This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
1.Who was Paul before the crisis in question……………...2
2.His encounter with Christ/its aftermath………………….5
3.Christ, the centre of his doctrine…………………………7
4.At loggerheads with the Jerusalem Church………………18
5.The Light that perturbed him, perturbed others……….....21
6.Conclusion……………………………………………......25
Bibliography………………………………………………..26
2
Introduction
I was always attracted by this queer episode in Paul‟s life. Queer not in itself
but in the manner Paul succinctly speaks about it. Queer also because Paul, a staunch
Pharisee, suddenly had to undergo such an experience, such an explosion that had to
change his life so decidedly and so strikingly, from night to day.
Above all, who is this Paul who, like that pistol-carrying man in the
Western Films, seems to come from nowhere? What are his credentials? What was he
aiming at? How did he behave after this experience or encounter that nobody can
understand or delve deep into? How did that Light disturb Paul‟s life and how did it
subtly incite him to disturb others. Who were these others?
I‟ll try to stress that after all his hassle, after his various imprisonments and
running to and fro to preach Jesus, what do later scholars had to say about him. Here a
conundrum of voices is heard, that sometimes agree and sometimes disagree about his
greatness or otherwise. Nonetheless, his influence, undoubtedly accepted by all, never
waned and continued to inject new blood into the Christian faith on its way towards
heaven.
The road-map I intend to use for my thesis is the following: Who was Paul
before the crisis in question? Then I pass to elucidate His encounter with Christ and
its aftermath, delineating His Christian teachings that, he points out fervently, were
given him by Christ. Is this believable? Anyhow, the centre of his doctrine is Christ,
particularly not His life and actions but only and especially His death and resurrection.
Then I try to delineate how Paul taught his Gentiles that Christ is God; how Paul‟s
new way of presenting things brought him at loggerheads with the Jerusalem Church,
first of all and especially concerning the Law(circumcision) and how from here he
runs head-on towards faith; then how he maintained that his apostleship depended like
theirs on the sacrosanct -- for him -- fact that even he encountered Christ as they did
although not in the same way.
I‟ll show how that Light that disturbed him, unfailingly had to disturb others,
first of all owing to his new Christianity and secondly through the never-ending see-
saw evaluation of him by subsequent scholars.
I have tried to search in various books about Paul and his missions and above
all about his theology. I also made use of the internet where I found articles, abstracts
and excerpts from related books.
1. Who was Paul before the crisis in question?
In this section I am going to asks who is Paul; then how from his old situation
he abruptly passed to a new one and why he came to Damascus to understand well
that bridge that connected his two far-flung shores; then I‟ll explain this bridge which
was Jewish, Hellenistic and awkwardly even Christian.
How may one understand Paul and his theology without first of all asking the
question: Who was he before the crisis treated in this thesis?
But it is pertinent first of all to understand something about Judaism. Judaism
began about 300 BC. In the time I‟m talking about, 80% of the Jews did not live in
Judea. They were scattered in the Middle East, in today‟s Turkey, in Babylon and
3
Alexandria, the Greek cultural city par excellence. Paul was one of these Hellenic
Jews.1 From outside Jerusalem the Gentiles brought to the Holy Land new ideas and
new cults, which, even they, were influenced by the Persians through Zoroastrianism
and by the Greeks through philosophy. In fact to mention only one example, Philo of
Alexandria, Paul‟s contemporary, made a synthesis of Platonism and Judaism that
influenced not only the Church Fathers but also John‟s Gospel.2 Greek religion and
culture(Hellenism) in their turn were infiltrated by oriental ideas. On the other hand,
Israel was an exception, since it resisted all foreign influence to remain under its God.
But this could not be total because of the penetration of alien influences.3
That‟s why if one wants to understand Paul, one has to study his background.
Let me look first at Paul from the side of his Jewish heritage.Let me explain.
Paul was a Hellenic Jew, or better still he came from a family of converts, member of
the vast Jewish Diaspora. Paul studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the
Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. According to Paul‟s opponents, the Ebonites, Paul
came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He was present at Stephen‟s death.
Acts represents this due to Saul(Paul‟s former name) Pharizeal zeal, but this is
doubtful as the Pharisees under Gamaliel were friendly to the Jerusalem Church(Cfr.
Acts 5).4
Born in Tarsus, Paul grew up in Jerusalem.5 He was and remained a Jew.
Before his conversion he was a Pharisee(Phil.3:5; cfr. Acts 22:3;23:6;26:5) and
remained theologically Jewish even after. While he rejected some aspects of his
past(Phil.3:4-11), he remained part of Israel in a Jewish framework. As all Jews, he is
against politheism(Rom.1:22-32) and believes in the oneness of God. Israel‟s
eschatological hope was influenced by an apocalyptic hope, revealing God‟s purposes.
