EXPLAIN THIS: What About Paul the Apostle?
Consider Paul the Apostle. In a work in which numerous characters stand out — Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Samson, Gideon, among many others — his name, exceeded only by that of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, rises above all the others.
Two millennia after his four missionary journeys had spread Christianity far and wide in the Roman Empire, culminating in his being beheaded in Rome for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul’s life stands out among the ancients, challenging skeptics and believers alike to explain how and why he, of all men of his day, accomplished it all.
,_c._1657.jpg)
The Apostle Paul, by Rembrandt.
Consider these key facts about Paul that are undisputed among scholars of ancient history:
- He is known as “Saul” when we first meet him in the New Testament at Acts 7:58. There, he is enthusiastically assisting in the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr. Then in Acts 9:1, Luke the Physician (author of Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Luke), tells us that Saul was so determined to stamp out the Christian movement that he went to the Jewish authorities and was given official authority to seek them out in the city of Damascus and forcibly bring them to Jerusalem for prosecution. In other words, Saul was, Luke tells us, “still breathing threats and murder” against Jesus’ followers months after Stephen’s martyrdom.
- But then came the road to Damascus and Saul becomes Paul. Here it is as Luke describes the confrontation:
“But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
“Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And he said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’
“The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.”
Clearly, this was a gut-wrenching, life-changing encounter for Saul nee Paul. This is the same guy who just before his encounter with the risen Christ was, according to Luke, “ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.”
But only a few days after, Saul was in the synagogues of Damascus proclaiming Jesus as the risen Lord. Saul’s conversion enraged the Jewish leaders and they began plotting to kill him. In the first of what would prove to be many ordeals he would suffer as a result of his faith in Jesus, Saul only escaped, as Luke explains at Acts 9:23-25, when his friends lowered him in a basket from the city walls of Damascus.
- Four mission trips later, Saul, now known to the world as Paul, had occasion to remind the Corinthian church of his many ordeals, writing to them at II Corinthians, chapter 11:
“Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the 40 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 journey, 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.”
Why on earth would Paul suffer all of these trials were he not absolutely convinced about Jesus being the risen savior? This man went from devoted enemy of Jesus to the greatest missionary ever known, who thus changed the course of history forever.
- How do we explain such a conversion? I suggest that Paul supplied the answer to that question a few chapters earlier in II Corinthians, at 5:17 when he declared:
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come.”
I know some about being a new creation from my own experience with the Lord Jesus. He changed me in the most profound ways, though it didn’t happen nearly so quickly as it did with Paul. Go here if you would like to know more about how it came about for me.
If this new creation thing is something you would like to talk about, confidentially and without any pressure or judgement, I would be honored to sit down with you for a cup of coffee at your convenience, on or off the Capitol Complex. Just email me at: Mark.Tapscott@hillfaith.org.
“Clearly, this was a gut-wrenching, life-changing encounter for Saul nee Paul.” Shouldn’t that read, “…for Paul nee Saul?”
What counts as “the ancient world”?
You didn’t bother to define terms.
What years do you use as the boundary years to define “ancient”?
And do you really mean “world” or do you just mean “Western Europe”?
Your thesis is very hard to sustain if you actually meant “world.” What about the empires of Persia, Imperial India (from the time of Buddha to the end of the Gupta Dynasty, i.e. ca. 500 BC to AD 550), and China (between ca. 481 BC and AD 316)? Are they included in your definition of “ancient world”? Is Australia? The Pacific islands? The Americas?
If we start the ancient world with literacy (3000 BC), then clearly, Paul had zero impact until very late in the tale. Paul likewise had zero impact in the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific islands. He had essentially no impact in India, China or sub-Saharan Africa and points south.
If you’re looking at just the Mediterranean, Christianity didn’t become the official religion of empire until 380 AD, and even then, it was primarily an urban religion. The pagans (“pagan” just means “villager, rustic, civilian” from the Latin pagus, which is a parcel of rural land), that is, the farmers, made up 80-90% of the population, and they weren’t all that keen on any new-fangled religions.
We know of Paul’s travels because Paul was a narcissist who wrote a lot of letters. But, apart from his self-advertisements, we don’t have too many other ancient figures who seemed to know or care who Paul was. So, he matters a lot for a few small urban populations in a few cities dotted around the Mediterranean, but beyond that, it’s hard to say that he had much impact at all, nor do we have tremendous evidence that the other apostles were less effective than Paul.
After all, when the Corinthians had a dispute about the removal of some elders, they didn’t send a letter to John, the last of the 12, who was relatively nearby. They don’t appear to have written Paul either, although he could still have been alive, if the epistle was composed prior by 65 AD, as some aver. Instead, they sent to Clement, the bishop in Rome, who lived half a world away, to settle their dispute.
Your choice is somewhat idiosyncratic.
