پولس

The traditional view is that Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero AD 64-67. In my recent book The Fate of the Apostles, I make the case that the apostles were all willing to suffer and die for their faith. While the evidence for individual apostles varies, there is very good historical reason to believe that Paul died as a martyr in the mid to late 60s.

While Scripture does not specifically mention Paul’s martyrdom, there are hints in both the book of Acts and 2 Timothy 4:6-8 that Paul knew his death was imminent.[1] Extra biblically, there is evidence from 1 Clement 5:5-7 (c. AD 95-96) where the writer describes Paul as suffering tremendously for his faith and then being “set free from this world and transported up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance.” While details regarding the manner of his fate are lacking, the immediate context strongly implies that Clement was setting up Paul as an example of martyrdom. Other early evidences for the martyrdom of Paul can be found in Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 12:2), Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:1-2), Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25.4), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1), The Acts of Paul, and Tertullian (Scorpiace 15:5-6).

The early, consistent, and unanimous testimony is that Paul died as a martyr. But what about the claim he was beheaded? Can this part of the traditional account be trusted?

The first reference to Paul’s death by beheading is found in the Acts of Paul, specifically in The Martyrdom of Paul. A few years later, at the turn of the second century, Tertullian became the first church father to state that Nero had Paul beheaded in Rome.[2] And then in the early fourth century, Eusebius confirms this tradition.[3]

In the account in the Acts of Paul, Nero sends a decree that all Christians are to be put to death. Nero commanded that prisoners be burned, but orders Paul beheaded according to Roman law. Wilhelm Schneemelcher finds this depiction not quite logical since beheading was a less severe penalty.[4] However, this ignores that the text emphasizes the beheading as according to Roman law, which would require a different mode of execution for a Roman citizen such as Paul.

In this narrative, milk comes out of Paul’s neck when he is decapitated. This may seem like legendary material added to provide theological significance, but there is a known medical condition in which a milk-type fluid emits from the neck. The account may be legendary (as is the baptizing of a lion in the same document), but not necessarily so.

Romans had a variety of methods of execution.[5] In terms of beheading, Romans practiced decollation, which involved the use of a sword rather than decapitation with an axe.[6] It was a common form of execution. King Herod had John the Baptist beheaded (Mark 6:27). James the brother of John was “killed with the sword” under Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:2). The book of Revelation reports the beheading of those who gave testimony for Jesus and refused to worship the beast (Rev 20:4). Eusebius reports that Caesar “beheaded all who seemed to possess Roman citizenship and sent the rest to the beasts.”[7] Eusebius later notes that after proclaiming his faith Apollonius was beheaded according to Roman law.[8] The sword, a symbol of power, brought fear into the hearts of people. Even Paul recognized governing authorities do not bear the sword in vain (Rom 13:4).

Given (1) there is no alternative claim of how Paul met his fate, (2) beheading was a common form of execution, and (3) it fits with what else is known about Paul (e.g., his citizenship), it is more probable than not that Paul was beheaded. This cannot be held with the same degree of confidence as his martyrdom, but we have no good reason to doubt that the earliest accounts contain a tradition that dates back to his actual mode of death.

In the Roman world, imprisonment was rarely a long-term punishment. Most prisoners were awaiting either trial or execution. Debtors could be imprisoned until their friends or family paid o‘ the debt (Matt. 18:30). The length of imprisonment depended on a trial’s swiftness, which could be drawn out for years, especially in political cases. Conditions of imprisonment were closely linked to the status of the prisoner. Non-Roman citizens, even of high status, were often harshly treated. In contrast, house arrest was typically more comfortable for the prisoner, who was usually physically chained to a guard but could still host visitors.

Paul experienced a wide variety of Roman prison conditions. He was chained in a common holding cell in Philippi (Acts 16:23– 30), imprisoned in probably better conditions in the praetorium at Caesarea (Acts 23:35), and held in relative comfort while in house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:16). In Rome, Paul was responsible for maintaining himself during his imprisonment, including his meals and clothes (Acts 28:30). Paul’s Roman citizenship meant he was eligible for a daily food allowance, but Paul depended on his friends and fellow believers to supply this food. While under house arrest in Rome, Paul was guarded around the clock by soldiers of the elite Praetorian Guard.

