Paul: the Man

 

Is it not strange that in a story about the birth of a god and the emergence of a new religion, we can find hardly any information about the life of the god/man or that of his brothers, disciples, and family? Why are the names and number of his disciples a confused jumble of misinformation? Why are all traces of then-popular religious orders and warring sects practically erased from history? Why did this god/man, and all those associated with him, pale into insignificance while the teachings of one self-proclaimed evangelist swept the world with a religious fervor that grew into the greatest religion on earth? Wait! I can almost hear your objection; "Are you implying that Jesus 'paled into insignificance?'" Other than his name, yes; because the Christian message was not derived from Jesus' teachings. The world is indebted to Paul for that dubious gift.

Paul of Tarsus is the only character in the New Testament who gives us a resume of his qualifications for the office of Founder of Christianity. It is quite an impressive resume. Assuming that what we are told is true, he was a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, a Pharisaic Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, and a student of Gamaliel, one of the most noted rabbis of that time. Paul also tells us he was a free-born Roman citizen. Regarding previous experience, he includes the position of Deputy of the High Priest, licensed to apprehend and imprison those considered heretics. When he submitted this resume, his position would have been Apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.

This was the basis of his last speech at Jerusalem, delivered to the Jewish mob and Roman guards who had arrested him. If a member of that crowd, or a prospective employer, had studied his resume, they would have deduced additional information about Paul. The fact that he was a free-born Roman, a Pharisaic Jew, a student of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, and an employee of the High Priest, indicates he came from a very influential and wealth family. Otherwise, he would not have attained such a high degree in education, nor would he have moved in that prestigious circle.

However, personal references from his early life cast shadows upon his character.¹ His religious affiliations and political views, coupled with references to members of Herod's household, indicate that he may have had ties to Herod's ruling party, the Herodians.² It is speculated that since Roman citizenships were first awarded to Herod the Great and his family and friends for their role in welcoming the invaders, Paul's parents may have received their citizenship in that manner. And there are other factors which support such a theory; a letter referring to a kinsmen, named Herodion (Romans 16:11), and the mention of one of his converts at Antioch, named Manaen, who was “brought up with Herod the tetrarch” (Acts 13:1). While such evidence might seem to link Saul to the Herodians, we should not overlook his relationship with the high priest, where the role as henchman might indicate employment with the temple guard.

Another explanation for Paul's Roman citizenship may be found in the fact he was a citizen of Tarsus, a city in what is now Turkey, which indicates that he and his parents were Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews, and far removed from the influences of the Herodian court. In Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, A. N. Wilson speculates that, since Paul's professional claim was that of a tentmaker, it was most probably a trade learned from his parents. Mr. Wilson further speculates that, since Cilicia was a thriving Roman province and the Roman Legions needed tents, Paul's parents or grandparents might have contracted to make those tents and became wealthy enough to purchase their citizenship.³

Whichever thought we might pursue, neither would clash with the character of the monster we know as Saul, as he was named prior to his conversion. If we assume he was a Pharisee, on the order of his teacher Gamaliel, or Josephus who despised the Zealots and blamed them for the destruction of his country, then we might understand his hatred of the Nazarenes. Because one of the most outstanding differences between the Nazarenes and Pharisaic Jews was the degree to which the Pharisees accepted the Romans. Here we should discern the first warning signal of what is to come. Paul boasts of being a Pharisee. He is proud of his Roman citizenship, and has no qualms about flaunting it in times of need.⁴ On the other hand, Jesus’ values were just the opposite; he despised the Pharisees and was crucified by the Romans. When arrested, Paul used the power of his citizenship in his defense (Acts 22:25), ingratiating himself with the Roman rulers, Felix and Festus, and he gained an audience with King Agrippa. Never one to miss an opportunity, he even tried to convert them. To the contrary, Jesus refused to even recognize the Gentiles’ authority and certainly never offered them salvation. How then can it be said that Paul was Jesus’ disciple?

The majority of nationalistic Jews hated the Romans and detested their money. The Essenes were awaiting the return of their Messiah to drive the Gentiles from their country, and the Zealots and Sicarii were trying to incite the people to rebellion. We have repeatedly mentioned riots protesting the Romans’ presence but Paul welcomed them and urged submission.

 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation… For for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due: custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour (Romans 13:1-2, 6-7).

 

Can you picture Jesus or John the Baptist proclaiming the Herodians as “God’s ministers”? Or urging the Jews to pay tribute to the Romans? They didn’t even respect the Pharisees and Sadducees! According to Josephus' Antiquities, Herod’s son, Antipas, even chopped off John’s head because he feared John would incite the people.⁵ Considering Paul’s boast of Roman citizenship and his ties to the Herodians, the Pharisees, and Gamaliel, one can’t help but wonder if his entire ministry might not have been a covert mission to undermine and destroy the fanatical faith of the Essenes and Zealots. It certainly would have been the most effective way possible to achieve that end. Were it not for the depth and intensity of Paul's doctrines, as well as his dedication, I might even give that thought serious consideration. Regardless of speculation, there can be no doubt that Paul was, at the very least, a Roman sympathizer.

There were many who believed Paul was a charlatan. According to the Ebionites, one of the last surviving branches of the Nazarenes, Paul was not a Pharisee and his parents were Gentile converts.⁶ The Ebionites had no regard for Paul's ministry. They believed he had founded a new religion out of selfish motives. (Please note: this is evidence that Paul did start a new religion, and not one shared with the Apostles.) They did not accept Paul’s view that Jesus was divine; they saw Jesus as human, sent to begin the new era. This was the Apostles’ concept of Jesus—a man, the messenger or Messiah but not divine.

