compels others to uphold the law in Matthew 5:17-20? Or is that the “Christ” that’s whispering in Paul’s ear saying the opposite?

• Paul
• Ethics