Paul
and the Evolution of Christianity
“I have become all things to all people so that by all possible
means I might save some. I do all this
for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
-
1
Corinthians 9:22-23
Paul of
Tarsus is arguably the most influential and controversial figure in the history
of Christianity. Indeed, his influence
far exceeds even that of the actual disciples of Jesus (peace be upon
him). Not only that, but it is not at
all an exaggeration to also say that it was Paul, and not Jesus, who was the
true founder of Christianity. Most
Christians, however, regard Paul as a disciple of Jesus who was chosen to
deliver the “gospel” to the world. But
was Paul simply a messenger? Was he
really only delivering the “good news” to Jew and Gentile alike? Did his teachings originate from the
divine? These are hotly debated
questions, which we will attempt to answer in this article. We will examine the teachings of Paul by
going straight to the source: the Pauline epistles.[1] Through our examination, it should become
clear to the reader that Paul was a much more complex and enigmatic figure than
Christians are willing to admit. In this
article, we will show that “Pauline Christianity” did not come about through
divine revelation, but was rather the result of a gradual evolution in the face
of new challenges and questions. This
fact can be ascertained by examining his teachings on such issues as the
relationship between God and Jesus (peace be upon him), the applicability of
the Mosaic Law, slavery, and even salvation.[2]
Paul on
the Relationship between God and Jesus –
The
relationship between God and Jesus (peace be upon him) is perhaps the most
controversial aspect of Christianity, in part thanks to Paul’s teachings. While the Gospels (except for the Gospel of
John) tend to present Jesus as a human being and a servant of God, it was Paul
who was largely responsible for elevating Jesus to the level of God Himself.[3] However, even in this matter, Paul’s
teachings were not without their inconsistencies.
In the
epistle to the Romans, Paul condemned the idolatry that was rampant in his
time:
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal
human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”[4]
Paul’s condemnations of idolatry and the worship of false
gods are of course just and correct from the point of view of the Abrahamic
religions. However, one cannot help but
notice the irony of this statement given that Pauline Christianity maintains
that Jesus (peace be upon him) was God incarnate! So while on the one hand, Paul rightly
condemned the pagan worship of “images made to look
like a mortal human being”, yet on the other hand, he and his fellow
Christians worshiped Jesus (peace be upon him) as God, even referring to the
former as the “image of God”![5]
This
contradiction is made even more glaring given Paul’s statement in the first
epistle to Timothy, in which he failed to ascribe any divine status to Jesus
(peace be upon him):
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind,
the man Christ Jesus…”[6]
This would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to
expand on the supposed divinity of Jesus, yet he very clearly stated that there
is one God, and that Jesus was merely the mediator between God and
mankind. In fact, Paul specifically
referred to Jesus as a man! Yet in a
separate epistle to Titus, Paul referred to Jesus as “our
great God and Savior”.[7] If we assume that both letters were actually
written by Paul,[8]
then the contradiction between them is plainly visible. They cannot be reconciled. It is disturbing to see such a glaring inconsistency
on what one would think would be the most important doctrine of a monotheistic
religion!
Paul on
the Law of Moses -
One of the most debated aspects
of Christianity is the relevance of the Law of Moses to faithful
Christians. Most Christian theologians
argue that with the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon
him),[9]
the Law of Moses was abrogated and no longer applies.[10] In that regard, there is no figure in
Christian history that has influenced this view more than Paul, for the
strongest arguments in favor of the abrogation of the Law of Moses come from
the Pauline epistles. Yet in spite of
this, the epistles are not as clear-cut on the issue as Christians claim.
Christians
point to a few passages from the Pauline epistles which they argue clearly show
Paul’s teaching that the Law no longer applied and that Christians had been
“freed” from upholding its precepts.
Indeed, the epistles do contain such statements regarding the abolishment
of the Law. For example, in the letter
to the Colossians, Paul wrote:
“…having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which
stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the
cross.”[11]
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,
or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath
day.”[12]
And in the letter to the Ephesians, he stated:
“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one
and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside
in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.”[13]
Finally, in a rather graphic outburst regarding those
Christians who insisted on circumcision as per the Law of Moses, Paul wrote in
his letter to the Galatians:
“As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and
emasculate themselves!”[14]
So, it is clear from these passages that Paul was adamant in
his opposition to the applicability of the Law, whether it was regarding
dietary restrictions, circumcision or any other aspect. Based on the above verses, it seems clear
that he believed that those who believed in Jesus (peace be upon him) were
freed from obligation to the Law. Unfortunately, the issue was not that clear-cut, and it seems that Paul
contradicted himself on a number of other occasions regarding this very issue,
despite the apparent passion with which he criticized the keepers of the Law in
his earliest letters.