The Ebionites accepted the Torah, obeyed the Law of Moses, and still regarded themselves as Jews. As the true successors to the Nazarenes, they (not Paul) transmitted the purer teachings of Jesus. Their founders—Peter and James—had known Jesus in life. While their accusations conflict with the generally perceived character of Paul, in this study we will see that his actions do give credence to the Ebionites' beliefs.

We should question the credibility of our information for this portion of our study and establish some guidelines. There are basically two stories of Paul's life and ministry found in the New Testament: Paul's own version, stated briefly in Galatians and his other letters, and detailed accounts in the Acts of the Apostles. However, the two accounts are contradictory. To resolve the differences, we must credit Paul's version over that of Acts, simply because his works were written first, and despite the Peter/rock fable, they are the foundation of Christianity.

When we study Acts from this perspective, it becomes evident that the author, supposedly Luke, was promoting a Christian Paul. This statement may at first seem confusing, as all Christendom knows Paul was a Christian. Were the believers not first called Christians at Antioch, where Paul was preaching? Yes, according to Acts 11:26, but how many times did Paul use the term? Not once. In fact, it's only used three times in the entire New Testament,—twice in Acts and once in I Peter.

The inconsistencies and intents in Luke's writings are apparent to many theologians, biographers and other specialists in Pauline studies. Marion Soards, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teachings, reaches this conclusion:

 

The standard scholarly explanation of these differences between Acts and Paul (as known from his letters) is expressed in terms of the known theological tendencies of the author of Acts, Luke. It is clear that Luke has an overarching concern to demonstrate the continuity of God's saving acts in human history. For him, Jerusalem itself is the center of God's past involvement with humanity; it is the center from which the gospel of Jesus Christ goes out. By bringing Paul to Jerusalem almost immediately after his conversion and by having him endorsed by the twelve apostles there, a linearity is shown to run from God, through Jesus Christ, through the apostles and the church in Jerusalem, to Paul and the churches he founded outside Palestine. In other words, Luke, writing in about A.D. 90, retells the story of earliest Christianity in order to document the continuity of the proclamation of the gospel and, thereby, to demonstrate the unity of the church in his own day (The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teachings, p. 12).

 

Professor Soards cites one of the major conflicts noted above—Luke's endeavor to depict Paul as a Christian, even though Paul never sanctioned such divisions. Quite the contrary. Paul repeatedly identified himself as a Jew of Tarsus and a Pharisee; he never acknowledged the Christian identity.⁷ In fact, he exhibited distain for divisive labels.⁸ Christian was the appellation later assumed by many sects, and some even used Paul's doctrines as a basis for their teachings.

Another reason for skepticism is the scholarly recognition of the We Document in Acts which marks a division in the sixteenth chapter indicating texts were inserted, or there was a different author. This is how Robert Eisenman describes it:

 

…The We Document in Acts is in the first person plural—therefore its designation. It intrudes variously after line 16:10. Seemingly it is a diary or travel document of some kind. For some, it is the only authentic material in Acts, though it is neither without problems nor continuous. It is even possible to contend that it is the real or authentic historical core of Acts and the basis of the whole presentation (James the Brother of Jesus, chap. 4, p. 51).

 

However, despite the conflicts, we will include the references to Paul in Acts throughout this study, mainly because any agreement between the writings of Acts and the letters of Paul will indicate certainty, but all references should be viewed with reservation.

Paul was not an uneducated herdsman or farmer. He was dedicated, charismatic, and intelligent, as his epistles prove. His writings blend Jewish Scriptures, philosophy, and pagan mysteries into a smooth allegorical structure that has baffled millions of adherents, and still does so, even today. In James the Brother of Jesus, Robert Eisenman states that Paul was probably the greatest rhetorician ever produced in the West, and I concur with that assessment. In Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, A. N. Wilson describes him as "one of the most important and influential figures who ever lived" and, "one of the most stupendous religious poets and visionaries whom the world has ever known". A number of theologians have declared that he was one of the great figures in Greek literature.⁹

 

Together with Philo of Alexandria, he is the great conduit through which Jewish concepts and stories and patterns of thought came to the Gentile world. As these ideas came through the channel, they passed into a new intellectual world; the attempt to translate Hebrew ideas into a Gentile setting, above all a Greek setting, meant using words either with new sense or with great boldness (A. N. Wilson, Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, chap. 2, p. 28).

 

Paul wrote, spoke, and thought in Greek. Even so, it should be noted that he used common Greek, rather than classical. Although he claimed to be a Pharisee according to the Law, he seems to have read the Scriptures from the Septuagint instead of Hebrew, as would be expected in Pharisaic studies. His understanding of Hebraic Scriptures, Jewish tradition, and his driving perseverance, coupled with a truly astounding persuasive ability, crowned him with the title, Apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul is called "Saul" when he first appears to New Testament readers, at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1). At that time, he was a young man, "consenting" to Stephen's death. It is easy to envision a young man, perhaps a student, caught up in the excitement of an angry mob as they stone a blasphemer, but such an event introduces a very puzzling question concerning both Paul and his teacher Gamaliel. According to the Original Encyclopedia, the Gamaliel in question was a highly honored member of the Jewish Sanhedrin court. Because of his request for lenience for Peter and the apostles in Acts 5:34, he later obtained the reputation of pacifist in Christian circles, and some even claim he was a secret Christian.¹⁰ If he truly was a pacifist, and he was Paul's teacher, then we have to question the effectiveness of that training, when we consider the hatred and viciousness with which Paul performed his role as enforcer for the court. However, the brutal standard of values prevalent in Palestine at that time might provide an explanation to this conflict.

