Paul was clearly chosen by God to preach to the gentiles. It's obvious to see why: he was determined, resilient, utterly faithful to the cause, a brilliant theologian and almost certainly a brilliant speaker too. That his strength was also his weakness is clear from several references in Acts and he is a difficult man to like. There are times in the letters when his determination becomes dogmatic and his resilience stubbornness. He was brought up as a Jewish rabbi with the strictest moral code and he must have been horrified by the easy way of life that he came across in his journeys through the empire. I am not suggesting that any of his morals were out of keeping in the burgeoning Christian church but I do feel that it is when the church (through the centuries) gets too bogged down in maintaining 'high moral standards' that it begins to lose it's way. The pharisees and Jewish scholars whom Jesus criticised so vociferously during his ministry: were they not also men with the highest moral standards?
I sometimes read a little Chinese philosophy and there are two main schools: Confucius on the one hand and Lao Tzu on the other. Whereas Confucius is the moral teacher and pushes, Lao Tzu is the seer and guides. Sometimes Paul is the seer and guides, but when the communities he is writing to do not 'follow the guide' (quite often) he is not averse to becoming a moral teacher and doing a little pushing and shoving.
This may be appropriate in the circumstances but it needs to be borne in mind when we read the text. Don't we always need to go back to the words of Jesus himself for context?