Resurrection and God‟s judgement were two of the elements the Israelites believed
in.6 Paul assumes God intervenes in the world through Israel, since Christ came into
his chosen people as its fulfilment(Rom.9:4f).
The fact that this people rejected Him raised problems for Paul as a Jewish
Christian(Rom.9-11). This became more pregnant for him since he was a Pharisee
who kept the Law with the utmost seriousness. In his letters he imitated early Jewish
writings using the words:”for it is written”(Gal.3:13) or “the scripture says”(Rom.4:3).
Paul‟s theology must primarily be understood in the context of Palestinian Jewish
religious history. It‟s probable that Paul theologized his kerygma as a converted
Pharisee not as a Hellenized Jew.So it‟s clear that Pauline theology must be
interpreted in the context of Palestine Judaism.7 Moreover, J. Christiaan Beker argues
that Jewish apocalypticism forms the unifying framework of Pauline theology.8 One
must never suppose that Paul rejected his past when he became apostle. He often
speaks positively of this part(Rom.9:4-5); he not only quotes from prophets who
anticipated Jesus, but also believes that salvation began from the Jews.
1 Hyam Maccoby,St Paul, The Sierra Reference Encyclopaedia, available from:
<http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul/htm> accessed on 20.5.‟07. 2 Ibid.
3 John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity, Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 8-22.
4 Hyam Maccoby,ibid.
5 Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of paul,SCM Press Ltd.,1975,p. 5.
6 Ibid.
7 Prof. Barry D. Smith, Pauline Studies, Introduction, available from:
<http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/pauline/PaulIndex.htm> accessed on 23.5.‟07. 8 J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle, from “The Triumph of God in Life and Thought”, Philadelphia
Fortress, 1980. Cfr. also A. Schweitzer for this apocalyptic element in Pauline Theology.
4
Now, after his Jewish culture, let me tackle the other side: his Hellenistic
inheritance. Roughly speaking, the Jews thought of God in terms of what He did, and
the Greeks in terms of His nature. But how much was Paul affected by Hellenism?
His letters show him aware of that culture. He wrote fluent Greek, he used the
Septuagint, he quoted Menander(ICor.15:33), he reflected on the Platonic view of
unseen things(II Cor. 4:18), he used the diatribe and rhetoric. In short, he has various
devices at hand that show a sure Hellenistic influence. On the other hand, the
influence of Hellenism on his theology is minor.9
Now one has to remember that Judaism and Hellenism influenced each other
both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Even the words ‟synagogue‟ and „sanhedrim‟
are Greek.10
Even the common Hebrew proper name „Sabaoth’ was also used in
Greek as „pantokrator’ with the meaning in both cases of „all powerful‟. Besides,
Jews read the Torah in Greek. Certainly even Paul did, since he quoted from the
Septuagint.
But Paul also belonged to a Christian tradition. He refers to or quotes early
Christian tradition in discussions, the eucharist(I Cor.11:23-6), other quotes dealing
with the triade:faith, hope, love(I Cor. 13:130; I Thes. 1:3). The fact is that he drew on
pre-Pauline or even pre-Christian traditions for his exhortations. His concerns, f.ex.,
admonitions to do good and avoid evil,warnings against immorality, exhortations for
non-violence, subjection to leaders, kindness, all these appear in Paul‟s letters.
Now these concerns are shared by many earlier writers, such as Peter,
Ignatius,Hebrews and Barnabas. So the main treatment of his paraenatic(=ethical)
instructions1112
did not originate within himself but were common propriety of early
Christianity.13
All this Paul used in appropriate circumstances and so had immediate
relevance.
This does not mean that Paul used these traditional elements haphazardly but
to support his theological arguments. Notwithstanding this, he betrays little
knowledge of the traditions about Jesus. “This is one of the most puzzling areas of
early Christian history.”14
Paul first met Christianity as its opponent.15
He attacked the Christians not for
being Christians as for being bad Jews. He didn‟t regard himself as having left one
religion for another, but followed a continuation (Rom.11) with Israel‟s past. He felt
that Christianity was not a new religion but the fulfilment of the old. According to this
line of thought, his was not a conversion but a call. Thus from here began his central
aspect: Christology, precisely his starting point.16
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
13
Martin Dibelius, A Frech Approach to the New testament and Early Christian Literature, NY,Charles
Scribner‟s Sons, 1936, p.143 as mentioned in Roetzel, ibid, p. 47. 14
Ibid. 15
John Ziesler, ibid., pp. 23-46. 16
Ibid.
