Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Recently, a friend emailed me with a very common claim, namely, that, “Paul hijacked Christianity with no personal connection with Jesus and filled his letters with personal opinions.” This could be rephrased in the more common claim: Paul invented Christianity.
This claim is especially common among Muslim apologists who use it in an attempt to explain why the Qur’an simultaneously affirms Jesus as a true prophet while also contradicting the Bible at every major point. However, since my friend is not a Muslim and is not coming at the issue from that angle, I will just deal with the question more broadly.
My friend alleges that some of the “personal opinions” of Paul that were interjected into the New Testament include: “slaves obey your masters; women not to have leadership roles in churches; homosexuality is a sin (though there is Old Testament authority for this last, Paul doesn’t seem to base his opinion on it).”
“None of [of the above] were said by Jesus and would perhaps be foreign to his teaching,” he wrote. “I think Paul has created a lot of mischief in Christianity, simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived.”
Let’s deal with this point-by-point.
No personal connection to Jesus
Paul, in fact, did have a personal connection to Jesus. This is revealed in the famous “Damascus road” accounts in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6–11 and Acts 26:12–18. Paul refers back to this experience elsewhere in his letters, though it is only laid with this level of detail in Acts, written by Paul’s traveling companion Luke.
The only way one can maintain that Paul had no connection to Jesus is to rule out the conversion experience of Paul a priori based on a presupposition. Of course, I can argue that such a presupposition is untenable, but that would take an entire post to itself. For the sake of brevity, I would just point out that it is illogical to employ such reasoning. It would go something like, “It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen because it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen therefore Paul had no personal connection to Jesus.”
Personal opinions
Yes, Paul does interject his personal opinions into his writing! However, when he does, he clearly delineates what he is saying as his personal opinion as an Apostle.
For instance, in dealing with the issue of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly distinguishes between his own statements and the Lord’s.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10, Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)…” and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul says, “To the rest I say, (I, not the Lord)…” This example shows that Paul was not in the business of putting words in the mouth of Jesus. Paul had no problem showing when he was giving his own charge and when it was a statement made by the Lord Jesus, as it was in this case (Matthew 5:32).
Yet it is important to note that other Apostles recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture from the earliest days of Christianity, as seen the case of Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16).
Paul’s “personal opinions” and the Law
Out of the three examples, two are directly from the Mosaic Law. Obviously the Mosaic Law couldn’t have stated that women should not preach in the church because the Church did not yet exist and wouldn’t for over 1,000 years.
The claim that there is only Old Testament authority for the last of the examples is false. The same goes for the claim that Paul does not base his statements on the Law.
It is abundantly clear that Paul actually does derive his statements on homosexual activity from the Law.
For instance, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul mentions homosexuality in the context of the type of people the Law was laid down for (1 Timothy 1:9-11). This short list indicts all people, just as Paul does elsewhere (Romans 3:23), showing that all people require the forgiveness that can only be found through faith in Jesus Christ.
When Paul deals with it elsewhere, he mentions it in the context of other activities explicitly prohibited by the Law (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), again going back to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ sets apart (sanctifies) His people and justifies them.
As for the command for slaves to obey their masters, this is regularly claimed to be objectionable by critics. By way of introduction, is important to distinguish between what we have in our mind about the institution of slavery as Americans and the institution of slavery as it existed in Paul’s day. After all, Paul explicitly listed “enslaverers” (or man-stealers) in the same list mentioned above (1 Tim 1:10). Since the entire institution of slavery in the United States was built upon the kidnapping of people, it is clearly radically different from what Paul spoke of. Furthermore, the stealing of a man was punishable by death under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16). The practice of slavery in America would never have existed if the Bible was actually being followed.
Paul also exhorted his readers to buy their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7:21) and instructing the master of a runaway slave to treat him as “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (Philemon 11). Paul grounded his statements in the defense of “the name of God and the teaching.” Paul said that bondservants should “regard their masters as worthy of all honor,” not just for the sake of doing so, but so there might be no chance to slander the name of God and the gospel.
The fact is that Paul knew the Law quite well (Philippians 3:5-6) and the Law does deal with slavery.
Ultimately, the claim made by my friend requires more fleshing out on his end and some evidence on his part in order to be more fully dealt with.
Paul’s teachings foreign to Jesus’ teachings?
