The "conversion" of St Paul

3,126 Views | 97 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by The Banned
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
St Paul never converted to Christianity.

For one, at the time of the event on the road to Damascus, there was no such thing as "Christianity". There were multiple threads of Judaism, including Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and traditions within these sects such as zealotry. St Paul was a self-described zealot of the school of the Pharisees. There was no "religion" called Judaism - the various Judaisms were the customs, life, and religious practices of the people of Judaea, which is where it gets the name "Jew" from. There were also non-Jewish "god-fearers" around the edges of Jewish belief - gentiles who were interested in Judaism or psuedo-Jewish philosophy, but were not themselves Jewish.

Similarly, there was no "Roman religion" or "Greek religion". There were the ways of life that Romans and the various Greeks practiced - which included religious, secular, and cultural law and practices. The Lex of a Roman was the same as the Torah of a Judaean was the same as a Nomos of a Greek - your way of life. Your nomos, law, lex, torah was what made you a Roman, or Jew, or Greek - not your nature, genetics, or genealogy. If you were a Judaean you followed Torah; following Torah is what made you Judaean. If you did not follow Torah you were not a Judaean any longer. (Maccabees is a great study on this!)

St Paul - and all the other Apostles - never ceased following the Torah. He never stopped being a Judaean, never stopped celebrating the religious customs he practiced. He continued to worship in the Temple, continued to go to the Synagogue. He continued being a Pharisee. He perhaps did give up his zealotry or it at least was baptized into more productive efforts than violence.

St Paul also never changed his name. He was from Tarsus, a city which had won free and independent status from Julius Caesar because of their support for him. St Paul's father likely became a citizen at that time, and St Paul inherited his Roman citizenship accordingly. He grew up around non-Jews and likely interacted with them regularly. He also had clear knowledge of non-Jewish philosophers and writers. It was common at the time for Hebrew people in situations like this to have two names - in the scriptures we have John called Mark, Silas / Silvanas, Joseph / Justus, Simeon / Niger, Thomas / Didymus...and Saul called Paul. The Lord refers to him by his Hebrew name "Saul" and never changes his name to Paul. In the Acts narrative he goes from being Saul or Saul called Paul to just Paul when his mission status takes him into the area of the non-Jewish world.

So what did happen?

St Paul says he continued being a Pharisee, and continued in the faith of his fathers. In his most detailed account in Acts 26 he says lived strictly as a Pharisee and preaches nothing more than the promise made by God to his fathers, "saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass."

Instead of conversion, when St Paul talks about what happened to him, he describes it as a revelation and calling - he explicitly likens himself to the prophets of the Old Testament.

For example:
I, the LORD, have called you for a righteous purpose (Isaiah)
I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth (Isaiah)
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah)

St Paul
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel..." (Acts 9:15)
For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth." (Acts 13:47)
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God (Romans 1:1)
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles (Gal 1:15-16)

What happened on the road to Damascus was a few things:
1) St Paul correctly understood that the Messiah he was waiting for had already come, and was Jesus of Nazareth.

2) St Paul's timeline shifted accordingly: no longer was he waiting in expectation for the Messiah, or trying to cleans the land through his Pharisaic zeal to bring about the Messiah's coming... but instead he realized he was in the Messianic age!

3) St Paul was called by Jesus through multiple revelations that through the gospel to the gentiles the prophecies of the Old Testament beginning in Genesis
  • That through Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed
  • That through Joseph's son Ephraim would be the fullness of the gentiles
  • That all the lost tribes of Israel would be restored
  • That in the Messiah the nations would come to faithful worship of Yahweh the God of Israel

And this is St Paul's gospel to the nations.

-In the past the people of the nations were separated from the God of Israel and were ignorant of Him, living in sin. He tolerated their sin in mercy until now, but the time of his mercy was ending.

-That the Messiah died and rose again, and in this one-time atonement cleansed not just the Jewish temple and people but the whole world and all people, opening the way for all who were faithful to him to be pleasing to God.

-That Abraham was the father of many nations, and was found faithful and pleasing to God before he was circumcised. So if they were faithful to God, they too could be found pleasing to God in their uncircumcision, and have Abraham as their father: they did not need to be Jewish or be circumcised to approach God.

-The Messiah is returning and will judge the living and the dead for what they have done.

-To repent, therefore, be faithful to the Messiah, and stop being a Roman or Greek or Scythian with those ways of life that were not compatible with faith in Jesus, and begin being a new creation by following the teaching of Jesus which fulfills the Torah

-And that that when the northern kingdom (known in the scriptures as Ephraim cf Ezek 37:16) was scattered into the nations the seeds were planted; now that the people of the nations are coming to faithfulness in Messiah, Ephraim brings in the fullness of the gentiles, and simultaneously restores the lost tribes of Israel. The faithful non-Jews coming to Jesus become part of All Israel, and have Abraham and the Patriarchs as their fathers.