The general attitude at the council, mentioned in Acts 5:34, was one of hostile intent. Gamaliel's reason for sparing Peter and his associates was not his concern for suspected blasphemers but his fear of offending God. That passage gives us a good insight into the mentality of the Pharisees and the Jewish council, and offers a powerful clue as to the doctrine of the Apostles.

First, we find that the council members were unsure about the source of Peter and John's power. Gamaliel suggested that they wait and see whether it be of God. Secondly, Peter's message had to be of the Messiah, and not the Christ, otherwise there would have been no uncertainty in the council. Toleration of messianic expectations within the ranks of the high priests was limited, to say the least; tolerance for someone attempting to make a god of that same messiah would have been nil. Even so, in the first century, the majority of common working-class Jews viewed the Pharisees as the "good guys," just as Christians today applaud those who protect the integrity of God's Word.

When next we hear of Paul, he is older and a persecutor of the Nazarenes. The first part of Acts chapter 9 tells of his conversion. How accurate is the account? Who knows? For though Paul does confirm the event (Galatians 1:13-16), he doesn’t confirm the story. In Acts 9:7, the writer states that those who accompanied Paul “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man". This is one of many contradictions we find in the story of Paul. In Acts 22:9, the statement is reversed—those with him saw the light, but heard not the voice. The least we can infer from this contradiction is a copying error.

That something happened to Paul and changed him cannot be denied. However, even if we consider the account of his conversion to be valid, we still have only the word of Luke regarding what that "something" was, and Luke was not present at the event. I stress this point for a reason; if we have no witness to substantiate Paul's conversion we have only an unsubstantiated story to validate his entire ministry. In effect, the only evidence we have is Paul’s own word that Jesus, from the beyond, called him to a ministry that no one, not even the Apostles who trained at Jesus' feet, had ever heard about. And why was Saul called in such a manner, when it was necessary that a replacement for Judas be one who had known the master personally and had been taught firsthand (Acts 1:21&22)?

Many times I have heard Christians testify, or ministers declare from the pulpit, that God "told" them a certain thing, or "impressed" upon them to do something. Perhaps it was something as simple as witnessing to a particular person or as in Paul's case, as serious as going into the missionary field but whatever the purpose, the evaluation of both the call and the commitment were based upon faith. The power of such faith may be measured by the depth of commitment. It requires little faith to tell an acquaintance about Jesus, or witness to a fellow-worker; but to make a total commitment, as Paul did, requires a complete surrender to a perceived idea. As Paul put it:

 

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life…our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin (Romans 6:4&6).

 

This was Paul's epiphany. Whether or not any credence can be given to the story of a miraculous vision in Acts, there can be no doubt that Paul had some type of amazing revelation. Something inspired him to revert from an angry and violent persecutor to a loving, concerned pacifist. According to A. N. Wilson:

 

The revelation or apocalypse came upon Paul instantaneously, but we discern from his autobiographical reflexions that it took him at least three years for its implications to sink in;  three years before he turned back to meet Peter and James in Jerusalem (Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, chap. 4, p. 71).

 

Beginning in the Garden of Eden, sin is prevalent throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and is a generally recognized force in almost all societies. Yahweh cursed all creation because of sin. Numerous times, sin brought His wrath upon the Israelites and their Gentile neighbors. Because of sin, Egypt was plagued, the Canaanite dwellers were destroyed before the Israelites, and Israel and Judah were punished for repeated sins. Men sinned because they were weak, or erred in judgment. The children in the wilderness sought other gods, King Saul was vain, David was covetous, and at times, Yahweh "hardened" the hearts of others. In every case, there was one common denominator. Whether the offender was tempted, foolish, rebellious, or seduced by other gods, the sin was disobedience to Yahweh, the God of Israel—such is the definition of sin.

There were instances in which persons, or even whole nations, were led astray by an evil spirit. God might even condemn all people for being wicked, but He never perceived that mankind was hopelessly lost to demonic possession. From the time of Noah, no matter how depraved or wicked mankind became, there was always the Law—present salvation and the promise of God's future triumph.

But Paul had a different vision. In his view, this world and all in it were wicked, corrupt, and ruled by Satan. The Law wasn't working. All men were evil. Judea was overrun by foreigners, the temple was desecrated, and the people were so corrupt they could never obtain God's mercy. The old customs were being cast aside for Gentile values. The Law was compromised and diluted, unable to save them. Was God helpless before the gods of the invading cultures? Had He cast away His people? God forbid! There had to be another explanation. Mr. Wilson, referring to man's need for a god, thrusts straight to the heart of the matter:

 

This is genial, even uplifting, but to the restless and almost Nietzschean mind of Paul, it leaves unanswered and untouched the two most troubling elements in the observed universe; namely, its apparently blameless suffering and its boundless wickedness. And metaphysic which blandly assumed that it was possible for evil to be 'forgiven' simply by the assertion that God was good could not answer the intense isolation of the human soul in the grip of sin or psychological nightmare; nor could it really correspond to the world as it was actually observed—a world as Paul would conceive it, where demonic powers were at work, filling the minds of the mad with evil nightmares and the bodies of the weak with sickness and disease, a world out of joint, a universe groaning and travailing towards some violent consummation.…

 

Into such a world, Paul, with an inspired and completely original vision of Jesus, believed that a unique figure had stepped; one who was both a Prometheus, whose own weakness defied the strength of the Allfather; whose innocent folly overcame the wisdom of his ancestors; whose lawlessness—dying the death of a criminal—overcame the law; and whose pure and unflinching agape, charity or love over-shadowed the malice which all discerning people might have felt or guessed to be at the heart of the First Cause, if there were a First Cause (Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, chap. 7, pp. 122-123).