This is another common claim. First off, one must ask if this statement implies that Jesus would simply have to repeat everything Paul said and vice-versa or else they would remain foreign.
The fact is that there is nothing contradictory between Paul’s writings and Jesus’ teaching. One must wonder why Luke – a traveling companion of Paul and the author of Luke-Acts – would have no problem writing the gospel that bears his name if he perceived such a contradiction. Furthermore, one must wonder why this apparent conflict was lost on the earliest Christians, including the Apostle Peter, who viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (see above).
In affirming the Law (Matthew 5:17), Jesus affirmed all that Paul that was clearly grounded in the Law. Furthermore, if there was a real contradiction between Paul’s writings and the teachings of Jesus, Paul would have been rejected, instead of accepted as he has always been.
The Christian community existed before Paul became a Christian, as is clearly seen by the fact that he was persecuting Christians (Acts 8:1,3), and he even met with the leaders of the early church. They did not reject Paul, but instead affirmed what he had been teaching (Galatians 2:2,9). This makes it even clearer that Paul could not have invented or hijacked Christianity.
As for the claim that Paul has had such a large impact “simply because he wrote a lot and his letters have survived,” all one has to do is look at the other early Christian writings that survived in order to see that is not a valid metric.
We have seen that the claim that “Paul hijacked Christianity” is without evidence. While I have taken the burden of proof upon myself in responding to this claim, in reality the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim in the first place. No such evidence has been presented and no substantive evidence can be presented since Paul did not invent Christianity or hijack Christianity or anything similar to it. Instead, Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, something that he clearly did by establishing churches and penning many letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we can still read today.
When one reads the gospels and the other writings contained in the New Testament, the message is cohesive and clear: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23), God demands complete perfection (Mt 5:48) and all we have earned through our sin is death (Ro 6:23) and hell. Yet God offers the free gift of eternal life to all who repent and believe (Mk 1:15, Ro 10:9–11) in Jesus Christ, who died as a propitiation (Ro 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 Jn 4:10) for all who would ever believe in Him (Jn 6:44) and rose from the grave three days later, forever defeating sin and death. Those who believe in Him can know (1 John 5:13) that they have passed from death to life (Jn 5:24) and will not be condemned (Jn 3:18), but will be given eternal life by Jesus Christ (Jn 6:39-40). Paul and Jesus in no way contradict each other on what the gospel is, in fact the four gospels and Paul’s letters (along with the rest of the New Testament) form one beautiful, cohesive truth.
they certainly did.
Luke never met Jesus either, don't forget.
After Paul's self-Apostolic anointment, he never even bothered to go to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles for some years - he held them in disdain, referring to them as the "so-called Pillars of the Church" - The Apostles, in the beginning, referred to Paul a false prophet. It's ALL in the Bible - yet people have a hard time really seeing what they're reading. the mind shuts out what they haven't heard in their churches. BTW, you do realize that it was James the Just that was the leader of the followers after the Crucifixion, right? http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/infighting_paul_james_peter.htm
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
And just what did Paul have to gain by becoming a follower of Christ? Have you ever actually READ the book of Acts?
What about this account of what he endured?
2 Corinthians 11:23-29 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
Men who seek power don't buck the prevailing political systems.
It appears that you're projecting about Paul.
The witness of the spirit is all anyone needs to determine whether Paul was sent by Jesus to preach to the Gentiles,
The early Church were all out of Israel (the 3000 were numbered, but later as Gentiles, were never counted) and while they understood the core of those things in the Feast Days, the Law and the prophets, those things which Christ had come as promised to fulfill with his teaching, death and resurrection, the Gentiles did not have that background, this is why God sent us a Torah expert. The rest were all able men but of secular occupations and learning, Paul was a Hebrew scholar.