None of this is Christian against the Pharisaic Judaism St Paul already practiced and continued to practice for the rest of his life.
lobopride
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks! I will spend some time reading through what you wrote.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks. I learned something which is good.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for writing this. Need to reread it a few times. I don't think I've ever heard it put this way
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for your time in writing all your thoughts out.

I don't think I fully understand, but that's okay.

So the idea that at one moment he's signing off on Stephen's murder and the next he is a changed man - that is outside the scope of the debate of free will vs God's initiative?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure, because you seem to be trying to force this into a framework that it doesn't need.

Was Isaiah saved in one moment when he saw a vision of Yahweh and was sent by God?
Was Jeremiah saved when the Word of Yahweh came to him and touched his mouth?
Was Ezekiel saved the moment he saw a vision of Yahweh on his throne-chariot?

St Paul saw a vision of the Messiah, who spoke to him... the same person who spoke to Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel...and the Apostles. He was told he would be sent to the people of the nations, to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and as he says he "was not disobedient to the vision from heaven."

After going to Damascus in obedience and receiving baptism he spent several years in Arabia (modern day Petra) and received several more visions. Which one saved him?

How much did the radically devout, zealous Pharisee really change? We don't know. His zeal wasn't bad - Christ is described as his zeal consuming him! - it was wrongly directed. His zeal for the Torah and for righteousness was based on ignorance and unbelief. That same zeal lead to a man willing to preach to Jews and gentiles, kings and Roman rulers, and even wanted to preach to Caesar. Did Isaiah or Ezekiel or Jeremiah change before and after?
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We aren't given that information (regarding the major prophets) but it was God who called them, not the other way around. Paul didn't just decide to just start re-channeling his ravishing of the church, right?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man I honestly don't understand your question. God called him, yes. St Paul then responded to that call in obedience and faithfulness.
aggiedata
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can we all agree on this?

"The Apostle Paul entered heaven to the cheers of those he martyred. That's how the gospel works."
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would you say that it is incorrect that my Bible uses "Saul's Conversion" as a sub title?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah. Those section titles are only a few centuries old. Not part of the scriptures.
Howdy, it is me!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Convert means to adopt a particular belief. Paul went from not believing Jesus was the Messiah to believing Jesus was the Messiah. He was converted, as everyone is who goes from not believing Jesus is the Messiah to believing Him to be so.
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Non confrontational question from someone FAR less knowledgeable than you…

After baptism, what would you call Saul?

Would baptism set him aside as separate or different from all other Pharisees?

As an extension, would not all baptized Jews (and gentiles) be something new and separate from the rest of the world? What would you call those people?

Separate question…how does is work with baptism grafting people into the tree of God's people? Believers in Jesus as Messiah…and God's people who reject that…all part of the same tree?

Do the leaves and branches feel the sun (Son) before the trunk and roots?

I want to understand this more fully.
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And I think it's also fair to ask if acknowledging Jesus as Messiah sets a group apart?

Would it not make Saul different than a Pharisee (or Sadducee, etc) that do not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and the living Word of God?

Same goes for gentiles converting from pagan practices to acknowledge Jesus…of Jewish lineage…to be Messiah and one of the Holy Trinity?

What do we call all those people…like Saul…who profess Jesus as Lord/Messiah/Word of God…who are baptized by the Spirit, as Jesus instructed?

Please forgive any errors or misunderstanding on my part.

The baptized seem to me to be something wholly new and different…set apart from all they were and believed before.
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In your view, would it be fair to call Saul a Pharisee with full revelation? Similar case for the apostles?

And if so, what of the rest (vast majority, I would assume) of the various Jewish sects that rejected Saul's (and the Apostles) teachings?

Those that rejected Jesus as Messiah are still God's people…but are the two groups not deeply apart?

John 14:6 comes to mind

P.S. I am Catholic, so much closer to your beliefs than separate
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In summary, it seems to me that you are giving insight into the life of Saul…but saying that his Baptism (seems like a conversion to me) didn't make him much different from other Pharisees/gentiles

But it seems to me he was VERY different through Baptism and Confession of Jesus as Lord…similar to some Pharisees/Sadducees/etc who followed his path…but VERY different from the vast majority of those same groups.

Like saying how he walked, talked, and dressed was identical to his surroundings…but, it seems to me, he was so very fundamentally different

I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth.