Finally, when he was later rearrested and executed (likely a few years after this letter), Paul was probably placed in an underground cell somewhere in Rome. It is possible that he was then imprisoned in the Roman Mamertine Prison in the Roman Forum. This was where major convicted enemies of the state were strangled or kept before being thrown off the Tarpeian Rock on the Capitoline Hill. However, if Paul was executed by a sword outside the city, as later tradition claimed, he probably would not have been imprisoned at Mamertine.

Paul is the stated author of Philippians, and while Timothy is listed in 1:1 as a coauthor, the main voice is clearly Paul’s. Timothy may have been Paul’s amanuensis, or secretary. The letter was written to the Christians in the Roman colony of Philippi. Some scholars have suggested that the current epistle combines two authentic letters of Paul, with the first letter concluding at 3:1 (“Finally, my brothers . . .”). However, Paul elsewhere uses “finally” in the middle of an epistle (1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:1; cf. 1 Pet. 3:8).

Paul wrote this letter while in a Roman prison, and the date of the composition of Philippians depends on where Paul was imprisoned. His statements to the Philippians concerning his possibly imminent death (e.g., Phil. 1:20) indicate the letter was most likely written from Rome, perhaps in AD 62. This also fits most naturally with the mention of the praetorium and “Caesar’s household”.

For the next two years (57-59 AD), Paul is kept under guard in Herod's palace in Caesarea (Acts 23:34-35) as the politicians -- Roman governors and Jewish kings -- seek to use Paul to gain political advantage with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. His imprisonment isn't about justice, but about preventing discontent from turning into open rebellion among the Jews. So Paul is neither formally charged nor released. Acts spends several chapters on this which I'll try to summarize and interpret.

The high priest, Ananias (47-59 AD), son of Nedebaeus leads the delegation. Ananias had a reputation for greed and gluttony. He had been appointed by King Herod of Chalcis in 47 AD, a political appointment by a Jewish king. Ananias, according to F.F. Bruce, "was one of the most disgraceful profaners of the sacred office."[425] For example, he seizes tithes intended for the common priests and uses them to increase his own wealth, a paragon of greed. He had been sent to Rome, accused by the governor of Syria of acts of violence in 52 AD, but was acquitted by emperor Claudius and returned to the high priesthood. Even after he is deposed from office, he uses his great wealth to get his way through violence and assassination. Because he is pro-Roman, however, he is put to death by Jewish zealots at the beginning of the Jewish rebellion against Rome in 66 AD.

The high priest's spokesman is a Jewish lawyer, Tertullus, evidently a Hellenistic Jew, since his name is a common one in the Greek world. He is a skilled orator.

The governor, Antonius Felix, is procurator of Judea (52-59 AD), filling the position once held by Pontius Pilate (26-36 AD). He is a Roman of common origins, but elevated because his brother happened to be in the court of Emperor Claudius. As governor, in a time of increased uprisings among the Jews, he becomes known for his ruthlessness. Roman historian Tacitus (56-120 AD) says about the man: "Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave."[426]

Paul offers a few nice words of his own towards Felix, and then explains the details, denying that he was "arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city" (Acts 24:12). Paul asserts that his accusers can't prove their charge of him being a "troublemaker" (charge #1). Paul admits being "a follower of the Way" (charge #2), but asserts that he is a conscientious Pharisee, was ceremonially clean when he entered the temple, and didn't cause a disturbance (charge #3). Felix puts off any decision until he hears from Lysias, the Jerusalem tribune.