 

Paul taught that the Torah had been superseded by the death of a divine being, Jesus Christ, in atonement of men’s sins. This conclusion should not be surprising, considering Paul's early environment and exposure to the Hellenistic culture of his hometown.

Tarsus, located on the Tarsus Cay, was the capital of Cilicia and the focal point for trade from the Mediterranean Sea to the magnificent road system built by the Romans. It was a center of military activity for the Roman army, which was mostly Asiatic at that time and was probably responsible for the introduction of the Mithraic Mysteries which dominated Tarsus society. No doubt Paul, as a youngster, would have been exposed to the cult worship. According to A. N. Wilson, a number of similarities existed between that worship and Paul's concept of the redeeming Christ:

 

…The most distinctive feature of Mithraic worship is that the initiates either drank the blood of the sacred bull or drank a chalice of wine as a symbolic representation of blood. The steer would be held over a platform and ritually slain. Under the platform stood the initiate, who would be literally bathed in the blood which dripped down from the platform. He would rub the blood in his eyes, ears and nostrils. The tuarobolium as the Romans called it, like the sacred meals of other cults, symbolized the transfer of life and power… If Paul's parents were Jewish, they would have been disgusted by the idea of the cult of Mithras, since the drinking of blood is one of the most fundamental taboos in Jewish life. But for those who practiced the religion of Mithras, it was a commemoration of the life-principle itself. From the bull slain by Herakles, for example, flowed not merely blood but life, corn, plenteousness. It symbolized the springing up of new life beyond the grave.

 

…Any child born or brought up in Tarsus could not fail to have been impressed by the great religious ceremonies which took place there in honour of Herakles (Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, chap. 2, pp. 25-26).

 

For some reason, Paul became disillusioned with the world he saw; the pain and suffering, injustice, wickedness, greed, and helplessness of man to alter his destiny. Perhaps he realized there was no difference between the sacrificial bull offered to Herakles and the lamb offered to Yahweh. Perhaps he had gazed upon too many crucified men. Perhaps there was something in the eyes of that last person he scourged or perhaps a number of small inconsistencies within Judaic worship had been chafing in his mind for years. We will never know what inspired his allegorical interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures, or how long it took him to formulate the complex theories that he came to believe were God's directing. We can only try to separate the gold from the dust of centuries.

Paul would like his reader to think he was a seer or medium, who had supernatural revelations and received his doctrine while in trances. There are a number of references to this in Acts, and his writings refer repeatedly to an indwelling Christ who revealed what Paul recognized as God's will. Such a talent, or relationship, would only give credence to Paul's claim of power through the Holy Ghost. At any rate, he cared nothing for what Jesus taught; the only use he had for Jesus was as the risen Savior. Evidently, all else came from visions (Galatians 1:16-17, 2:2; Acts 16:9).

Paul's writings concerning Jesus reveal some startling facts. First, Paul knows nothing about Jesus except that he was crucified and resurrected. The only reference he makes to the man, Jesus, is that he was of the Davidic line, born of a woman. The only time he quotes Jesus’ teachings is in I Corinthians 11:24-27, and the passage smacks of a later interpolation. Compare it with Matthew 26:26-29. He never refers to any event or incident in Jesus’ life. The virgin birth isn’t mentioned: there's no manger, no wise men, no angels and no heavenly choir. There’s no mention of his baptism or association with John and no voice from heaven or flying doves. Paul makes no reference to Jesus’ ministry or miracles: no healing the sick or raising the dead, no changing of water to wine or calming the seas. Even though he repeatedly testifies of Jesus’ supreme sacrifice of dying and being resurrected, he never mentions the details surrounding those events. There’s no reference to Jesus' trial, the cross, Golgotha, earthquakes or risen saints. Why? Why is there no mention of these miraculous events?

Oftentimes while studying the Bible, much can be learned by considering the secondary information, rather than the main subject. For example, descriptive phrases or sentences that set the scene, events that precipitate the action, or facts unrelated to the main issue of a dialogue or action can be illuminating. Even in the meager bit of information Paul provides concerning Jesus, we find one major fact—Jesus was not the son of God. Paul said he was born of woman; think about that. Why would Paul even mention that fact? We're all born of woman. Have you ever heard of anyone being asked if their mother was a woman? Of course not. So why would Paul even broach the subject? I can think of only one occasion in which that question would be relevant. Someone must have introduced the question of Jesus' supposed miraculous divine conception and Paul was setting the record straight.

It is true that Paul taught that Jesus was the son of God; that was one of his main tenets. In Romans 1:3-4, he states that Jesus was "of the seed of David according to the flesh: And declared to be the son of God…by the resurrection from the dead". According to Paul, Jesus wasn't the son of God until after the resurrection! This is further substantiated by the statement that he was "of the seed of David". Genealogy was reckoned through the male line, so Paul is telling us Jesus had a human father.