Peace be with you
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
P.S.S. When I grow up, I want to go to seminary with Zobel and Derm…and discuss the mysteries of God over some adult beverages every evening
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GasPasser97 said:

P.S.S. When I grow up, I want to go to seminary with Zobel and Derm…and discuss the mysteries of God over some adult beverages every evening
I am all for that. CS Lewis and Tolkien come to mind.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hopefully Spurgeon is invited
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OP sez: never converted to Christianity, which was the original objection I made. St Paul never changed faith, or religions. Obviously his belief and understanding about the Messiah changed.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10andBOUNCE said:

Hopefully Spurgeon is invited
Of course. He enjoyed a good cigar and cocktail. And truly loved the Lord and was incredibly intelligent. I would love to discuss monergism and dp with him.

To my knowledge, he was not a "sinners in the hands of an angry God" guy. Did you know that like 3 people committed suicide after Edward's sermon on this and I believe that included Edward's father in law?

And I firmly believe Spurgeon would not have someone who disagreed with him theologically burned at the stake.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Howdy, it is me!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

OP sez: never converted to Christianity, which was the original objection I made. St Paul never changed faith, or religions. Obviously his belief and understanding about the Messiah changed.


So what sets apart a believing Pharisee from you, a Christian? Are there three groups of people? The unsaved, the Christian saved, and the "other" saved? I guess he was a Messianic Jew?

I'm truly confused as to why you won't call Paul a Christian.

Would you call the disciples Christians?.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What set a St Paul apart from me is about 2000 years.

There was no such thing as "Christian" when St Paul had his encounter with the Risen Messiah on the road to Damascus.

There wasn't even such a thing as a single, unified religion called "Judaism".

The groups that existed were the various sects within the religious practices of the people of Judaea, i.e., the Jews, pagans of the other nations, i.e., the gentiles, and a small minority of cosmopolitan gentiles who were interested in Judaism.

Judaism went through a bit of a fad interest phase in Rome after Pompey the Great violated the Temple, walked into the holy of holies, and found no idol there. The Romans were impressed that the Jews worshiped only with the mind. There were a number of so-called "god fearers" around, people at the fringes of the synagogue. It was also pious for Romans to engage in what we'd call charity today, and many ancient synagogues had wealthy gentile sponsors. This is no doubt a part of the reason that those of the synagogue who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah were so upset - St Paul was robbing them of very wealthy, often politically connected support.

Christian as a separate and distinct entity from a form of Judaism did not really begin until after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the followers of Jesus apparently did not participate in the revolt...and "officially" until AD 98 when the tax imposed on Jews was formally not applied to Christians by Emperor Nerva.

St Paul wasn't a Christian, because Christianity didn't exist yet, it wasn't a <<thing>>. He was a Judaean, a Pharisee by training and belief, who was faithful to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

That's why he went to the synagogue first. That's why early proto-Christians continued to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem or go to synagogue in the diaspora, but met together for the Eucharist on the Lord's Day.

Anyway, Christianity proper is just the religion of the Apostles. It is a culminated strand of first-century Judaism, which was the same faith as practiced by the faithful people of Israel and Judah, and the same faith practiced all the way back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Apostles did not convert to Christianity, either. The faith that my church, the Orthodox church, practices is that same religion of the Apostles, which is the same faith always held by the people of God.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

And I think it's also fair to ask if acknowledging Jesus as Messiah sets a group apart?
Yes, of course. But also it should be pointed out that the Pharisees were right and the Sadducees were wrong about the Resurrection. So it isn't as if there was just Judaism and not Judaism or whatever.

Quote:

Would it not make Saul different than a Pharisee (or Sadducee, etc) that do not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and the living Word of God?
Yes. Non-faithful Jews are cut off from the promises of Abraham, because those are only enjoyed through faithfulness to the heir of those promises, who is Jesus. That is what troubles St Paul so much.

Quote:

Same goes for gentiles converting from pagan practices to acknowledge Jesus…of Jewish lineage…to be Messiah and one of the Holy Trinity?
Now that is a great question, because I think it is something that St Paul struggled to get people to grasp. Even faithful Jewish followers of Jesus, even apparently St Peter. It is the question they discussed at the council of Jerusalem. If these people are following the God of the Jews, Yahweh, and are faithful to the Jewish Messiah Jesus, shouldn't they become Jewish? In the ancient world the obvious answer is yes, like duh. Even further people see the Eucharist as clearly related to the Passover, and only Jews could eat the Passover. So - like the Pharisees said - "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" and "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." It was kind of an obvious conclusion.

But St Paul said no, and the other Apostles supported him. The faithful people of Judaea who were expecting their Messiah did not convert - they received what they hoped for. But the people of the other nations absolutely did convert! But not to Judaism! Instead they had to become something entirely new.

It is clear what a faithful Jewish follower of Jesus looked like. Kept Torah, basically kept the same way of life as before, with a new and elevated understanding of the Torah and the Prophets, blessed and enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

But what does a faithful Greek follower of Jesus look like? Or a Roman? They did not keep the Torah as Jews, only the parts of the Torah that applied to them. And they absolutely could not continue in their old way of life, which was filled with debauchery, idolatry, and a completely ungodly understanding of righteousness and justice and the good. These people had to truly become something new, something different - Christian Romans, Christian Greeks, Christian Scythians, Christian Gauls. And eventually Christian Germans, Russians, and so on. These things had never existed before! They would look different than faithful Jews, but also ultimately be a part of the same people group, grafted in. That metaphor is no accident - when you graft in a fruit or a flower it does not become the same as the host tree. It retains its own character, but is nourished by the host. They became Israel, but grafted in and not becoming Judaean, but remaining what they were - transformed and renewed by the Spirit.


Quote:

In your view, would it be fair to call Saul a Pharisee with full revelation? Similar case for the apostles?
Yes! Though likely some of the Apostles were Sadducees and other sects.

Quote:

Those that rejected Jesus as Messiah are still God's people…but are the two groups not deeply apart?
God's people is and always has been defined as those faithful to the heir of the promises to Abraham. When they are faithless, they are cut off. Ephraim was cut off because of faithlessness. Edom was cut off. And, sadly, branches were removed for those of the nations - us - to be grafted in. They can come back, as St Paul says, and they are the natural branches so they belong and will fit. But I do not think they are God's People, because they have separated themself from the Root, and the Vine who is Jesus.

Quote:

In summary, it seems to me that you are giving insight into the life of Saul…but saying that his Baptism (seems like a conversion to me) didn't make him much different from other Pharisees/gentiles
He definitely changed, updated beliefs, and was corrected by his revelation. He understood the mystery that all people would come to Yahweh the God of Israel through the Messiah, which was not revealed before. But he had much less distance to go to what he became than, say, a pagan Galatian.

Quote:

Like saying how he walked, talked, and dressed was identical to his surroundings…but, it seems to me, he was so very fundamentally different
Maybe? He says he was once a violent man and implies that he is no longer. That's why I think his zeal remained, but was baptized - redeemed and harnessed and sanctified. Of course the vision of the Messiah changed him. The prophets were all changed after their visions. Probably in modern terms they were a little nuts.

I mean we wouldn't say that Isaiah or Ezekiel converted after encountering God. It seems strange that we would put St Paul in a different category, when the scriptures present him to us as the prophet called to go to the nations.
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thank you very much

You connect the dots far better than I am able
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
None of this is my own happy thoughts I'm just plagiarizing several books
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From my first reading of your post, it sounds as if you are saying this is "new wine" in an old wineskin.

Not sure I fully grasp your intent. Will read again.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
MisterJones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Christianity" as a faith / religion / worldview (in the sense we know it today) did not exist in Paul's time, BUT the term "Christian" did.

(christianos) appears three times in the NT:

Acts 11:26
"And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."

Acts 26:28
" And Agrippa said to Paul, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?" "

1 Peter 4:16
"Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

The term "Christian" was believed to first be used in a derogatory manner by outsiders who wanted to mock followers of "The Way"
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The disciples were first called Christians after St Paul's vision on the road to Damascus.
MisterJones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly - I don't disagree with your assertion that Paul never converted to "Christianity" - just clarifying that the term "Christian" was around during his lifetime.

Although it didn't necessarily mean what it means in our cultural context today.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do we know if the Sadducees actually referred to themselves as such? Clearly there were factions within the community, but names came later. It would seem.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As Sadducees? Yes. They were Zadokites, as in of Zadok.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think Paul did convert and it is the same for us when at first God "restores", "turns", or "converts" us to him as it reads in Lamentations 5:21.

Aquinas (again) speaking about man's free will and God's predestination (plan of salvation) that God is the prime mover in this act. Paul was converted and cooperated with God's grace to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.

I also believe that God's mercy did not end, but "His mercy endures forever" as it says in Psalm 136.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I am not saying that there was no change in St Paul's heart or that he didn't receive grace or anything like that.

I'm saying he didn't convert to a new religion. It's often made out like he stopped being a Jew and started being a Christian. This is anachronism. Christianity is a continuity of a first century Judaism. His theology and belief about the Messiah didn't change. His understanding of who the Messiah was, and how that related to the gentiles did, by revelation. But he didn't change religions. It's an anachronistic way of thinking.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.