As it turns
out, in later correspondences, Paul seemed to readjust his views on the Law of
Moses, at least partially. We see this
shift when comparing his earlier letters, such as Galatians, to the later
correspondence to the Corinthians. As
Burton Mack explains:
“In his letter to the Galatians, Paul had been adamant about the
freedom of Christians from any sense of being beholden to the Jewish law, and
he had been forceful in his assertion that the experience of the spirit was a
sufficient basis for guidance in living the Christian life. In the Corinthian correspondence that
confidence is no longer obvious. In its
place is a studied attempt to interject the language of sobriety,
considerateness, constraint, law, loyalty, obedience, and judgment in his
discourse about the spirit, the body, and the Christian life. […] He could now say that ‘obeying the
commandments of God is everything’ (1 Cor. 7:19).”[15]
Additionally, New Testament scholars Roy E. Ciampa and Brian
S. Rosner have shown that the phrase “obeying the
commandments of God” most definitely refers to the Law of Moses. They state that:
“…the noun ‘commandments’ or ‘commandment’ is used thirteen
times in Paul’s letters. In the
majority, ten times, is refers unambiguously to the Jewish law…”[16]
Hence, there is little doubt that Paul’s views on the
applicability of the Mosaic Law was much more complex than most Christians are
willing to admit. The Law still applied
in many cases and had not been abolished at all. Paul had clearly shifted from his earlier,
more extremist view with regards to the Law.
Even with regard to the matter
of circumcision, Paul’s views were ambiguous and changing. In some places in his epistles, he was
adamant that circumcision was unnecessary for Christians, if they happened to
be uncircumcised at the time they became Christians.[17] Yet, according to Acts 16:3, Paul had Timothy
circumcised despite the fact that he was already a Christian.[18] This is in spite of the fact that in his
epistle to the Galatians, Paul had been adamant that anyone who willingly
circumcised himself was then obligated to obey the Law in its entirety:
“Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised
that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”[19]
So, by his own standards, Paul had obligated Timothy to
observe the whole corpus of the Law. Was
Paul reneging on his original, uncompromising view? It would seem so.
In addition, Paul’s views on
dietary restrictions evolved as well.
His original view with regard to his Gentile followers was that there
was no need to be overly concerned with obeying the Jewish dietary restrictions. We can see this in his letter to the Romans:
“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking,
but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who
serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.”[20]
A similar teaching is found in the letter to the
Corinthians:
“Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions
of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and
you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of
conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,”
then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake
of conscience.”[21]
There is no ambiguity here.
Paul is clear that the only dietary restriction a Christian should have
is the prohibition of eating anything that has been “offered
in sacrifice” to pagan idols. Yet
this contradicts a different ruling made by James and the other disciples, and
which Paul seemingly accepted:
“As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our
decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”[22]
The ambiguity is clear.
On the one hand, Paul told his followers that they should only avoid
food sacrificed to idols, but on the other hand, he accepted the ruling made by
James that Gentile Christians should also abstain from blood and the meat of
animals killed by strangulation. What
happened to Paul’s appeal to scripture that “the
earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it”? Clearly, Paul had to compromise on this issue
as well.
But Paul’s actions in his visit
to Jerusalem expose even more contradictions in his teachings about the Law of
Moses. When he was confronted with a
great opportunity to make a stand for his previous beliefs, he clearly failed
to stand up. We see this in the
controversial episode of his journey to Jerusalem to appear before James and
the other disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him), as recounted in the Book of
Acts:
“Then they said to Paul: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands
of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all
the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not
to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear
that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have
made a vow. Take these men, join in
their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their
heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about
you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile
believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from
food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and
from sexual immorality.’
The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with
them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of
purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.”[23]
So, in direct contradiction of his earlier condemnation of
James’ followers for their loyalty to the Jewish Law,[24]
Paul now obeyed the orders of these “false
believers”,[25]
without any protest! Not surprisingly,
scholars have noticed the contradiction, as well as the attempt by the author
of Acts (which tradition states was Luke, the follower of Paul) to cover-up the
significance of Paul’s public humiliation.