Paul tended toward arrogance, he was impressively scholastic, if he had been writing only secular books he would now be celebrated with the greatest minds of world history, and this is why he says God did not heal his ‘thorn in the flesh’ (I think it was his eyesight but we’re never told)
Years ago watching the movie Jurassic park, I remember commenting on the scene where the billionaire owner talking about his grand-kids being lost, when he said, who better to bring them back safely through a dinosaur park than a dinosaur expert. That’s what he did with Paul, he gave us someone that could help us get up to speed quickly with what we needed to know and not get lost in the legal minutia that was now to be written in our hearts (spirit) and not for temporarily blinded Israel, (rejected flesh)
The Church is not under the law, or under the Feast Days, or in what day we worship, however never think the Sabbath is no longer Saturday, but worshiping on Sunday for the church is just fine, that’s what our Torah expert Paul explained to us. Jesus said if you love me you’ll keep my commandments, yet understand the entire sermon on the mount was about the impossibility of ever keeping the law, this was for Israel first, but they rejected it, and he made it clear they had to reject it first (before) the Gentiles could be brought in,
Equally important, it was through Paul’s writings that we’re told of things to come about the second coming and the falling away, and that man of sin being revealed,
The Church came in by the spirit, which by a natural accounting is very nebulous even to our spiritual understandings (the law is written in our hearts) Israel is blinded now temporarily, and for the world it is a complete mystery to the natural mind, it is even foolishness. Paul said we would see that day approaching,
These are some of the very things the spirits at work in this world, principalities and powers, wickedness in positions of authority and also operating as wolves in the fold seek to diminish the understanding of, always remember that Satan is the accuser of the brethren, and his time accusing Paul is not over,
“Paul said he saw a blinding light and heard a voice. That’s very convenient for a man who seeks power, and he clearly sought power initially by persecuting Christians. Paul seems a little shady to me.”
So you believe a man who persecuted Christians - and knew more persecution was coming to Christians - chose to become a Christian for personal gain? Really? What would he gain but persecution? He spent decades traveling and preaching, was shipwrecked, stoned and left for dead, beaten, imprisoned - and all of that suffering could have been foreseen in his own career as a persecutor. And you think he knowingly CHOSE that for PERSONAL GAIN? What pray tell did he gain of a worldly nature when he gave up his life to carry the gospel to people all over the Roman Empire, suffer persecution, and die as a martyr?
Ever heard of Che Guevara?
Are you perchance Roman Catholic?
Power, influence, fame, immortality... he got them. I have no doubt he really believed he was chosen. Of course, so did David Koresh.
It’s nearly certain, though, that there would be no Christianity without Paul’s efforts.
Thank you.
I figured this out all on my own.
According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical but which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura" or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"
The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God" either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching--not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel--which we will look at below.
In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:
1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture--not tradition and not even His own divine power as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's Word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture--not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity or that Jesus has two natures (God and man) or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity--being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.
3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition--for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust Sacred Tradition, then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it; and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.
If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture effectively leaves the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added, and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?
4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in Sacred Tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.
5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does. Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.
Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church--descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater; but this cannot be since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Conclusion
Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid--fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
You’re using a premise - sola scriptura - that is unbiblical to say the least.
Also, show me from the Bible alone that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired. Show me where it says Matthew wrote a gospel at all. Can you? Show me - using the Bible alone - what books belong in the Bible. If you’re going to demand I use sola scriptura, I’m going to demand you prove your premise and prove sola scriptura. Can you do it?
The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God--to not go beyond the written Word (1 Cor. 4:6). Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God's Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. The Christian church was under persecution, and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution. Catholicism, as an organization with a central figure located in Rome, did not occur for quite some time in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, it discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me . . . " (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired, and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself that worked through the Apostles.
Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
I think that answers your questions on using the Bible.
However, you haven't and can't answer mine.
“Power,”
What power? Be specific. As commander of troops who could arrest and drag Christians back to Jerusalem he had more worldly power than he ever did as a Christian.
“influence,”
Over whom exactly?
“fame,”
Among whom exactly? And does he ever once act like that matters to him?
“immortality...”
You mean in the worldly sense, right? You actually think he knew he would be remembered?
“I have no doubt he really believed he was chosen. Of course, so did David Koresh.”
No, David Koresh was a charlatan and knew it - that’s why he lived as he lived. Paul’s behavior was so above reproach that even his captors knew him to be innocent of any genuine wrongdoing (Acts 25). Koresh on the other hand claimed to be the Messiah and raped little girls. The two men are not even remotely comparable.
Saul/Paul was *not* a Jewish rabbi. His teaching was not of Judaism. He was a Hellenist.
Anyone who thinks Paul hijacked Christianity doesn’t believe in the difference between Jew and Gentile, and may believe that Paul has hijacked their own form of Christianity, not God’s.