پولس رسول-Paul the Apostle

Immediately after his conversion he retired into the solitudes of Arabia (Gal_1:17), perhaps of "Sinai in Arabia," for the purpose, probably, of devout study and meditation on the marvelous revelation that had been made to him. "A veil of thick darkness hangs over this visit to Arabia. Of the scenes among which he moved, of the thoughts and occupations which engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must have shaped the whole tenor of his after-life, absolutely nothing is known. 'Immediately,' says St. Paul, 'I went away into Arabia.' The historian passes over the incident [compare Act_9:23 and 1Ki_11:38, 1Ki_11:39]. It is a mysterious pause, a moment of suspense, in the apostle's history, a breathless calm, which ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life." Coming back, after three years, to Damascus, he began to preach the gospel "boldly in the name of Jesus" (Act_9:27), but was soon obliged to flee (Act_9:25; 2Co_11:33) from the Jews and betake himself to Jerusalem. Here he tarried for three weeks, but was again forced to flee (Act_9:28, Act_9:29) from persecution. He now returned to his native Tarsus (Gal_1:21), where, for probably about three years, we lose sight of him. The time had not yet come for his entering on his great life-work of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.

At length the city of Antioch, the capital of Syria, became the scene of great Christian activity. There the gospel gained a firm footing, and the cause of Christ prospered. Barnabas, who had been sent from Jerusalem to superintend the work at Antioch, found it too much for him, and remembering Saul, he set out to Tarsus to seek for him. He readily responded to the call thus addressed to him, and came down to Antioch, which for "a whole year" became the scene of his labours, which were crowned with great success. The disciples now, for the first time, were called "Christians" (Act_11:26). The church at Antioch now proposed to send out missionaries to the Gentiles, and Saul and Barnabas, with John Mark as their attendant, were chosen for this work. This was a great epoch in the history of the church. Now the disciples began to give effect to the Master's command: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

The three missionaries went forth on the first missionary tour. They sailed from Seleucia, the seaport of Antioch, across to Cyprus, some 80 miles to the south-west. Here at Paphos, Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul, was converted, and now Saul took the lead, and was ever afterwards called Paul. The missionaries now crossed to the mainland, and then proceeded 6 or 7 miles up the river Cestrus to Perga (Act_13:13), where John Mark deserted the work and returned to Jerusalem. The two then proceeded about 100 miles inland, passing through Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia. The towns mentioned in this tour are the Pisidian Antioch, where Paul delivered his first address of which we have any record (Acts 13:16-51; compare Act_10:30-43), Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. They returned by the same route to see and encourage the converts they had made, and ordain elders in every city to watch over the churches which had been gathered. From Perga they sailed direct for Antioch, from which they had set out.

After remaining "a long time", probably till A.D. 50 or 51, in Antioch, a great controversy broke out in the church there regarding the relation of the Gentiles to the Mosaic law. For the purpose of obtaining a settlement of this question, Paul and Barnabas were sent as deputies to consult the church at Jerusalem. The council or synod which was there held (Acts 15) decided against the Judaizing party; and the deputies, accompanied by Judas and Silas, returned to Antioch, bringing with them the decree of the council. After a short rest at Antioch, Paul said to Barnabas: "Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do." Mark proposed again to accompany them; but Paul refused to allow him to go. Barnabas was resolved to take Mark, and thus he and Paul had a sharp contention. They separated, and never again met. Paul, however, afterwards speaks with honour of Barnabas, and sends for Mark to come to him at Rome (Col_4:10; 2Ti_4:11).

Paul took with him Silas, instead of Barnabas, and began his second missionary journey about A.D. 51. This time he went by land, revisiting the churches he had already founded in Asia. But he longed to enter into "regions beyond," and still went forward through Phrygia and Galatia (Act_16:6). Contrary to his intention, he was constrained to linger in Galatia, on account of some bodily affliction (Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14). Bithynia, a populous province on the shore of the Black Sea, lay now before him, and he wished to enter it; but the way was shut, the Spirit in some manner guiding him in another direction, till he came down to the shores of the Aegean and arrived at Troas, on the north-western coast of Asia Minor (Act_16:8). Of this long journey from Antioch to Troas we have no account except some references to it in his Epistle to the Galatians (Gal_4:13).