As Reza Aslan observes:
“As with his account of the Apostolic Council some years
earlier, Luke’s rendering of this final meeting between James and Paul in the
book of Acts tries to brush aside any hint of conflict or animosity by
presenting Paul as silently acquiescing to the Temple rite demanded of him.”[26]
And commenting on the significance of Paul’s subservience,
Aslan concludes that:
“There is no other way to read Paul’s participation in the
Nazirite vow except as a solemn renunciation of his ministry and a public
declaration of James’ authority over him—all the more reason to doubt Luke’s
depiction of Paul as simply going along with the ritual without comment or
complaint.”[27]
Of course, it could be that
Paul simply pretended to go along with James’ instructions, but then what does
that really say about his character? In
his letter to the Colossians, Paul had stated that Christians should not lie to
each other,[28]
yet if he was merely pretending to obey James’ request, then he was guilty of
deliberately lying to his fellow disciples.[29]
Also, according to his disciple
Luke, Paul was willing to die for his beliefs, as he stated before he entered
Jerusalem:
“I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for
the name of the Lord Jesus.”[30]
But if he was willing to die for his beliefs, then why did
he not refuse to obey James, as a way of practicing what he preached? Clearly, the account in Acts exposes grave
concerns about Paul’s character.
Assuming that the meeting
between the disciples and Paul actually occurred, there are 3 possibilities as
to what actually transpired between James and Paul:
1.
Paul
actually did resist James, and there was a tense or even violent confrontation
between the two (see note #25).
2. Paul
sincerely obeyed James’ commands as a sign of his acceptance of the primacy of
the Law and the repudiation of his previous beliefs.
3. Paul
simply pretended to obey James.
The Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown argued that Paul had
sincerely obeyed James precisely because he was not entirely “anti-Temple”, meaning he was not against the
continuing applicability of the Law (#2).
According to Brown:
“…there are ambiguities in Paul’s attitude. His admonitions and imperatives in the second
parts of many of his letters show that clearly he expected all Christians to
live by the Ten Commandments and by the high morality of Judaism. Acts 20:6, 16 suggests that he kept Jewish
feasts…mandated in the Law; and Acts 21:26 has Paul worshiping in the Jerusalem
Temple even as did the Jewish Christian leaders who lived in Jerusalem.”[31]
On the other hand, David S. Gullion, a former Evangelical
Christian and a convert to Islam,[32]
is of the view that Paul was simply lying his way out of his dilemma (#3). He states that:
“…Paul was…publicly engaging in a bald face lie. James, and probably others of the Jerusalem
leaders, probably were well aware of what Paul had been doing. By insisting that Paul do such a thing, they
were distancing themselves from the actions which Paul had been accused of
doing. They quite likely wished to
discredit Paul in the eyes of anyone who was aware of Paul’s actions by forcing
him to publicly lie about his activities.”[33]
Whatever Paul’s actual motivation was for fulfilling James’
request, it is indisputable that he did not have a simplistic view with regards
to the abolishment of the Law, as Christian apologists maintain. Whether his shifts in attitude were due to
his attempts at “compromise”, or his own confusion regarding the teachings of
Jesus (since he was not one of his original followers), or deliberate
deception, there is no doubt that his message had to constantly evolve as he
faced new challenges to his authority.
Paul on
the Institution of Slavery –
Another
clear example of Paul’s shift from his previous teachings can be seen in his
letter to Philemon. The letter was
written with regard to the status of one of Philemon’s runaway slaves named
Onesimus, who had become a Christian.
Albeit with misgivings, Paul decided to send Onesimus back to Philemon. In an earlier correspondence, Paul had
maintained that there was no distinction “in Christ
Jesus” between a slave and a free man:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor
is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[34]
Yet, when confronted with the possibility of aiding a
runaway slave (in contravention of Roman law), even one who had become a
Christian, Paul found himself in an uncomfortable position. As Mack explains:
“In the Roman world…the institution of slavery was not in
question, and the laws that governed the treatment of slaves were clear. Paul was in danger of abetting a runaway, and
that meant full legal and financial responsibility for damages due to the owner
for the loss of his slave.”[35]
And of course, the Hebrew Bible also allowed the institution
of slavery, and there is no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus (peace be upon
him) even commented on it, let alone abolished it. By sending Onesimus back to Philemon, albeit
with the request that the latter accept the former as a “brother” rather than
as a slave, Paul was clearly willing to compromise his beliefs with the law,
although in this case it was the Roman law that he was compromising with.
In addition, in the epistle to
the Corinthians, Paul urged those of his followers who were slaves to not be
overly concerned about their servitude:
“Each person should remain in the situation they were in when
God called them. Were you a slave when
you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your
freedom, do so.”[36]
If all Christians were equal “in
Christ Jesus”, then why was Paul not critical of those Christians who
continued to own slaves, especially Christian slaves? There was a clear shift in attitude on the
institution of slavery. While in the
epistle to the Galatians, Paul rejected slavery both literally and
symbolically,[37]
in later correspondences, he accepted it as a legitimate institution and a fact
of life.