If you’re going to post something from the internet, at least have the common courtesy to post a link to its source: http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Christian/3657295
You are - apparently - unable to answer any of my questions about your faulty premise (sola scriptura). Don’t feel bad. Matt Slick can’t answer them either.
Well stated.
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and explicitly sent to the Romans.
It is interesting to note that as a Pharisee, Paul’s soul was still scarred by his past associations with fellow Jews and always planned to return to Jerusalem to teach the Jews about Christ, but in God the Father’s Plan, Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles, not an Apostle to the Jews.
Nearly every time Paul tried to return to Jerusalem or change his travel itinerary, God’s Providence in logistics drove events, whether they were earthquakes or storms or being freed out of prison.
I’m glad you mention scripture.
Let’s look at your points.
RE: Luke never met Jesus either, don’t forget.
No I did not. But the early Christian church DID accept his gospel and most of what he wrote in his gospels are IN HARMONY with the other three.
If you argument is “we should not accept as authentic anything written by those who are not of the twelve”, then we only have two gospels to work with.
This is CLEARLY NOT the stance of the early church.
If you don’t accept the gospels of Luke and Mark as authentic, why don’t you tell us openly?
The theory that the apostle Paul was a false prophet and not a true follower of Christ is usually put forth by those of the Hebrew roots movement persuasion, among others. They believe Christians should submit to the Old Testament Law, but Paul clearly disagrees with them, proclaiming that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15), but the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). Rather than submitting to God’s Word, the Hebrew roots movement simply dismisses Paul altogether and claims that Paul was a false apostle and that his writings should not be in the Bible.
But Paul’s apostolic authority has been well documented in Scripture, beginning with his Damascus Road experience which changed him from a Christ-hating persecutor of Christians to the foremost spokesman for the faith. His astonishing change of heart is one of the clearest indications of his anointing by the Lord Jesus Himself.
When the Paul first came to Jerusalem after his conversion to Christianity, he tried to associate with the disciples, but they were all afraid of him and didn’t believe he was a true convert (Acts 9:26) because of his past persecution of Christians.
Today, some people feel the same way about Paul (you included).
Occasionally, a charge is made that Paul was a Pharisee who tried to corrupt the teachings of Christ and that his writings should have no place in the Bible. This accusation can be put to rest by examining his conversion experience and his adherence to Christ and His teachings.
Paul first appears in Scripture as a witness to the martyrdom of Stephen: “When they had driven him [Stephen] out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul” (Acts 7:58). “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death” (Acts 8:1). The words “hearty agreement” indicate active approval, not just passive consent. Why would Paul agree with the murder of Stephen?
Saul the Pharisee, at the time did not possess the true knowledge of Christ. But it would not be long before Saul the Pharisee would become Paul the evangelist for Christ.
In the three versions of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1-9, 22:6-11, 26:9-20), there are repeated elements which appear to be central to his mission and commissioning.
First, it marked his conversion to Christianity; second, it constituted his call to be a prophet; and third, it served as his commission to be an apostle.
These three points may be broken down into the following, more intimate considerations:
(1) Paul was specifically chosen, set aside, and prepared by the Lord for the work that he would do;
(2) Paul was sent as a witness to not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well;
(3) Paul’s evangelistic mission would encounter rejection and require suffering;
(4) Paul would bring light to people who were born into and currently lived in darkness;
(5) Paul would preach repentance was required prior to a person’s acceptance into the Christian faith;
(6) Paul’s witness would be grounded in space-time history and be based on his Damascus Road experience—what he had personally seen and heard in a real location that would be known to all who lived in Damascus.
Before Gamaliel’s pupil came to a proper assessment of the ministry entrusted to him by God and the death of Jesus, a revolution had to take place in his life and thought.
Paul would later say that he was “apprehended” by Jesus (Philippians 3:12) on the road to Damascus, a term that means to make something one’s own or gain control of someone through pursuit.
In Acts 9, we clearly see miracles on display in Paul’s conversion, the point of which were to make clear that God is in control and directing all the events, so that Paul will undertake certain tasks God has in mind, something the former Saul would never have had any intention of doing.
Although there are many observations that can be made about Paul’s Damascus Road conversion, there are two key items of interest.
