Greetings, dear Terry, and peace to you! May I respond? Thank you!
Many forget (or don't know, particularly those who put their faith in Paul) the following which, if they considered it, would "explain" Paul:
1. Paul was NOT one of the 12. Although many try to place him in that group (some saying that Matthias was only a "place-holder" until Paul was selected), he was not. Even he acknowledged that, often referring in his writings to "the twelve."
2. The 12 were Apostles to Israel: to the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah and the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel. They were to be witnesses to these "in Judea and Samaria... and to the distant parts of world." Because that is where Israel was: in Judea (Judah, the Jews) and Samaria (Israel, the Samaritans)... and scattered to the distant parts of the world (thus, they came from all over for the Festival of Pentecost). Paul, however, was an "apostle"... to the nations (other than Judah and Israel); because he was a JEW, however, he also spoke to the Jews.
3. Contrary to the teachings of many (and particularly the WTBTS), Paul was NOT called because he was zealous for God. He was zealous, true, but for the Law. He was a Pharisee and so trained to be well-versed in the Law. He was called, however, because someone needed to take the place of those who WOULD have preached my Lord to the nations... but Paul was instrumental in having put to death. The primary example being dear Stephen. Which is why my Lord didn't say [to Ananias] that he was calling and choosing Paul because he was zealous or faithful, etc., but because he (Paul) HAD TO SUFFER for Christ's name. Paul had a BLOODGUILT... which he had to answer for.
4. Paul sometimes taught a "different" Christ than the Lord known by the Apostles and disciples prior to Paul. Because he was zealous for the Law, he taught many things "authoratively" that threatened to but the Body BACK under the Law. He even continued observing the temple rituals and other requirements under the Law in an effort to be found "righteous" with the Jews. However, due to the correction of the Apostles and older men (with whom even he had to check, from time to time), he sometimes had to backtrack and correct his directives. Such directive almost destroyed the Corinthian congregation; it certainly divided it.
5. Paul actually only got along with a couple/few of the Apostles. Peter and John, and perhaps one or two others. But not initially, and not all of them. Indeed, they had nothing to do with one another for a period of about 14 years. And Peter had to make excuses for Paul's teaching because they often went past the things Chist taught. Peter conceded his authority Paul because Peter had not remained entirely "clean" - he had displayed some hypocrisy for which Paul called him on it. The others did not, however. This prompted Paul to call them "superfine apostles" and begin comparing his "credentials" with theirs (theirs being having walked with Christ personally, which Paul had not).
6. Many attribute the issue on circumcision as something first challenged by Paul; however, Peter was the first one to say it was no longer necessary and the older men listened to and acquiesced to Peter; however, they wouldn't with Paul (showing that they didn't recognize his "authority" and so Paul took the matter to the Apostles and older men (including my Lord's dear brother, James) in Jerusalem.
7. And most importantly, many of Paul's "laws" were based on the laws of the ROMANS, who were in power at the time, because in addition to being a Jew... and a Pharisee... Paul was a ROMAN. A good deal of what he taught, therefore... especially regarding women... had to do with ROMAN law. Why? Because Paul was trying to look out for AND PROTECT the individual members and their households... which the APOSTLES didn't know how to do (they were Jews, but not Romans and the Romans were tired of the Jewish rebellion... which the Jews often used the christians as scapegoats for. For example, when the Christians claimed Christ as their leader, the Jews would hand them over as traitors against Caesar. They did so with my Lord).
8. Paul knew that he couldn't let the Jewish christians just go la-dee-dahing through Jersualem, thumbing their noses at Caesar - they would have all perished... as did the Jews who adhered to the temple and the Law. So, he tried to "temper" the knew-found zeal with reason, with respect for Caesar and the "superior authorities" - however, some of the newly anointed considered it to be a divided faith and resisted. So, he tried to use the Law because (1) he knew they didn't know it like he did, and (2) he knew it would work for some (those who hadn't fully left the Law), perhaps to the preservation of many.
SO... how does one reconcile the teachings of Paul with that of Christ? It really isn't that hard:
First, Christ is ALWAYS the authority. Always. If you read where Paul said one thing (i.e., judge those on the inside), but Christ said another (i.e., stop judging), then you "listen" to Christ. Why? Because Paul isn't the Truth... and Paul can't save you. Also, if you look hard enough, you will find where Paul revises his teaching.
Second, where something from Paul seems a bit over the top... you can pretty much assume that it is, but that there was a reason. Look for the reason. For example, Paul's teaching that he didn't allow women to speak in public. This was due to ROMAN law - a woman caught speaking in a public place could be put imprisoned, even put to death... by the Romans! Or her husband could be. Or the entire congregation could have been persecuted as a result. So, Paul told the women that they needed to learn at home, from their husbands (who would go to the synagogue and learn what was going on/being said, even speak, then report back home).
But... we're talking about Jewish women, here. A man... even a husband... telling a Jewish woman what she CAN and CAN'T do? If you don't think that raised a potential problem, then you didn't pay attention to the accounts of the Jewish women in the Bible. I challenge you and anyone else here: name a weak-y mamby-pamby Israelite woman in the Bible. Name ONE. There is not ONE. Even the Samaritan woman at Jacobs well felt comfortable enough to carry on a discussion with my Lord. She was just surprised because the Jews had nothing to do with their brothers, the Samaritans, and my Lord presented as Jew.
So, how could Paul get these usually assertive women TO stay home and learn there, so as not to risk their households and the congregation? By convincing them that what he was telling them was backed by the Law. Hence, the whole "headship/subjection/head-covering" tale. And... it worked... at least for those women who didn't know any better... and for those who wickedly used such teaching to oppress women from that point on. But Christ never taught it, nor was anything like it in the Law.
Do we take issue with Paul? Not necessarily. To the extent Paul was trying to raise his own authority and credibility by misstating the Law, etc., one might consider it. But if one considered his MOTIVE... which was to protect the congregation from Jewish persecution and Roman annihilation... which things are borne out in love... one could forgive Paul. One could in either instance. But one doesn't HAVE to forgive him in the second instance because there is no law against love. And if love was the motive... and many (but not all) instances it was... then there was no "transgression."
Bottom line? Christ, the Holy Spirit, is our Teacher. Then, he was so in person; now, he is through the anointing with holy spirit. Which is why John wrote as to those who are TRYING to MISLEAD us (which may have included Paul and/or those who followed Paul).
I hope this helps and, again, I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