As he waited at Troas for indications of the will of God as to his future movements, he saw, in the vision of the night, a man from the opposite shores of Macedonia standing before him, and heard him cry, "Come over, and help us" (Act_16:9). Paul recognized in this vision a message from the Lord, and the very next day set sail across the Hellespont, which separated him from Europe, and carried the tidings of the gospel into the Western world. In Macedonia, churches were planted in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea. Leaving this province, Paul passed into Achaia, "the paradise of genius and renown." He reached Athens, but quitted it after, probably, a brief sojourn (Act_17:17-31). The Athenians had received him with cold disdain, and he never visited that city again. He passed over to Corinth, the seat of the Roman government of Achaia, and remained there a year and a half, labouring with much success. While at Corinth, he wrote his two epistles to the church of Thessalonica, his earliest apostolic letters, and then sailed for Syria, that he might be in time to keep the feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem. He was accompanied by Aquila and Priscilla, whom he left at Ephesus, at which he touched, after a voyage of thirteen or fifteen days. He landed at Caesarea, and went up to Jerusalem, and having "saluted the church" there, and kept the feast, he left for Antioch, where he abode "some time" (Act_18:20-23).

He then began his third missionary tour. He journeyed by land in the "upper coasts" (the more eastern parts) of Asia Minor, and at length made his way to Ephesus, where he tarried for no less than three years, engaged in ceaseless Christian labour. "This city was at the time the Liverpool of the Mediterranean. It possessed a splendid harbour, in which was concentrated the traffic of the sea which was then the highway of the nations; and as Liverpool has behind her the great towns of Lancashire, so had Ephesus behind and around her such cities as those mentioned along with her in the epistles to the churches in the book of Revelation, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. It was a city of vast wealth, and it was given over to every kind of pleasure, the fame of its theatres and race-course being world-wide" (Stalker's Life of St. Paul). Here a "great door and effectual" was opened to the apostle. His fellow-labourers aided him in his work, carrying the gospel to Colosse and Laodicea and other places which they could reach.

Paul the Apostle

Although other early Christian missionaries converted Gentiles, and the Christian movement even without Paul probably would have broken away from its Jewish parent, Paul played a crucial role in those developments and accordingly is regarded as the second founder of the Christian movement. His mission to convert Gentiles helped to achieve the separation of the Christian movement from Judaism, but that was not his intention, and the causes of the breach went well beyond his apostleship. It should be emphasized that he sought to create a new humanity in Christ, including all Jews and all Gentiles. Most Jews, however, did not join the movement, which became largely a Gentile religion.

Paul’s greatest impact on Christian history comes from his letters, which are the most influential books of the New Testament after the Gospels. The Christological statements in his letters have been particularly important in the development of Christian theology. Although they do not form a complete system, they show a powerful mind grappling with the question of how to express the relationship between Jesus the Christ and God the Father. Paul’s letters inspired Christian thinkers for the next several centuries to attempt to find a satisfactory explanation of that relationship. In the letters, Paul also developed powerful expressions of the human relationship to the divine in his ideas of faith as total commitment to Christ, of Christians as constituting the mystical (or metaphorical) body of Christ, and of baptism as becoming one person with Christ and sharing his death so as to share his life. On this crucial question of religion, Paul and the author of the Gospel of John are the two great geniuses of the early Christian period.

Paul the Apostle[note 1][8] (c. 5 – c. 64/67 AD), commonly known as Saint Paul and also known by his Hebrew name Saul of Tarsus,[note 2][9] was a Christian apostle (although not one of the Twelve Apostles) who spread the teachings of Jesus in the first-century world.[10] Generally regarded as one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age,[9][11] he founded several Christian communities in Asia Minor and Europe from the mid-30s to the mid-50s AD.[12]

We have two sources of information pertaining to Paul’s biography. The Acts of the Apostles is a narrative (more stylized than “raw” history, but historical nonetheless) that features him as a primary character. But as the character in a narrative, good historical work demands that we always start with primary sources: Paul’s words in Paul’s own letters.