First is the fact that Paul’s life would become centered on Christ after his experience. After his encounter with Jesus, Paul’s understanding of the Messiah had been revolutionized, and it was not long before he is proclaiming, “He [Jesus] is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20).
Second, we note that in Paul’s conversion there are no positive antecedents or precursory events that led him from being a zealous opponent to a fervent proponent of Christ.
One minute Paul had been an enemy of Jesus, and the next he had become a captive to the Christ he had once persecuted. Paul says, “By the grace of God, I am what I am” (1 Corinthians 15:10), indicating he was transformed by God, became truly spiritual, and he was one whom Christ possessed and was now a Christ-bearer himself.
After the Damascus experience, Paul first went to Arabia, but whether he actually began his missionary work there is unknown. What is more likely is that he earnestly desired a time of quiet recollection. Then after a short stay in Jerusalem, he worked as a missionary in Syria and Cilicia (that is for the most part in Antioch on the Orontes and in his native city of Tarsus) and after that in company with Barnabas in Cyprus, in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia.
So Paul, the former cold aggressor and legalist, had now become a person who could write of the key attribute that witnessed above everything else in 1 Corinthians 13 – love for God and those around him. The one who was supremely educated in knowledge had come to the point of saying that knowledge devoid of love only makes one arrogant, but love edifies (1 Corinthians 8:1).
The book of Acts and Paul’s letters testify to a tenderness that had come over the apostle for both the unbelieving world and those inside the Church. As to the latter, in his farewell address to the Ephesian believers in Acts 20, he tells them that “night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:31). He tells the Galatian believers they are his “little children” (Galatians 4:19). He reminds the Corinthians that whenever they experience pain, he is wounded as well (2 Corinthians 11:29).
He speaks of believers in Philippi as “having them in his heart” (Philippians 1:7). He tells the Thessalonian church that he “abounds” in love for them (1 Thessalonians 3:12) and demonstrated that fact by living among them and helping build up a Christian community (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1–2). Repeatedly throughout his writings, Paul reminds his believing readers of his care and love for them.
Paul’s attitude toward unbelievers is one of caring and deep concern as well, with perhaps the clearest example of this being his articulation in the letter to the Romans of the sorrow he felt for his fellow Israelites who had not come to faith in Christ: “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:1-3).
This type of angst exhibited by Paul for unbelievers was also not restricted to his own nationality, but extended to non-Jews as well.
As just one example, when he entered Athens, the text in Acts 17:16 makes clear that Paul was both repulsed and “greatly distressed” over the idolatrous situation the city was in. Yet he deeply cared about God’s rightful place as well as the people who were involved in false worship, and he immediately went about trying to engage the pagan unbelievers in discourse about the gospel which had been entrusted to him (Acts 17:17-34). And at the heart of his message was Jesus.
Some try to argue that the picture Paul paints of Jesus in his Epistles does not match the Christ portrayed in the Gospels. Such a position could not be further from the truth. From Paul’s letters, we learn the following of Jesus:
• He had Jewish ancestry
• He was of Davidic descent
• He was born of a virgin
• He lived under the law
• He had brothers
• He had 12 disciples
• He had a brother named James
• He lived in poverty
• He was humble and meek
• He was abused by the Romans
• He was deity
• He taught on the subject of marriage
• He said to love one’s neighbor
• He spoke of His second coming
• He instituted the Lord’s Supper
• He lived a sinless life
• He died on the cross
• The Jews put Him to death
• He was buried
• He was resurrected
• He is now seated at right hand of God
Beyond these facts is Paul’s testimony that he left everything to follow Christ (the true test of a disciple as outlined by Jesus in Luke 14:26-33). Paul writes, “But whatever things [his Jewish background and benefits that he had just listed] were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:7–11).
Paul’s teachings and proclamation of Jesus were not popular. If the success of an evangelistic mission were to be measured by the amount of opposition, his mission would be regarded as a catastrophic failure. This would be in keeping with Christ’s statement made to Ananias: “For I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:16). The book of Acts alone chronicles more than 20 different episodes of rejection and opposition to Paul’s message of salvation. We should also take seriously the litany of opposition and rejection that Paul lays out in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. In truth, such hostility and dismissal is to be expected, given his audience. A crucified deliverer was to the Greeks an absurd contradiction in terms, just as to Jews a crucified Messiah was a piece of scandalous blasphemy.
