PAUL HAD SEXUAL HANG-UPS

PAUL HAD SEXUAL HANG-UPS

Hugh Fogelman

Paul had sexual hang-ups. Perhaps the reason for this can be found in early writings. The early Jewish-Christians, called the Ebonite’s, wrote that Paul was not a Jew by birth. This belief is found in the writing of Epiphanius in the 4^th century, which states;

“They declare that Paul was raised in a pagan household. He went up to Jerusalem and when he had spent some time there, was seized with passion to marry the daughter of the high priest; and this was the reason he became a proselyte (Jew) and went through the Jewish ritual of circumcision. But when the lady rejected him, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the Sabbath and the Jewish Law” (Pamarion 30.16.6).

In Paul’s mind, he went through a very painful surgery/circumcision for nothing. Being rejected would have given Paul a reason to hate Jews and women. Epiphanies continues, “After being rejected by the priest’s daughter, he then found employment in the service of the high priest as a police informer and enforcer.” But, that is another story altogether.

There is no record that Paul was ever married. His painful experience with the priest’s daughter appears to have soured him against women in general, for Paul wrote; “It is good for a man not to touch a women” (l Corinthians 7:1). He continues to warn “For I would that all men were even as myself… It is good for them if they abide even as I.” apparently meaning unmarried. Finally, in a threatening way, Paul approves of marriage as a last resort: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7: 9). These are powerful words―it is better to marry than to burn. If that doesn't make a Christian feel guilty nothing will. Paul was so down on women that he made up his own laws: “the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth” (l Corinthians 7:39). Paul is going completely against Jewish law which permits a man to give his wife a divorce after which she is free to marry another man (Deuteronomy 24:1-2).

Paul does not believe that marriage is based on personal love, but that it only has one purpose―that of satisfying, in a legal manner, the sexual urge. Christian partners in marriage are bound to give each other the “conjugal rights” that each owes to the other: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife (l Corinthians 7:4). Paul also demanded; “those who have wives should live as though they had none” (l Corinthians 7:29). Many of the church fathers are characterized by an attitude of Paulineism―a deep hostility to women. Tertullian insisted on the renunciation of marriage, since it was based on the same act as harlotry. Tertullian’s famous defamatory view of woman is clearly revealed by his calling her the “gate through which the devil enters.” And then you have the celibate priesthood within the Catholic Church. But, again, this is another story.

Paul despised circumcision and taught against it: “And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs” (KJV Acts 21:21).

Paul also knew the Greeks were very touchy about circumcision and that Jews who wished to enter Greek sporting events naked would first have themselves “uncircumcised,” a very painful operation of skin grafting. In fact Paul warns against it when he says, “He who is circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised” (l Corinthians 7:18).

Shmuel Golding wrote: What does Paul mean by “concision” (Philippians 3:2), when he said; “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision?” To understand this word, one must look up in the original Greek New Testament? “katatomim” ― meaning mutilation. Paul has used the word sarcastically in place of the Greek word “peretomy,” which means circumcision. Paul now, after being spurned by the daughter of the high priest, considered circumcision to be mutilation.

According to the New Testament, Paul had a mission to convert those who wanted to leave polytheism for monotheism. But he only had a brief knowledge of the Hebrew Torah; the first five books of the Old Testament. Paul knew that two obstacles stood in the way of gentiles converting to his new religion, the laws and circumcision – so he eliminated them, telling them they didn’t have to obey the Hebrew god’s laws or even be circumcised. Paul told his new converts that circumcision of the heart replaces circumcision of the skin (Romans 2:25-29). Paul was right because only Jews were circumcised according to the Hebrew bible. Circumcision was a sign of the Hebrew god's covenant with the children of Israel, not gentiles.

Paul says that the Law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20)

Paul says you become dead to the Law by the body of Christ (Romans 7:4-6)

Paul says Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4)

Paul says Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Galatians 2:16 & 3:13)

Paul says that every man that is circumcised {Jews] is a debtor to do the whole Law.

To the Galatians, Paul (paraphrasing) taught that if a man is circumcised, “Christ will be of no use to him” (Galatians 5:2-3 and 6). Did Paul forget that Jesus was circumcised??

Paul had a major hang up on circumcision. He made it a point to talk about circumcision in seven of his epistles: (source: Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)

Romans:..... 16 times

1 Corinthians: 3 times

Galatians:... 13 times

Ephesians:. 1 time

Philippians: 2 times

Colossians:.. 4 times

Titus........ 1 time

Titus:....... 1 time

Book of Acts: 9 times

"If you have the Old Testament at home, if you flip the corner pages, you can see Jesus riding a horse." -Gilbert Gottfried (1955-)

RETURN