This second source gives us the clearest access to his life and thought. Although they are colored by his own biases (as is anything written by any human in history, so this isn’t meant to be pejorative), they give the clearest witness and access to the historical Paul.

Acts, then, is a “corroborative source” before it is a primary source, but the two need not be seen as in competition. They have different rhetorical and historical functions, which is important to name when seeking to find out more about this historical figure.

Acts 23.6 describes Paul as a Pharisee (and the son of a Pharisee) which corroborates with his own words in Philippians 3.5-6. In Acts, it explicitly names this identity as a family link, since his father also had such an identity.

At some early point in Paul’s life, Acts 22.3 claims that Paul studied under the great Pharisaic teacher, Gamaliel, who may have been the grandson of Hillel the Elder (sometimes noted as one of the great proto-rabbis [often called “sages” or “teachers”] of the first century BCE).

If this connection is true, which based on Paul’s interpretive grid throughout his letters as a wise Pharisee seems more than plausible, Paul studied under one of the most respected teaching lineages in the late Second Temple period. He seems to have been educated beyond Torah expertise, to include a deep understanding of the Prophets and classical literature and philosophy.

Acts also describes that Paul was a tent-maker as his primary vocation (18.1-3). He worked with Priscilla and Aquila who are also mentioned in Romans 16.3-4 as “co-workers” (likely both metaphorically in regards to the message of Jesus and literally regarding a shared trade).

And then, 14 years later, Paul went back to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus to meet with the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church: James, Cephas, and John. In this meeting, these key leaders affirmed that Paul was indeed commissioned to be an apostle to the gentiles (which means “nations-people”).  The only thing that the Jerusalem apostles urged was that Paul and his companions “remember the poor” (Gal. 2.10).

A controversy eventually would ensue in Antioch, as the realities on the ground that complicated the bringing together of Jewish and gentile followers of Jesus, came to light. Certain men came from James (Galatians 2.12ff) to visit and caused confusion about the nature of the gospel message to the gentiles.

=Saul was born about the same time as our Lord. His circumcision-name was Saul, and probably the name Paul was also given to him in infancy "for use in the Gentile world," as "Saul" would be his Hebrew home-name. He was a native of Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, a Roman province in the south-east of Asia Minor. That city stood on the banks of the river Cydnus, which was navigable thus far; hence it became a centre of extensive commercial traffic with many countries along the shores of the Mediterranean, as well as with the countries of central Asia Minor. It thus became a city distinguished for the wealth of its inhabitants.

Tarsus was also the seat of a famous university, higher in reputation even than the universities of Athens and Alexandria, the only others that then existed.Here Saul was born, and here he spent his youth, doubtless enjoying the best education his native city could afford. His father was of the straightest sect of the Jews, a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin, of pure and unmixed Jewish blood (Act_23:6; Phi_3:5). We learn nothing regarding his mother; but there is reason to conclude that she was a pious woman, and that, like-minded with her husband, she exercised all a mother influence in moulding the character of her son, so that he could afterwards speak of himself as being, from his youth up, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Phi_3:6).

We read of his sister and his sister's son (Act_23:16), and of other relatives (Rom_16:7, Rom_16:11, Rom_16:12). Though a Jew, his father was a Roman citizen. How he obtained this privilege we are not informed. "It might be bought, or won by distinguished service to the state, or acquired in several other ways; at all events, his son was freeborn. It was a valuable privilege, and one that was to prove of great use to Paul, although not in the way in which his father might have been expected to desire him to make use of it." Perhaps the most natural career for the youth to follow was that of a merchant. " But it was decided that... he should go to college and become a rabbi, that is, a minister, a teacher, and a lawyer all in one." According to Jewish custom, however, he learned a trade before entering on the more direct preparation for the sacred profession. The trade he acquired was the making of tents from goats' hair cloth, a trade which was one of the commonest in Tarsus.