Steve, instead of the ancient world, let’s say the period under review for the most influential individual is a major league baseball game between the LA Dodgers and the New York Yankees in New York. It’s effectively a one-game playoff, with the winner taking the World Series Championship. The score is tied 5-5 going into the bottom of the ninth, there are two outs, nobody on base and the Yankees’ Aaron Judge comes to bat. Count goes to 3-2. Dodger reliever tries to throw a fastball past Judge, who promptly deposits it out in the centerfield grandstands, to win the game and the World Series. So, Judge’s homer came, as you would say, “very late in the tale.” Even so, it was the decisive swing that won the game and the World Series.
SK appears to be a tad bit biased about Paul’s impact on the world.
Paul undeniably had a huge impact on the medieval world, and to a lesser extent, on the modern world.
But on the ancient world?
Yeah, not so much.
Mark, as for your non-response, you can just admit that you didn’t define your terms and that you are wrong about Paul being somehow a special person in the ancient world.
Steve, my “non-response” was a result of recognizing that you are absolutely welcome to your own opinion on the questions involved, and that this particular one regarding the exact years of the ancient period was not subject to an objective measure that both of us would accept.
Paul’s influence extends far beyond the ancient world. His letter to the Romans was decisive for Martin Luther and the Reformation. More recently, and beyond the realm of Christianity, he was an influence on Martin Heidegger and, more recently, the atheist philosopher Slavoj Zizek (see On Belief.) I definitely am in the camp that say Paul in under-rated.
There are Protestants who hold Paul’s letters to be more important than Jesus’ words in the Gospels.
I’m interested in knowing if Mark Tapscott is one of those Protestants.
Steve, I don’t know a single Protestant who holds that Paul’s letters are more important than Jesus’ words. Could you share some examples, please?
Personal conversations with many Protestants over the years. As for your refusal to define what constitutes either “ancient” or “world”, your excuse is rather sorry, wouldn’t you say? Instead of laying out what YOUR definition is, you simply remain silent and blame your silence on me.
That’s rather disingenuous. All you have to do is provide the definitions that you are using. Whether I agree with your definitions isn’t relevant, as long as you are consistent in the use of your own definitions. I expected a little more from someone who plays the part of a Christian apologist.
Two things, Steve: First, “personal conversations with many Protestants over the years” is called heresay, which is insufficent as a response to my request for specific individuals. In addition, there is nothing in my response that blames you for anything. Now, since you are so insistent on my providing a precise definition of the ancient period, I consider it to have begun with human writing of history sometime during the Bronze Age and I consider it to have concluded with the fall of Rome and the deposing of the last Emperor in the Western part of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. Now you can tell me why I’m wrong about that, too.
Second, why on earth do you spend any time at all on HillFaith when you find so much on it that in your view is wrong? That is not an invitation for you to stop coming to HillFaith, you are always welcome to read and comment here and your comments will be published as long as they conform to the Comment Policy. That policy is and has long been this: “HillFaith is a forum for civil discussion. Commenters who insult, curse or libel others will be summarily blocked, without appeal. You have been forewarned.”
Mark, first, when someone tells you what they believe, that isn’t “hearsay.”
That’s testimony.
It’s testimony to a person’s own personal belief.
You would THINK a man who styles himself as a Christian apologist would know the difference.
Second, I’m not the one who laid out the claim concerning Paul’s position in the “ancient world.” You laid out the claim. I’m just asking you to define your terms. This is not an unreasonable request, nor is it my responsibility to define YOUR terms in YOUR argument.
You clearly aren’t a lawyer, or if you are one, you have now entered the “pound the table and yell loudly” phase of the discussion.
But when you say that X believes Y and that demonstrates your point, that is heresay. You said a number of Protestants have told you they think X. You citing that as evidence of your claim is hearsay.
I’m reading David Limbaugh’s book on Paul and the early church (Jesus Has Risen), which is excellent, as are all his books. He points out that Paul began preaching the gospel soon after his conversion. He received no direct instruction from the apostles about Jesus’s time on earth or on the intricacies of the Christian faith, yet he immediately grasped the true meaning of Christ and, thereafter, was able to write and teach others with a depth of understanding that could only come from a divine intervention. (I hope I’m stating his point correctly; my apologies if I haven’t.) It really increased my understanding of how Paul was uniquely chosen to spread the gospel and how significant and amazing his Road to Damascus conversion was to the Christian faith.
David Limbaugh is one fine man, a superb writer, lawyer for the famous, and a friend of HillFaith.
Lazarus “came forth” literally, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was resurrected figuratively. Who are we, who sit in comfort, to doubt his horrific trials and tribulations, inspired by a disembodied voice that “knocked him off his horse”?
Those considering Paul’s message a churchly PR exercise might ask themselves, “Why did he not simply brush himself off and ride away?”