Paul
and Salvation –
The issue of Christian
salvation is inevitably linked to the controversy surrounding the applicability
of the Law of Moses. We have already
seen evidence of Paul’s evolving attitude towards the Law. Not surprisingly, this shift in attitude
inevitably led to contradictions on the all-important matter of how a Christian
ultimately attains salvation as well.
One of
Paul’s most salient teachings was that salvation was achieved through the
acceptance of Jesus’ redemptive death on the cross and his subsequent
resurrection. It was “by grace” that
Christians were saved:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this
is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can
boast.”[38]
But this teaching is directly contradicted by statements in
other epistles. It was noted previously
how Paul wrote to the Corinthians that keeping God’s commands was paramount,[39]
but there are other examples as well.
Perhaps the clearest example of a direct contradiction between the
concept of salvation by “grace” and salvation by “works” can be seen in the
instructions given concerning women in the epistle to Timothy:
“But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue
in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”[40]
There is a clear departure here from the Pauline concept of
salvation by “grace”, for if women were to attain salvation through
childbearing, then it was not Jesus’ redemptive death that was their ultimate
hope. Rather, it was marriage,[41]
and ultimately the bearing of children that would be their path to salvation.[42]
Conclusion
In this
article, we have examined the evolution of Pauline Christianity. As new challenges arose, Christians like Paul
were faced with difficulties that often required an awkward shift in previous
attitudes. Even when concerned with such
important issues as the Law of Moses, which Paul initially argued against with
much passion, the new challenges required a more “compromising” approach. As a result, Paul was forced to undergo the
Nazirite vow in Jerusalem without any protest (as far as we can tell from the
one “canonical” version of the story), or to clarify his views on circumcision
and slavery. Even on the matter of
salvation by “grace”, Paul found the concept difficult to maintain and so was
forced to clarify that “works” were still important, and that indeed, a
Christian could not hope for salvation without having some good works under his
or her belt. This and other evidence
discussed above shows the historical context behind the development of Pauline
Christianity. It was not the Prophet
Jesus (peace be upon him) who was responsible for the rise of the new
religion. Rather, it was Paul of Tarsus
and his changing views that ultimately shaped what would become “Christianity”.[43]
And Allah knows best!
[1] As we will see,
however, some of the “Pauline” epistles were not actually written by Paul!
[2] We will discuss each of
these issues separately, although in some cases, they are inextricably related.
[3] Paul
never actually mentioned the trinity, nor is this concept found anywhere else
in the New Testament. Some alleged
references to it in the Gospels are actually due to insertions by scribes of
later generations.
[4] Romans
1:23 (New International Version). See
also 1 Corinthians 10:14.
[8] This
assumption is being made purely for the sake of argument, for scholars are
nearly unanimous that neither the letters to Timothy nor the one to Titus were
actually written by Paul. Instead, it is
a near scholarly consensus that the letters were written in the 2nd
century. According to Burton Mack:
“The three letters were written at different times, undoubtedly
during the first half of the second century.
They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca. 140
C.E.), nor do they appear in the earliest manuscript collection of Paul’s
letters (P46, ca. 200 C.E.). […] Their attribution to Paul is clearly
fictional, for their language, style, and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline…” (Who
Wrote the New Testament? The Making of
the Christian Myth (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995), p. 206).
[9]
Readers are encouraged to read our article on the resurrection story:
The author of this article claims that:
“The New Testament explicitly teaches that the old law has been
abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial
laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that
no longer is in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the
cross forever (Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17).”
As we will see, this simply is not true. The New
Testament's view on the issue is fraught with contradictions and
inconsistencies.
As Mack succinctly put it regarding Paul’s outburst in the
epistle to the Galatians:
“It is clear that a central Pauline nerve had been pinched” (Mack,
op. cit., p. 113).
However, it should be pointed out that Paul still maintained
that anyone who was not uncircumcised did not need to be circumcised. But here also a contradiction arises, as we
will see.
Also, in the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul still
referred to the Law of Moses as “the ministry that
brought death” (2 Corinthians 3:7).
Nevertheless, he now maintained that a complete abandonment of the Law
was not practical.
[16] Roy E.
Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), p. 312.
[17] See 1
Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:12 and Colossians 3:11.
On a side note, Paul also made the strange comment that
anyone who was already circumcised did not need to “become
uncircumcised” (1 Corinthians, 7:18), as if it was possible to reverse a
circumcision!
[18] The
reason given for this by the author of Acts is that the Jews knew that
Timothy’s father was Greek, but his mother was a Jew and a “believer”.