His preliminary education having been completed, Saul was sent, when about thirteen years of age probably, to the great Jewish school of sacred learning at Jerusalem as a student of the law. Here he became a pupil of the celebrated rabbi Gamaliel, and here he spent many years in an elaborate study of the Scriptures and of the many questions concerning them with which the rabbis exercised themselves. During these years of diligent study he lived "in all good conscience," unstained by the vices of that great city.

پولس رسول-Paul the Apostle

According to Paul, all humans, no matter how hard they try, are enslaved by sin (Romans 7:14–21). The strength of sin’s power explains why the traditional Jewish view, that transgression should be followed by repentance and that repentance results in forgiveness, plays a very small role in Paul’s letters. In the seven undisputed letters, the word “forgiveness” does not appear, “forgive” appears six times (Romans 4:7; 2 Corinthians 2:5–10), and “repent” and “repentance” appear only three times (Romans 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:9–10). Mere repentance is not enough to permit escape from the overwhelming power of sin. The escape, rather, requires being “buried with” Christ through baptism.

While “buried with” and being “baptized into” are the most graphic terms describing the individual’s escape from sin, the most common word for this conversion is “faith”—that is, faith in Christ. The language of faith is ubiquitous in Paul’s letters and has a great range of meaning. The verb “to put one’s faith in” or “to believe” (the same Greek word, pisteuein, may be translated both ways) appears 49 times in the undisputed letters, while the noun “faith” (or “belief”) appears 93 times. Occasionally the verb means “to believe that” something is true (Romans 10:9: “believe in your heart that God raised [Christ]”), but in 1 Thessalonians it means “steadfastness.” Paul feared that the Thessalonians were wavering under persecution, and so he sent Timothy to strengthen their faith. Timothy reported back that their faith was strong (1 Thessalonians 3:1–13). Most frequently, however, the verb means “to put one’s entire confidence and trust in Christ,” as in Galatians 2:20: “the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.”

In Galatians and Romans the phrase “be justified by faith in Christ, not by doing the works of the law” is used to oppose the view of some Christian missionaries that Paul’s Gentile converts should become Jewish by accepting circumcision and Jewish law. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, the first of the Hebrew patriarchs, and it was traditionally required of all Gentiles who wished to worship the God of Israel. Thus, Paul’s rivals held that his converts were not yet among the people of God. Paul’s view, however, was that his Gentile converts could join the people of God in the last days without becoming Jewish, and he argued vociferously that faith in Christ was the only requirement for Gentiles. This is the meaning of “justification” or “righteousness” by faith, not by law, in Galatians and Romans. (“Righteousness” and “justification” translate the same Greek word, dikaiosynē.)

In later Christianity it was sometimes supposed that “works of the law” are “good deeds” and that Paul thus set faith in opposition to good works. This is not the meaning of the debate about “works of the law” in Paul’s letters, however. He was entirely in favour of good deeds, as the emphasis on perfect behaviour shows, and he did not regard good works as being opposed to “faith.” On the contrary, faith produced good deeds as “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22). The question was whether his Gentile converts would have to accept those parts of the Jewish law that separated Jew from Gentile. Paul opposed making these aspects of the law mandatory for his Gentile converts.

In Galatians and Romans the language of “righteousness by faith” yields to the language of being in Christ. Thus, Galatians 3:24–28: “Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith”; “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith”; those baptized into Christ have “clothed yourselves with Christ”; and the conclusion, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one [person] in Christ Jesus.” “Righteousness by faith” is not actually something different from being baptized into Christ and becoming one person with him. Paul employed the language of righteousness and faith when he was using the story of Abraham to argue that circumcision was no longer necessary. The language that was more natural to him when he wished to describe the believer’s transfer from the power of sin to the power of Christ, however, was dying with Christ, being baptized into him, and becoming one person with him.