5
2. His encounter with Christ17
/its aftermath
In this chapter I‟ll pinpoint the cause of such a radical change. Was it a vision or a
precise call? What was its immediate effects?
First of all what led Paul to such a radical change of mind? Nothing else, he
said, but an encounter with Christ himself(ICor.9:1; I Cor. 15:8;Gal.1:5f). But is it
true he „encountered‟ Christ? A lot of ink has been spilled and a lot of paper has been
filled up to explain this without arriving at a precise and irrefutable solution.. Still,
Paul is sure he had no vision but a veritable meeting with the risen Christ.(ICor.9:1).
That perturbing light on the way to Damascus almost directed him to declare
in a way verging on euphoria: “To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to
preach among the Gentiles the inscrutable riches of Christ.”(Eph.3:8).Paul‟s meeting
with the risen Lord(I Cor.:1; 15:8) was rather a call like that of Jeremiah‟s .
According to certain scholars, Acts‟account of Paul‟s Damascus road
encounter (Acts9:1-30; 22:3-21;26:4-20) denotes a sudden conversion, i.e. a radical
change with the past. But Paul always linked the Church with God‟s promise to
Israel(Rom.9:5-4); and so he was not divorced from the Jewish tradition.18
. But in fact
he himself did not call his encounter a vision. “One cannot arrive by analysis either
psychological or didactic, to measure the mystery of the act by which God revealed
his Son to Paul.”19
This may only be explained because we know a lot of Paul from
the Acts, but on the other hand Acts has a lot of gaps about the early church history.
In Acts, Luke‟s only intention was to show how the Christian message was spread
triumphantly from Jerusalem to Rome. Besides, Acts does not call Paul „apostle‟
except in 14:4,14. For the Acts, the apostles were twelve, although Paul does claim
17
Lewis Loftin, ibid.: The title of those who believed in Christ had a bumpy beginning. There was a
confusion about the correct spelling for „Christian‟. F.ex. at ca AD 138 Marcion preferred to call Jesus
„Chrestos‟(=the Kind or Helpful one). In the middle of the 2nd
century, the word „Christian‟ was very
popular. In the Sinaiticus manuscript(4th
cent.AD) it spells „Chrestian‟; Vaticanus, same age, utilizes
another spelling:‟Chreistian‟. But there is an abundance of ancient testimony that shows that „Chrestus‟
for Jesus was very popular among common Christians.The title „Chrestus‟ and „Chrestian‟ are referred
to in the following sources: Tertullian(AD 210),The Eighth Sybil(AD 200),Theophilos of Antioch(AD
170), Marcus(AD 145), Apocalypse of Elijah(AD 100), Seutonius(AD124) and Tacitus(AD 116).The
Orthodox theologians denounced the spelling „Chrestos‟ as based on ignorance. Lactantius(AD 300)
said:”The ignorant are accustomed to call Him „Chrestos‟17
Now, the Orthodox introduced „Christ‟.
This is explained from its etymology, for „Christ‟ in Greek means „anointed‟, „royal‟. And this matches
beautifully with the Hebrew word „Messiah‟.
18
Roetzel,ibid.,p.19. 19
F.C.Baur, Das Christentum,etc., 3rd ed., p. 45, as mentioned in Frédéric Godet.
6
the name of apostle for himself(I Cor. 9:1f;15:1-11; Gal.1:1, 17). He didn‟t want to be
considered inferior to the others. For him, the qualification for apostleship is the
divine call.
This brings us to the earliest Christian preaching in which one sees two
aspects or divisions of Christian evangelization. There was first the kerygma (from the
Greek:keryssein =to proclaim) revealing that Jesus is the Christ and then the teaching
or didache (from the Greek didaskein=to teach). Now how do we know that Paul
knew how to use these two promotional instruments? Evidently, from his behaviour in
the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, in the Areopagus in Athens and at the imperial tribunal in
Rome. Not only, but he supplemented them with fuller details, as ex.g., when he
wanted to appeal to the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper(1Cor.11) or
hinting at the resurrection appearances (1Cor.15).
The Jewish converts could understand the implications ex.g., of the title of
Christ, but the Gentiles were far from understanding it at all; so they needed
explanations and interpretations. All this was carried out by word of mouth, since
according to Professor Burkitt the earliest biography of Jesus20
sprung up from the
Gospel of Mark. To add insult to injury, with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70
the communications between the Christians in Palestine and the Gentile world were
severed. So, much of the historical traditional accounts about Jesus was lost.
Even very limited are the Christian documents of the second century and later
that contained information about the apostolic era that was handed down traditionally.