I'm aware that the subject of Jesus' substance has been argued for nearly two thousand years. Wars have been fought over the subject at the cost of many lives and much suffering so I've no intention of trying to settle the issue. I'll only state what seems evident to me. Paul saw nothing unusual about the man Jesus until he was resurrected from the grave. At that time, he was "declared to be the Son of God". Paul considered him nothing more than another crucified, would-be messiah, prior to that event.

But this still doesn't explain why Paul avoided any reference to the human aspects of Jesus' life. There seem to be only three possible explanations. First, the stories hadn’t been voiced. This means the Jesus we’re familiar with never existed. Second, the tales and growing legends were circulating, but Paul viewed them as unworthy of mention. If this is so, we have to ask ourselves how Paul could not find the miraculous tales important enough to comment upon or use in his ministry. The third, and most likely reason, was Paul’s understanding of Christ as an allegorical concept of the logos—an intermediary between man and God.

He would most likely derive this interpretation of the dying and resurrecting redeemer from Zoroastrianism and the Mithra worshippers in his home town. When the spirit of the dead Jesus began teaching him amazing new doctrines, it would only have been natural for him to assume that Jesus and the logos were one and the same. This would also explain why he avoided any references to the man, Jesus. The doctrines he was receiving were so drastically different from the teachings of the Apostles Paul determined not to know anything “save Jesus Christ and him crucified"; all else he would glean from his visions. And as we shall see, he did know a great deal more about Jesus, and even the thoughts and intents of God.

Paul usurped the history of the Jews and claimed its long tradition as being prophetic of his concept of Christianity. He combined those concepts with the dying and resurrected god of the mystery religions, and the heaven-descended redeemer of the Gnostics. The results were incredible stories that sparked the dreams of his listeners. Here was an explanation for the tardy kingdom and a form of escapism for the poor, the downtrodden, and sinners; freedom from a rigorous and hard to comprehend Law for the Jews and an open door for the Gentiles. He was offering an astounding but believable means to a utopian world where the admission was affordable to anyone. It was something all could give freely—love.

 

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Galatians 5:14).

 

Love was the key; the door was death to this world and faith in the resurrection of the one he called Jesus Christ. Most Christians today are familiar with the term "dead in Christ", and think they understand its meaning. If they do, their lives certainly do not illustrate that understanding—at least not in the Pauline concept. Paul might have eaten, slept, dressed, worked, and performed all of the necessary, daily, human functions, but all were done for the "glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31). All personal cares, desires or ambitions were discarded, replaced by a driving obsession to reveal the salvation in Jesus Christ. His only diversion was the desire to be with his redeemer.

 

For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21).

 

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

 

In Jesus' crucifixion and death, Paul conjured up his own sufferings and death, for Saul truly died on that road to Damascus. It was not Paul who lived, but Christ who lived in him.

 

He did not limit himself to preaching the word. We read that 'God did extraordinary miracles through Paul' [Acts 19:11]. Although Jesus was the Christ raised up by God, it should not be forgotten that Paul regarded himself as a figure in whom the Christ was now active and alive. If he had been living in a Hindu or Buddhist culture, Paul might well have regarded himself as an avatar. In his own body, he bore the wounds of Jesus [Galatians 6:17]; he had the mind of Christ [I Corinthians 2:16, Philippians 2:5]; as a 'person in Christ' he had, like Jesus, ascended into heaven and come down again [II Corinthians 12:2]. It is not to be wondered at that he possessed miraculous or, if this is to make a distinction, magical powers (Paul: the Mind of the Apostle, chap. 11, p. 184).

 

According to Acts, when Paul went to Jerusalem to join the disciples, they would have nothing to do with him until Barnabas vouched for him. Then "…he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus; and disputed against the Grecians" (Acts 9:28-29). This appears to be another late effort by the Church to Christianize Paul’s new religion, because in Galatians, Paul tells an entirely different story. He claims he did not receive his gospel from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. And in Galatians 1:16-17, he states that he didn't even talk with "flesh and blood,” and denies going up to Jerusalem to the Apostles, but went instead into Arabia. After three years, he finally went up to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for fifteen days, but he saw none of the other Apostles except James (Galatians 1:18-19).

This story is interesting because, according to Paul, the Arabia referred to was ruled by Aretas. That Arabia was not Syria, northeast of Judea, but Nabataea, whose capital was Petra, south of the Dead Sea, near Qumran.¹¹ Study of Paul’s writings and ideology leaves no doubt that he was not only familiar with Essenes’ teachings and philosophy, but was also a master scholar. It is possible that those three years were spent as a novice at Qumran. Evidence of Essene influence can be seen in his writings, including the name Belial, the Essene word for the devil. Nowhere in the New Testament is Belial used except in II Corinthians 6:14–15, a strong Essene passage: "what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?"

Paul writes of a mystery and hidden wisdom in I Corinthians 2:7: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory." This is identical to the language in the Dead Sea Scrolls. As we’ll see later, Paul could more than hold his own when expounding upon the subject, proving he was well-versed in Essene doctrines.

In Galatians 2:1, Paul tells us he went back to Jerusalem with Barnabas after fourteen years. Here, he again contradicts the account in Acts chapter ⁹. The only way we could possibly equate the two stories is to consider the "many days" equal to fourteen years but even then there are glaring contradictions. In Acts, the disciples fear and disbelieve Paul until Barnabas vouches for him; surely after fourteen years, his ministry would have been noted and the fear dispelled.