Paul regarded his converts not only as individuals who had been freed from sin but also as organic members of the collective body of Christ. The idea of the body of Christ probably also explains why, in his view, it is difficult to sin so badly as to lose one’s place in the people of God. Only the worst forms of denial of Christ can remove an organic member from the body of Christ.

Those who are in Christ will be transformed into a spiritual body like Christ’s when he returns, but they are already being “transformed” and “renewed” (2 Corinthians 3:18; 4:16); the “life of Jesus” is already being made visible in their mortal flesh (4:11). Paul thought that membership in the body of Christ really changed people, so that they would live accordingly. He thought that his converts were dead to sin and alive to God and that conduct flowed naturally from people, varying according to who they really were. Those who are under sin naturally commit sins—“those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8)—but those who are in Christ produce “the fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22; compare Philippians 1:11; Romans 8:2–11).

This absolutist ethical view—those in Christ are to be morally perfect; those not in Christ are extremely sinful—was not always true in practice, and Paul was often alarmed and offended when he discovered that the behaviour of his converts was not what he expected. It was in this context that he predicted suffering and even death or postmortem punishment for transgressions (1 Corinthians 11:30–32; 3:15; 5:4–5). Paul’s passionate extremism, however, was doubtless often attractive and persuasive. He made people believe that they could really change for the better, and this must often have happened.

One point is especially difficult. Paul maintained that the law is part of the world of sin and the flesh, to which the Christian dies. But how could the law, which was given by the good God, be allied with sin and the flesh? Paul, having nearly reached the point of equating the law with the powers of evil (Romans 7:1–6), promptly retracts the equation (Romans 7:7–25). What led him to make it in the first place was probably his absolutism. For Paul, everything not immediately useful for salvation is worthless; what is worthless is not on the side of the good; therefore, it is allied with the bad. However, he does maintain that the Jewish law is sacred and that the commandments are righteous and good (Romans 7:12). He continues to say that his mind desires to obey God’s law, while his flesh makes him “a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:21–25).

In the Gospels, Jesus prophesies the coming of “the Son of Man,” who will come on the clouds and whose angels will separate the good from the bad (e.g., Mark 13; Matthew 24). Paul accepted this view, but he believed, probably along with other followers of Jesus, that the enigmatic figure, the Son of Man, was Jesus himself: Jesus, who had been raised to heaven, would return. This view appears in 1 Thessalonians 4, which proclaims that when the Lord (Jesus) returns, the dead in Christ will be raised, and they, with the surviving members of the body of Christ, will greet the Lord in the air.

In the Endtime vision of 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul indicates that he thinks that some people will die before the Lord returns but that many (“we who are alive, who are left”) will not have died. In this passage he does not specify what will be raised, but the implication is corpses. As noted above, this belief was difficult for Paul’s pagan converts to accept, and Paul attempted to overcome their reluctance by emphasizing that the resurrection body would be changed into a “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:42–54). A second problem was the delay: Christ did not immediately return, and the idea that believers would have to remain in the ground until he came was troubling. Paul responded to this by stating that the transformation to a Christ-like spiritual body was already beginning (2 Corinthians 3:18). He also, however, seems sometimes to have accepted the Greek view that the soul would be detached from the body at death and go immediately to be with the Lord; at death believers will be “away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8). He restated this view when imprisonment forced him to think that he himself might die before the Lord returned (Philippians 1:21–24). Eventually Christianity would systemize these passages: the soul escapes at death and joins the Lord; when the Lord returns, bodies will be raised and reunited with souls.

پولس رسول-Paul the Apostle

Paul, like other Jews, was a monotheist who believed that the God of Israel was the only true God. But he also believed that the universe had multiple levels and was filled with spiritual beings. Paul’s universe included regions below the earth (Philippians 2:10); “the third heaven” or “Paradise” (2 Corinthians 12:1–4); and beings he called angels, principalities, rulers, powers, and demons (Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24). He also recognized the leader of the forces of evil, whom he called both “Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:5; 7:5) and “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). He declared in 1 Corinthians 8:5 that “there are many gods and many lords” (though he meant “so-called gods”), and in Romans 6–7 he treated sin as a personified or semipersonified power. Despite all this, Paul believed, at the right time the God of Israel will send his Son to defeat the powers of darkness (1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Philippians 2:9–11).