Something could be traced to the 4th
century historian Eusebius. But still the
knowledge is meagre. For the life of Jesus proper we have to rely on the New
Testament Books.21
In Gal.1:11-12, Paul declares his gospel is not taught to him but came to him
through a revelation of Jesus Christ. But what he wrote and how he wrote it were
composed by men. Therefore how did the apostle maintain that he did not receive it
from man?22
Pauline Christianity is the earliest evidence we have as a document because
the Books of the New Testament were written later. It was Paul who introduced us to
the early Church.The earliest letter is probably I Thessalonians (ca AD 50-51). Paul
wrote letters not sermons as substitute for his personal presence(ICor.4:14-
21;IICor.12:14-13:13;IThess.2:17-3:5) to specific people and situations. The major
part of the recipients of his letters were Gentiles(i.e. non-Jews) which in practice
meant they were Greek in culture and language(Rom>11:13;ICor.8:7;Gal.4:8;Phil.3:3;
I Thess.1:9), even although as he himself said, the gospel came “first to the Jew and
then to the Greek(Rom1:16).
While the Synoptic Gospels are a narrative and contain Christ‟s sayings,
Paul‟s theology has a different look: they are letters tackling pastoral, theological and
ethical problems that are bound to be more complex. The genre is totally different. So
there is a substantial contrast between Jesus and Paul. Paul begins post-Easter and for
him Christ is the centre. His Christianity did not venerate Christ as a great teacher,
unlike Matthew‟s or John the healer, or unlike Mark‟s, and Luke‟s while Luke‟s
attitude to the New Age is more cautious than John‟s.
Paul managed to behave in this way after his „call‟, and in that situation
teaching was carried out at that time.
20
Richard Heard, An Introduction to the New Testament, ch. 5:The Oral Tradition, available
from:<http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.esp?title=> accessed on 1.6.‟07. 21
Richard Heard, ibid., ch.14:The Growth of the Church. 22
Roetzel,ibid., p. 41.
7
3. Christ, the centre of his doctrine
In this chapter I am going to talk about how Paul in his epistle treats the
relationship between Christ and God, then how Christ is both human and divine, then
about the titles Paul decorates Christ with and about the characteristics he attributes
Him. In short this is a chapter about what Paul meant when he made Christ‟s death
and resurrection the centre of his teachings. That should also be the Magna Carta of
our life.
If the desire of(for) God is the same desire of the human nature, it is an
onthological desire and is situated in the heart of every person. It results from the
creation of man as an image of God. This desire which is God‟s trace of God in man
permits him to search God. This search is not abstract because one can‟t possess God
by a purely rational search, but by a life-long, existentialist, search which is to be
found in the spiritual life.23
This brings us to the earliest Christian preaching in which one sees two
aspects or divisions of Christian evangelization. There was first the kerygma (from the
Greek:keryssein =to proclaim) revealing that Jesus is the Christ, and then the
didache (from the Greek didaskein=to teach). Now, how do we know that Paul knew
how to use these two promotional instruments? Evidently, from his behaviour in the
Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, in the Areopagus in Athens and at the imperial tribunal in
Rome. Not only, but he supplemented them with fuller details, as ex.g, when he
wanted to appeal to the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper(1Cor.11) or
hinting at the resurrection appearances (1Cor.15).
The Jewish converts could understand the implications ex.g., of the title of
Christ, but the Gentiles were far from understanding at all; so they needed
explanations and interpretations. All this was carried out by word of mouth, since
according to Professor Burkitt the earliest biography of Jesus24
sprung up from the
Gospel of Mark. To add insult to injury, with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70
the communications between the Christians in Palestine and the Gentile world were
severed. So, much of the historical traditional accounts about Jesus was lost.
Even very limited are the Christian documents of the second century and later
that contained information about the apostolic era that was handed down traditionally.
Something could be traced to the 4th
century historian Eusebius. But still the
knowledge is meagre. For the life of Jesus proper we have to rely on the New
Testament Books.25
And because neither Jesus nor his disciples had any intention of
founding a new religion, exegetes called Paul the founder of Christianity.26
Paul‟s doctrine of Jesus is a daring departure from Judaism. That Jesus was a
divine-human person that descended from heaven to save mankind was new to Jewish
ears and plays no role in Jewish Scripture. On the other hand, Paul contended that
every line of the Jewish scripture was a foreshadowing of the Jesus-event. Though
regarding the Old Testament as obsolete, Paul still accepted it as the Word of God,
23
J. –M. Maldamé in his review of: Victor Franco Gomes, Le Paradoxe du désir de Dieu, Etude sur le
rapport de l‟homme à Dieu selon Henri de Libac, from Récensions Octobre-Cécembre 2006, available