In Galatians 1:18, Paul spends 15 days with Peter, three years after his stint in Arabia. The only other Apostle he saw at that time was James. There is no mention of Barnabas, so it isn’t likely these were the same events. Fourteen years later, when Paul and Barnabas go up to Jerusalem to discuss Church policies; there's no indication of fear on the disciples’ part.

From the same account in Acts, we're told that Paul spent some time with the disciples at Damascus—not the twelve Apostles we're familiar with—and "straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). Here, if we can believe the source, is the introduction of Paul’s new gospel, presented to Jewish Nazarenes. Prior to that time, no one had heard of the gospel of Jesus the Christ because the Apostles were still teaching the soon coming kingdom of God. How do we know? Because in Galatians 1:11-12 Paul declared:

 

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

This leaves no doubt; the Apostles were not teaching Paul's doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ. That Paul was preaching a new gospel is further evidenced in the book of Romans where he again claims to be its originator, and gives us a detailed description of his doctrines:

 

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: (Romans 1:1-4).

 

Notice how Paul mentions a new gospel, "the gospel of God," and states that it was promised "by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures…Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord". Careful and unbiased study of the Holy Scriptures reveals the promise of a messenger, a messiah, a servant, the anointed one—but never a son of God. And there is no indication that the Law would be replaced by a new gospel.

In this passage, we are also told it was "the spirit of holiness" that declared Jesus the son of God. What was this spirit? How did it make such a declaration—to whom? Was it the spirit that spoke to Paul? Was it the Holy Ghost that testified in unknown tongues? If so, how do we know what that spirit was saying?

In II Corinthians 12 Paul tells the Corinthians of a vision, or revelation, which appears to refer to his conversion. He speaks of a man, presumably himself, who was caught up to paradise and heard "unspeakable words…unlawful for a man to utter". The experience was so powerful that, after fourteen years, he was still unable or unwilling to say whether he was in body or spirit but in verse 7, he speaks of himself. An abundance of revelations were given to him, so many and so powerful that he also received "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan," lest he "should be exalted above measure". He doesn't elaborate on the nature of his affliction, but says he sought the Lord to remove it, to which God replied:

 

…My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness (II Corinthians 12:9).

 

Many Christians and Bible scholars have speculated what the affliction might have been; everything from ugliness to epileptic seizures has been suggested. My preference tends toward seizures, but not epileptic. One of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost is bodily possession. While in the Church of God, I witnessed such occurrences almost weekly, but they were generally restricted to shouting, waving of hands, "walking" the aisles, and occasionally seizures, in which a person might faint or collapse to lie jerking or twitching on the floor. While believers say such actions testify to the indwelling of the Spirit more orthodox Christians attribute such behavior to self-delusion or satanic possession.

The experience that Paul described brought an "affliction," which could have been attributed to Satan—a "thorn" which was given to him so that those revealed revelations might not elevate his status too high. From such reasoning, we might derive a controversial conclusion, but only after confronting some tough questions. For instance, was the affliction truly a physical imperfection, or simply a limitation within Paul's own mind? Contrarily, could the limitation have been a flaw in Paul's character that he had to constantly struggle against? Or, as already suggest, were the revelations given to Paul so powerful that he had to be afflicted with some physical deformity, such as a lisp or blindness, to detract from his appearance as a god? We have already suggested the possibility of seizures. At that time the idea of personal possession was accepted as a truism. The most compelling question was whether the spirit was either good or evil—of God or Satan. Isn't it possible that Paul, under the spirit, had seizures identical to those common in holiness meeting today? Might those seizures not have been perceived as Satanic in certain instances, and thereby, prove an affliction that would prevent his being exalted? I believe so. I believe Paul was introducing the same phenomenon that is known as tongues today. Furthermore, I don't believe the story of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, nor any of the related stories that credit Peter as the central figure of the phenomenon.

We have already mentioned the superstition and religious fear that dominated the uneducated masses. During the first century, gods were not viewed with the suspicion or mass skepticism that they are today. Monotheism was still a relatively new idea. Those pagan gods were credited with their own legends, miracles, mysteries and supernatural powers. The fact that such preposterous tales have survived throughout history only testifies to the ignorance and superstition of the believers. And yet, the interests of those ancient believers and those of people today are not very different. Today, we have movies, computer gaming, publishing, advertising, and related industries that exploit human passions; in the first century, necromancers, wizards, charlatans, and prophets preyed upon the uninformed or imaginative. That is where Paul excelled.

Every religion had its prophets, sorcerers, or magicians as well as their philosophy and miracles. They could work magic, effect cures, soothsay, and a few could, supposedly, raise the dead, but Paul discovered a unique magical trick. Only he could lay hands on his listeners and fill them with a supernatural power (Acts 19:11-19). Allegedly, that ability was passed on to Peter, John, and others. According to Acts 8:18-20 it was so desirable that Simon Magus tried to purchase it. Try to imagine how such power might impress the recipients! What would be your reaction if someone told you of an omnipotent god who could live inside you and endow you with miraculous powers, and then proved his claim with a simple touch? 

It's beyond the scope of this work to investigate miracles, or the mysterious workings of God. If one is inclined to believe in God, then the occurrence of miracles is a given, but consider one of the holiness movement's favorite Scriptures, found in Mark 16:17&18:

 

And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

Early holiness churches gained a tarnished reputation for fanaticism, because they interpreted this passage literally and attempted to prove their sincerity by handling snakes and drinking poisons. Needless to say, in many cases their faith wasn't justified. Today such practices have been outlawed here in the United States, and only a very few churches insist on observing such rituals. On the other side of the coin, we find that magicians such as Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, and David Blaine have routinely performed feats that, no doubt, would have convinced tens of thousands of ignorant Jews and Grecians in the first century that they were in the presence of gods. And what of the miraculous healings of men like Oral Roberts and Ernest Angley? Ask yourself, "Why does everything connected with God have to be based upon faith and miracles—things that can be distorted, misinterpreted, or flat-out counterfeited?" Surely, if God wanted to give you a sign, he'd provide something that David Copperfield couldn't top! The New Testament is filled with wonders, signs, and miracles; they may be viewed with superstitious awe as proof of God, or simply as good illusions.

We know that Paul was a great orator and a devoted, zealous servant to his cause, whether he was chasing down heretics, or converting sinners, but what is not so evident is his political acumen. His one driving desire was to convert everyone to his belief. His philosophy is probably best described in his own words in I Corinthians 9:22:

 

I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

In the preceding verses, he tells us that to the Jew, he was a Jew; to those under the Law, he was under the Law; to those without the Law, he was without Law—whatever it took to win converts, he would do it.

Sometime after Paul's conversion he appeared on the scene preaching some very controversial doctrines that, numerous times, nearly got him killed. It is stated in Acts 2:4, that all the Apostles were "filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues". If this was the case, then Paul's reception of the Holy Ghost had to be a separate, private, occurrence, because he had not yet been converted at that early date. And remember, he didn't even talk with flesh and blood, so he could not have received the Holy Ghost from the Apostles.

Now, I know that the outpouring of the spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, is supposed to be an act of God, but history and experience imply something different. Throughout history, the occurrence of tongues was like a virus, whereby one person introduced the disease and it spread by contact. The latest outbreak, which I referred to earlier, started with Charles Parham's teachings and has spread throughout the world. The teaching is one of the basic tenets of Paul's doctrines, so I believe its introduction into Christianity originated with him. I also believe this view is supported by the contention between Paul and the Apostles throughout his entire ministry. There were disagreements so damaging to the Judaic Law that it leaves one wondering how they could find any common ground unless there was some type of bond that they couldn't sever—a bond such as their common belief in the manifestation of the Holy Ghost.

Paul's first message (Acts 9:20), to the brethren at Damascus concerned Christ, the son of God. When that same discourse was presented to the "Jews,'" their reaction reinforced the idea of a new message—they tried to kill him. But just how did Paul's gospel different from the gospel of the Apostles? Could it have been that it was for the Gentiles? What was he preaching that was angering his listeners to the point of murder? Christians today may think the question insignificant because, of course, Paul taught what they teach. However, there are thousands of different Christian churches teaching different versions of Paul's doctrines. Now, it is certainly not my intention to attempt to resolve all of those conflicts, but for this study, we at least need a good understanding of what is meant when we refer to Paul's gospel.

When Paul escaped from Damascus and went to Jerusalem, another attempt was made upon his life. Why? Not because he was a persecutor of the "Jews"; he had been working for them. Was it because he deserted to the other side? That is a possibility, but why single Paul out when there were at least twelve other dissenters preaching Jesus Christ, the son of God? Here is the key! It had to be something in his message different from the Apostles' teachings. We've already seen that the Apostles were not teaching Paul's concept of Jesus as the son of God; they were preaching Jesus the Messiah. Was that what so angered the "Jews"? Declaring a man to be the son of God was a violation of the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The concept of any man being equal to God, or that God would share his authority, was unacceptable and blasphemous to the "Jews". Was that what angered them? Quite possibly; that seemed to be what Jesus was charged with by the Sanhedrin, but Paul preached another doctrine that was even more detestable to some of the "Jews".  

To understand the significance of Paul's doctrine, we must first clear up a misconception. No doubt you've notice I've been enclosing the word Jews in quotations. The purpose is to emphasis the fact that the Gospels and early Christian writers made hardly any distinction between Jewish factions. This is further proof that those writers were Gentiles. By the time those works were recorded, the Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes had been annihilated or lost to history. All of Palestine lay in ruins, and the "Jews" had been lumped into one body of "Christ-killers". They were hated and persecuted by the Christians, and were the recipients of all the animosities fueled by the hostilities of the Gentile/Jewish conflicts during the Jewish War. In this example, a close reading reveals that Paul's persecutors in Jerusalem were Grecians, Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews. Those in Damascus were orthodox Jews, which means Paul's gospel was making a lot of people angry. To understand why some of the Jews hated Paul, while others fellowshipped with him, we must separate and identify the various Jewish factions instead of lumping them into one stereotyped group. When we do so, we'll be able to find the answer to questions such as: "If the Jews were killing the Christians, why were they attending common temple services?" (Acts 21:22-24).

We have already introduced the Essenes, Nazarenes, Zealots, Sicarii and other more obscure groups, but it should be recognized that some of these sects were splintered into even smaller factions that might have combined the beliefs of two or more groups. Think of a riot situation in which many people are excited, angry, helpless, frustrated, and react from combinations of those, and other, emotions. Hippolytus, speaking of the Scarii, offers some strong evidence that presents a clearer picture of the situation, in The Refutation of All Heresies, Book. IX, chap. 21:

 

…if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His laws–supposing such to be an uncircumcised person, they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii.

 

Robert Eisenman makes references to some rare passages by Origen and the Roman historian, Cassius Dio, in which Origen confirms such actions and Dio dates the time:

 

Origen…defines 'Sicarii' as those attempting to forcibly circumcise others—this, in violation of the Roman 'Lex Cornelia de Sicarius'. In other words, 'Sicarii' not only implies 'Assassins', but those forcibly circumcising others. Dio Cassius tells us that this ban, which Origen claims the judges in his time were zealously enforcing, came into effect in Nerva's time (96-98 CE) (James the Brother of Jesus, chap. 8, p. 184).

 

For the Jews, the question of circumcision (or the lack thereof), wasn't just a matter of doctrinal differences. In the context of our modern society, it would have been more hideous than cult brainwashing or child abduction. Young Jewish men who were drawn to Hellenistic values found their circumcision an embarrassment at the public baths, the marriage bed, or at sporting events which were generally performed in the nude. Some even went to painful and hazardous extremes to reverse the operation. For the orthodox Jews, this wasn't just an affront to their God; it was a corruption of the moral and spiritual fiber of Jewish society. And while the assassinations described above date from decades after Paul's lifetime, they leave no doubt as to the importance the Jews placed upon the tradition of circumcision, the central topic of the Jerusalem council.

If we view Paul's teachings from this aspect, we have a clearer understanding that he wasn't just introducing a new supreme being; he was negating the law of separation between the Jews and the Hellenist society. In effect, Paul was tearing down the wall of separation that the old-line Jews had been struggling to build between Jewish traditions and Grecian culture. That is why Paul's doctrines were accepted by the Gentiles and the Grecian Jews who were already surrendering to Hellenist values, and why he was unable to establish a ministry within Palestine.

This wasn't the only concept and teaching that stood in stark contrast to those of the Nazarenes or Apostles, there were other differences that would not have existed if they had been teaching the same doctrines. Many of these differences increased in intensity and fervor during the years in which the latter New Testament books and Church writings were recorded. In fact, some conceptual differences were used to justify the fanatical persecutions perpetrated by the Catholic Church. The concepts were presented in very similar phrases or word patterns.

There are many subjects and instances, but let's look at only a couple of examples. One of the most obvious is the introduction and growth of the Christian hatred for Jews. While it is true that some Jews did persecute and kill the Nazarenes, we must remember our earlier study in which we learned such actions were mostly confined to the Herodians or orthodox Jews, striving to preserve their concept of the Law. In Acts 21:20-27, we find the Nazarenes attending temple services with the Jews, with no hint of danger. The animosity began under Paul's ministry, and throughout that ministry he was repeatedly rebuffed or attacked by Jews. In I Thessalonians 2:14-16 Paul states:

 

For ye, brethren…have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

 

We have to interpret this directive to be inclusive of all Jews, with direct reference to the Jerusalem Church, because it was with that group that he had a confrontation. And in Galatians 1:8, Paul issues an all-inclusive curse on anyone who disputes his gospel:

 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

These condemnations were to bring great repercussions upon the Jews and eventually, to anyone the Catholic Church considered heretical. They condemned the members of the Jerusalem Church, who were most certainly preaching a different gospel (Acts 15:1), and anyone else who taught anything contrary to Paul's doctrines. However, hostile reactions were not Paul's intent, nor his desire. After all the times he had been beaten and scorned by the Jews he still clung to his own teachings of love:

 

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved (I Corinthians 10:32 and 33). 

 

Pacifism was the attitude of Paul and his converts. It was also the attitude of all early Christians. The expectation and appeal of martyrdom was the comfort that enabled them to face the hatred and persecutions of the world with serenity. But with Catholicism's rise to power, the attitude changed. Unfortunately, while Paul suffered the abuse of the Jews and sought every opportunity to convert them, his accusation that they had "killed the Lord Jesus" labeled them with the venomous appellation, Christ-killers. As the hatred between the two religions became more intense, the Jews were at last considered spawns of Satan—irretrievably lost. That hatred and distrust continued for nearly two thousand years until the horrors of the Nazi holocaust so shamed the Christians that, at last, they recognized the rights of the Jews as a people.

Another contrasting subject is Paul's concept of Jesus. Throughout his writings, his knowledge of the man, Jesus, is limited to the information that he "…was of the Davidic line, born of woman, and was crucified". The only other information added by the New Testament Epistles and Pastorals is the name of Jesus' home town, Nazareth.

What I find curious is the fact that, other than the Gospels, the personal life of Jesus is totally ignored while Paul's message is taught exclusively. With so much information about Jesus' life found in the Gospels, why isn't there at least an introduction to the man in the other writings? Such a strange coincidence might be explained by the Gospels being written much later than the other books. However, the general consensus is that most of the Epistles and Pastorals were written contemporaneously with the Gospels.

The theory might be raised that the authors of those writings were only following Paul's example, and refused to entertain questions concerning the life of Jesus. That is possible, but there were at least nine or ten authors involved; surely new converts were asking questions about the personal life of their new savior. It's inconceivable that not even one of those authors addressed any of the questions when complete biographies of Jesus were being collected and circulated. The suggestion that the epistle authors were concentrating on doctrinal issues and promoting the gospel, and didn't want to detract from that ministry might be plausible if only the biography of Jesus was involved, but it wasn't.