How different was this from Peter’s refusal to eat with
Gentiles when the other disciples were present (Galatians 2:11-21)? Paul accused Peter of being a hypocrite in
this regard, yet he did not see the irony of his own actions in having Timothy
circumcised “because of the Jews”!
[21] 1
Corinthians 10:25-28.
[25]
Galatians 2:4. The war of words between
Paul and his detractors was certainly not a one-way engagement. In the apocryphal, though late, document
known as the Pseudo-Clementines, there is a set of traditions known as the
“Recognitions”, which scholars date to the mid-2nd century. As Reza Aslan explains (emphasis in the
original):
“The Recognitions
contains an incredible story about a violent altercation that James the brother
of Jesus has with someone simply called ‘the enemy’. In the text, James and the enemy are engaged
in a shouting match inside the Temple when, all of a sudden, the enemy attacks
James in a fit of rage and throws him down the Temple stairs. […] Remarkably, the
enemy who attacked James is later identified as none other than Saul of Tarsus
(Recognitions 1:70-71)” (Zealot:
The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Random House, 2013), pp.
209-210).
[29] It
appears, however, that Paul was not completely against false pretenses in order
to gain converts. Perhaps this was his
motivation for obeying James:
“Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a
slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law
I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as
to win those under the law. To those not
having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from
God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the
law. To the weak I became weak, to win
the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means
I might save some. I do all this for the
sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
[31] Raymond
E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of
Catholic Christianity (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1983), p. 5.
[33] David
S. Gullion, The Last Christian: The Story of the Christ (Bloomington: AuthorHouse,
2009), p. 143.
[34]
Galatians 3:28. See also Colossians
3:11.
[35] Mack, op. cit., p. 143.
[36] 1
Corinthians 7:20-21. Other commands to
slaves and slave-owners can be found in Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 4:1, 1
Timothy 6:1 and Titus 2:9-10.
[37]
Besides the passage previously mentioned, Galatians also contains symbolic
references to slavery and how it relates to Christians, though it is obviously
more of a reference to the “slavery” of following the Law of Moses, rather than
slavery itself. In Galatians 4:31, Paul
compared Christians to Isaac, since Isaac was allegedly the son of a “free woman”, whereas Ishmael was the son of a “slave woman”:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the
slave woman, but of the free woman.”
And in Galatians 5:1, Paul urged his fellow Christians to
actually resist the “yoke of slavery”,
though again he was referring to the burden of following the Law of Moses
rather than the institution of slavery:
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
One has to wonder whether those Christians who happened to
be slaves would have truly appreciated this symbolism. Paul’s symbolic boast that Christians were
“free” certainly would not have resonated as much with Christian slaves than
with free Christians.
On an unrelated note, we have previously discussed the
Biblical story of Ishmael and Isaac in a separate article:
[39] 1
Corinthians 7:19. See also 2 Corinthians
5:10, where Paul speaks of the “judgment seat of
Christ” where each person will receive either reward or punishment for
the things he/she did, whether “good or bad”.
[40] 1 Timothy
2:15. Of course, as stated earlier (note
#8), the epistle to Timothy was not actually written by Paul. It was a forgery, but it is still possible
that it was influenced by Pauline teachings.
As Reza Aslan explains:
“…naming a book after someone significant was a common way of
honoring that person and reflecting his views” (Aslan, op. cit., p. 204).
[41]
Childbearing through legal marriage is obviously implied since the opposite
would be a sexual immorality that is resoundingly condemned in the New Testament
(as well as in the Tanakh and the Quran).
[42] Of
course, this also directly contradicts Paul’s previous advice to his followers
to not worry much about marriage since the end was very near. As we noted in the second article of the
“Prophecies in the Holy Scriptures” series:
“Paul was clear that “the time is short”, when answering
questions regarding the issue of marriage:
“What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short.
From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who
mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who
buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of
the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is
passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)
It is clear from this passage that Paul was
convinced that the end was near. His answer to the question of marriage
was that Christians could get married, but that since “the time [was] short”,
it was probably better not to. Why would
he have said that if he was not convinced that the end was near? Surely, he was not speaking to Christians
2,000 years later, who are still waiting for the end to come!” (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/01/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of_15.html)
How could women achieve salvation through childbearing if
Paul was advising them that it was better to remain unmarried and look forward
to the end of the world?
[43]
Perhaps author Michael H. Hart put it best:
“…it was St. Paul who was the main developer of Christian
theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the
New Testament” (The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in
History (Secaucus: Carol Publishing Group, 1992, p. 9).