Originally, Jesus had only one name, “Jesus”; he was referred to as “Jesus from Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11), “Joseph’s son” (Luke 4:22), or “Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth” (John 1:45) when greater precision was necessary. During his lifetime his disciples may have begun to think of him as the Messiah (“Christ” in Greek translation), the anointed one who would restore the fortunes of Israel. After his death and resurrection, his followers regularly referred to him as the Messiah (Acts 2:36: “God made him both Lord and Messiah”). At some point, his adherents also began to refer to him as “Son of God.” Paul employed both “Christ” and “Son of God” freely, and he is also responsible for the widespread use of “Christ” as if it were Jesus’ name rather than his title. Paul sometimes shows knowledge that “the Christ” was a title, not a name, but more commonly he referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ,” “Christ Jesus,” or even “Christ,” as in Romans 6:4: “Christ was raised from the dead.” In all these cases, “Christ” is used as if it were part of Jesus’ name.

Various Jewish groups, however, expected different kings or messiahs or even none at all, and these titles therefore did not have precise meanings when the Christians started using them. “Son of God” in the Hebrew Bible is used metaphorically (God is the father, human beings are his children), and this usage continued in postbiblical Jewish literature. The Jewish people in general could be called “sons of God,” and the singular “son of God” could be applied to individuals who were especially close to God. Since neither “messiah” nor “son of God” automatically conveys a specific meaning, the significance of these terms must be determined by studying how each author uses them.

What Paul meant by “Christ” and “Son of God” cannot be known with certainty. He seems not to have defined the person of Jesus metaphysically (for example, that he was half human and half divine). In Philippians 2:6–11 Paul states that Christ Jesus was preexistent and came to earth: he “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.” This sounds as if Jesus was a heavenly being who only appeared to be human. In Romans 1:1–6, however, Paul writes that God declared Jesus to be “Son of God” by raising him from the dead. This sounds as if Jesus was a human being who was “adopted.” Although both views—that Jesus was not really human and that he was not really divine—would have a long life in Christianity, the church decided by the middle of the 5th century that Jesus was both entirely divine and entirely human. This solution, however, seems not to have been in Paul’s mind, and it took centuries of debate to evolve.

Paul’s thought concerning Jesus’ work—as opposed to Jesus’ person—is much clearer. God, according to Paul, sent Jesus to save the entire world. As noted above, Paul paid special attention to Jesus’ death and resurrection. His death, in the first place, was a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of everyone. Early Christians, influenced by the ancient theory that one death could serve as a substitute for others, believed that Jesus died on the cross so that believers would escape eternal destruction. For Paul, however, Jesus’ death allowed believers to escape not only the consequences of transgression but also the power of sin that leads to transgression. The believer was baptized “into Christ,” becoming “one” with him (Galatians 3:27–28). This meant that through Christ’s death, the baptized believer has mystically or metaphorically died and thus died to the power of sin that reigned in the world (Romans 6:3–4). Death with Christ gave “newness of life” in the present and guaranteed being raised with him in the future (6:4–5). Christ’s death, then, defeated sin in both senses: his blood brought atonement for transgression, and his death allowed those who were “united with him” to escape the power of sin.

The physical universe also needed to be freed from “bondage to decay.” The fact that individual believers could escape from sin did not free the entire world. When the time was right, God would send Christ back to save the cosmos by defeating all the remaining forces of sin and to liberate all of creation. Once Christ defeated all of his enemies, including death, he would turn creation over to God, so that God would be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:20–28; Romans 8:18–25). In this grand vision of the redemption of the created order, Paul shows how deeply he believed in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and in the cosmic importance of his Son, Jesus Christ.