Paul’s enemies comprised three.
First, there were the spiritual enemies indicated in his writings that he was acutely aware of (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2:18).
Next, there were his already mentioned initial target audience of both Jews and Gentiles, many of whom would mistreat and dismiss him.
Lastly came the one that, it could be argued, perhaps caused him the most grief—the early Church itself ( you mentioned it above).
The fact that Paul was seen as strange and questionable, not merely by fellow Jews but also by a number of fellow Jewish Christians, was no doubt hurtful to him. It would be one thing for Paul’s authority and authenticity to be challenged outside the Body of Christ, but inside was a different foe with which he had to wrestle.
First Corinthians 9:1-3 is an example: Paul insists to the Church that he was commissioned by Christ (others include Romans 1:5; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1). Some even believe that 2 Corinthians 11:26 suggests that there was a plot to murder Paul; a plot formed by other Christians.
Such combined opposition—lost humanity, spiritual adversaries, and distrusting brethren—certainly must have caused the apostle to despair at times, with evidence in his writings that he carried out his missionary work with the prospect of martyrdom before his eyes (Philippians 2:17), which ultimately turned out to be true.
Paul was beheaded, tradition asserts, under the persecution of Nero near the third milestone on the Ostian Way.
Constantine built a small basilica in Paul’s honor by AD 324, which was discovered in 1835 during excavations preceding the erection of the present basilica. On one of the floors was found the inscription PAVLO APOSTOLO MART – “To Paul, apostle and martyr”.
So, do all of the above show that he was a SHADY character?
Well, based on the WHOLE historical narrative of Luke’s ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ( not simply a few chosen verses that ignore the others), the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWS THE ANSWER IS ‘NO’.
So was Paul for real? The EVIDENCE from history and from his own writings declares that he was. Paul’s 180 degree turnaround from his Pharisaic life is not disputed by any learned scholar of history, both secular and Christian. The only question is: what caused his about-face? What would cause a very learned Jewish Pharisee to suddenly embrace the very movement he violently opposed and be so committed to it that he would die a martyr’s death?
The answer is contained within Paul’s writings and the book of Acts. In Galatians Paul summarizes his story in this way:
“For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, ‘He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.’ And they were glorifying God because of me” (Galatians 1:13–24).
Paul’s very life testifies to the truthfulness of what happened to him. In that respect, he was very much like Tom Tarrants. A dramatically changed life is hard to argue with. And what finally happened to Tom Tarrants? J. Edgar Hoover wouldn’t believe that Tarrants had actually become a Christian so he sent an FBI agent into the prison disguised as an inmate whose job it was to befriend Tarrants and find out the truth. About a week later, that FBI agent became a Christian and reported back to Hoover that Tarrants indeed was no longer the man he used to be.
A number of people petitioned that Tarrants be released, and eight years into his sentence, Tarrants was paroled and left prison. He went to seminary, earned a doctorate of ministry degree, and went on to serve as president of the C. S. Lewis Institute for 12 years. Currently, he serves as the Institute’s director of ministry.
“You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16) and the fruits of the apostle Paul leave no doubt that he was very real indeed.
So the answer is this — PAUL WAS AN APOSTLE OF CHRIST AS CHRONICLED BY LUKE ( the same one you refer to in the above post of yours ). So, if you accept Luke’s narrative regarding the Apostle’s initial suspicion of Paul, why do you not accept the other narratives regarding their ACCEPTANCE OF HIM, His MIRACLES, and even the testimony of Peter?
Gamaliel was Paul’s teacher (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was not a Hellenist.
Paul was an Apostle. He was also an Israelite like the other Apostles. He was on a special mission to the Gentiles (he had Roman citizenship for example and was highly educated), yet he was still an Apostles to the Jews.
I'd still put Paul in the same category with the myriad of other men over the centuries who claimed power and enlightenment from a diety. Indeed, I seem to remember European kings believed they ruled by divine right. Many of them met with violent ends... I suspect they believed God would protect them right up till that last moment. It's pretty common, apparently, to say (and maybe even believe) that God has spoken to you, chosen you, you are special, you have a fantastical destiny in store... I actually have a schizophrenic ex-boyfriend who went through this in 2010-2011. He wandered around India for quite a while, convinced that God was talking to him and warning him about 2012 and the end of the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.