Part of the reason why almost no scholar today agrees with the common Muslim characterization of Paul is that it depicts him as a usurping deceiver.
The Muslim accusation is that Paul saw an opportunity for a power grab and seized it. In reality, Paul was secure and powerful long before he walked the road to Damascus. Once he was converted, he lost everything and traded his former success and power for a life of extreme hardship.
Paul was a student of Gamaliel, in the line of Hellel. He had authority to arrest heretics and preside over executions, and his power would only have grown. Instead he chose the meek life of a persecuted man, embracing a persecuted Church, who labored for his wages:
[Act 18:3 LSB] and because he was of the same trade, he was staying with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.
As mentioned elsewhere in these blogs... is a deceiver willing to die for his convictions, knowing that such convictions were lies to start with? Again, people often die for what believe to be true, but nobody will die for what they know to be a lie.
Paul was lashed five times, beaten with rods three times, and even stoned until assumed dead before he was ultimately executed.
[2Co 11:24-27 LSB] Five times I received from the Jews forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked—a night and a day I have spent in the deep. [26] I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the desolate places, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brothers. [27] I have been in labor and hardship, in many sleepless nights, in starvation and thirst, often hungry, in cold and without enough clothing.
If he were simply deceiving people, he had ten opportunities to repent before receiving life-threatening punishments. Would he not have given up the charade? What was there to gain by deceiving everyone if he was about to lose his life? In truth, Paul gave up power, prestige, personal safety, and even his life. He did not receive any material gain by following Jesus.
Muslims will also retort to schisms between Paul and the disciples, but these are easily resolved when reviewing the context. This same schism also relates to another point the Muslim will bring up... Yeshua fulfilling the Law. Muslims have been incorrectly taught concerning this verse:
[Mat 5:17 LSB] “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Does this mean that Yeshua has come to follow the Law and expects his followers to do the same?
No - read it again. The word used is: "fulfill".
The Greek word here, pleroo, has the senses of fullness and bringing to an end, just as the word fulfill does in English.
If I take out a loan on a car, I am bound to make regular payments. However, once I have fulfilled my loan by making all payments, I am no longer bound to that loan. The loan has been fulfilled.
Yeshua is saying, “I am not cancelling the Law and the Prophets; I am their fulfillment, bringing them to their completion and finishing them"
Secondly, when Jews referred to the Law and the Prophets in this way, they were referring to the books of the Old Testament, not the commandments of the Jewish law. Remember, the Hebrew Bible is composed of the Law and the Prophets and the Writings. So Yeshua is here saying He has come to fulfill the Old Testament, not to follow commandments.
The Old Testament finds completion in Yeshua. Yeshua has come so He is not abolishing it, He is completing it... fulfilling it.
[Mat 9:16-17 LSB] “But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. [17] “Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
The common Muslim assertion that Paul hijacked Christianity, imposed his own teachings, and corrupted the true religion not only goes against the Biblical records but also is unwarranted from a historical point of view and enjoys very little scholarly support.
But beyond this, there is a theological problem for Muslims who would argue that Paul corrupted Christianity. They claim that he somehow overpowered, and negated the teaching of the disciples authority and changed Christianity.
They do so ignoring their own Quran:
Quran 3:55 [Surah Ali ‘Imran] “[Mention] when Allah said, ‘O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.’”
Allah promises to make the disciples superior to disbelievers, and Yeshua would be made free from such disbelievers. The Muslim view of Paul, that he overcame the disciples and hijacked Yeshua’s message, seems to ignore the Quran’s promise to the disciples.
Paul could not have had the means because Allah promised to make the disciples insuperable; there is no viable motive for Paul to deceive the church as his efforts earned him only persecution and a death sentence; and there is no model suggested that clarifies how Paul might have had an opportunity to overcome all the disciples and hijack the Church.
Of course, not only should Paul be considered innocent until proven guilty, but as far as this investigation is concerned, there simply is no evidence to convict him. Case closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment