Category: Pauline Studies

Christological Significance of Paul’s Damascus Experience

Christological Significance of Paul’s Damascus Experience. OPDC Part 4/6

Key features of Pauline Christology arising from this experience, according to Kim:

1. Divine Identity of Jesus: The Kyrios (Lord) At Damascus, Paul saw the glorified, heavenly form of Jesus (Acts 9, 22, 26; cf. 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8). Crucially, Paul perceived that Jesus shared in the divine glory (δόξα) – the visible manifestation of God’s presence (the Kabod Yahweh of the Old Testament). Christ is God’s own image and form (μορφῇ) – participating in God’s very being.
2. “Image of God”: Christ as the Visible Manifestation of God’s Glory, Vision of Divine Glory (2 Cor. 4:4-6) Paul saw divine glory mediated through the risen Jesus. Therefore, Christ is understood as the Image of God, This is not abstract metaphysics but experiential theology.
3. Pre-existence and Incarnation: If the heavenly Christ possessed divine glory, he must have existed with God before his earthly life. The one who was in “the form of God” (μορφὴ θεοῦ) took on “the form of a servant” (μορφὴ δούλου) (Phil. 2:6-7). Continue reading “Christological Significance of Paul’s Damascus Experience”

Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience

Gal. 1:11-12 “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Paul did not derive his message from human teaching or internal development but from direct divine encounter – and he staked his life’s mission on that claim. The evidence points to a supernatural intervention.

J.G. Machen argues forcefully that Paul’s conversion cannot be explained by subjective psychological development or by gradual change in understanding due to personal reflection, or second-hand teaching. Paul’s religion was born of a direct encounter with the risen Christ– an immediate, supernatural revelation that radically transformed Paul’s life and theology. Put differently, the content of Paul’s faith (a transcendent, divine, crucified and risen Messiah) was so radically discontinuous with his pre-conversion Jewish worldview that only an objective, supernatural revelation can account for the radical transformation of his life. Psychological explanations (e.g., hallucination, inner conflict, subconscious development) fail because they cannot explain the specific, revolutionary theology Paul immediately adopted.

In essence, Machen’s argument is:
Premise 1: Paul’s pre-conversion state was one of confident, zealous Pharisaism, not guilt-ridden struggle.

Premise 2: Paul’s post-conversion theology was a radical, immediate break with that Pharisaism, centering on a crucified and risen Messiah. Continue reading “Paul Encountered the Risen Christ in his Damascus Road Experience”

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus

Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.
Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology. OPDC Part 2/6

Q1. Some people claim that Paul corrupted Jesus’ teaching. Did Paul create a religion about Jesus, instead of following the religion of Jesus?

Q2. Skeptics say Paul’s teachings contradict Jesus’. Example,
Paul teaches that “a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28) however, Jesus teaches obedience to the law (“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets… but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-19). And other so-called contradictory teachings of Paul and Jesus in the Bible. Is this due to weak exegesis?

You can watch the video at:
Answering Critics Who Claim that Paul Distorted the Original Teaching of Jesus.

Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, his Gospel Message and Christology


Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

It has been common for critics to accuse the apostle Paul of corrupting early Christianity by blending Jesus’ original, simpler message with complex Greek philosophy.

Paul’s usage of Greek terms in his gospel was simply due to the fact that koine (common) Greek became the lingua franca of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman world. These terms allow him to communicate the gospel while redefining their meanings within the bounds of the revelation of Christ. He maintains the Jewish monotheistic covenantal framework shaped by the God of Israel, covenant, law, and promise.

Universalizing the Message: His Jewish exegesis provided authoritative scriptural grounding, and his Greek fluency made his message intelligible in Gentile contexts.

Synthesis: The Prepared Apostle
Paul’s effectiveness stemmed from this unique fusion:
* He could argue from Scripture like a rabbi to Jews and God-fearers.
* He could debate in the agora and use Greek literary forms to communicate with pagans.
* He could navigate the Roman legal system to advance his mission.
* He could theologize in a new way, using his Jewish categories (covenant, law, Messiah) to explain the universal significance of Jesus, creating a theology that transcended ethnic divisions.

 

You can watch the full video at:
Paul’s Bi-Cultural Heritage, Gospel Message and Origins of Paul’s Divine Christology OPDC Part 1/6

 

Related Posts:

Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel

Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 3 – The Origin of Paul’s Divine Christology

 

 

 

 

Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel

I. Doubts About the Authenticity of Paul’s Teachings
A common objection raised by critics of Christianity and Muslim apologists is that the apostle Paul distorted the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early Jewish-Christian community by importing ideas from the Greco-Roman mystery religions. These included ideas like a dying and rising god, sacramental meals of communion with patron gods, and salvation through union with a divine figure. The purpose of this paper is to refute the critics with historical and biblical evidence, and demonstrate how Paul’s gospel which was received by revelation in his encounter with the risen Christ on his way to Damascus displays consistencies with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles of the early Church.

A. The Claim of Hellenistic Influence
There are several problems with the critics’ theory that Paul was influenced by Hellenistic religions. Continue reading “Christological Origins of Paul’s Gospel”

The Resurrection of Christ in Pauline Theology. Part 3/3: Resurrection and Pauline Soteriology

Our earlier discussion on the resurrected Christ as the life-giving Spirit leads us to consider how crucial the resurrection of Christ is in Pauline soteriology, seen especially in 1 Cor. 15. There is a debate over who Paul’s Corinthian opponents really were. /1/ Some suggest that they were those who because of Hellenistic philosophy denied the resurrection of the body or flesh and looked for a survival of the immortal soul beyond the grave. /2/ However, this view implies that Paul missed the point of his opponents and that he failed to argue why a disembodied survival is not an adequate hope.

William Dykstra observes that Paul responds to the denial of resurrection not with a simple logical argument but with a salvation-historical argument. For the Corinthians could still accept Christ’s resurrection and at the same time deny any future resurrection for others, Christ’s case being a unique one for them. As such, a good case can be made for arguing that the Corinthians were guilty of the error of over-realized eschatology, as it gives a more consistent reading of the rest of the epistle. /3/ Continue reading “The Resurrection of Christ in Pauline Theology. Part 3/3: Resurrection and Pauline Soteriology”

The Resurrection of Christ in Pauline Theology. Part 2/3: Resurrection and Pauline Christology

What was Paul’s new perception of the resurrected Christ after his conversion through an encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus? We shall consider Rom 1:3-4, 2 Cor. 3:17 and 1 Cor. 15:45 as the pivotal points in our discussion of this question.

A. Romans 1:3, 4
We can trace a clear development of what Paul has to say about Christ in this long introduction to the epistle. In verse 1, Jesus is the Messiah. In verse 3, the Messiah is God’s Son. In verse 4a, this Messiah Jesus, whose sonship was veiled in the days of his flesh, is suddenly (by the resurrection) revealed as ‘Son of God in power’. Finally, the climactic stage in the progressive revelation of Jesus is Paul’s confession that “Jesus is Lord”.

A pattern of parallels and contrasts is also evident in verses 3 and 4:

Verse 3 Verse 4
1. born (γενομένου, genomenou) – declared (ὁρισθέντος, horisthentos)
2. according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα, kata sarka) – according to the spirit of holiness, ie., the Holy Spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, kata pneuma hagiōsynēs) /1/
3. of the seed of David (ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, ek spermatos Dauid) – by the resurrection of the dead (ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, ex anastaseōs nekrōn)

Continue reading “The Resurrection of Christ in Pauline Theology. Part 2/3: Resurrection and Pauline Christology”

Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 5. The Son from Pre-existence to the Consummation of Creation

A. Two Fundamental Roots of Christology – Promised Messiah and Resurrection
It is observed that various elements from the Old Testament and Jewish sources were incorporated in the development of the Son of God Christology in the first twenty years of the infant church leading to the development of Paul’s mission after the Apostolic Council. However, the Jewish categories were transformed through a creative process that was stimulated by the extraordinary event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Martin Hengel explains:

First and foremost, we must remember that what happened cannot just have been a simple reproduction of earlier Jewish speculations about hypostases and mediators. Earliest christology has a quite original stamp, and is ultimately rooted in the contingent event of the activity of Jesus, his death and resurrection appearances. A history-of-religions comparison can only explain the derivation of individual themes, traditions, phrases and functions, and not the phenomenon of the origin of christology as a whole. At the same time, we must also consider the possibility of ‘unparalleled’ innovation. [Martin Hengel, The Son of God (Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 56-57]

Hengel identifies two fundamental roots of Christology based on Rom. 1:3-4. First, the earthly Jesus is the fulfilment of God’s promise that the messiah is from the seed of David. Second, the crucified Jesus is declared to be the Son of God in power by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. Continue reading “Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 5. The Son from Pre-existence to the Consummation of Creation”

Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 3 – The Origin of Paul’s Divine Christology

Why bother to collect water with leaky buckets from distant wells when one can draw fresh water from the well in one’s backyard? [cf. endnote 7]

One of the most dramatic stories in the Bible is the transformation of Paul after he had a vision of the risen Christ. Paul was bent on destroying the church, but he suddenly turned into a preacher whose influence on the development of Christianity is second only to that of Jesus Christ. F.F. Bruce describes the significance of Paul’s conversion experience on Damascus Road,

No single event, apart from the Christ-even itself, has proved so determinant for the course of Christian history as the conversion and commissioning of Paul. For anyone who accepts Paul’s own explanation of his Damascus Road experience, it would be difficult to disagree with the observation of an eighteenth century writer [G. Lyttelton] that “the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation.” /𝟏/

The cradle of Christianity was Judaism and Paul could rank himself as among to the finest elite of Judaism: He was born a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” sat at the feet of the outstanding teacher, Gamaliel, who was the grandson of the great rabbi Hillel. He was an emerging leader of the strict sect of the Pharisees who boasted that he was blameless in his observation of the Law (Phil. 3:6). He shared the same dogmatic assurance with his religious cohorts that the tradition handed down to them by their learned rabbis contained the whole truth of the religion. As such, there is no need for new revelation from God. Continue reading “Historical Origin of Divine Christology Part 3 – The Origin of Paul’s Divine Christology”

Thomas Schreiner’s Critique of N.T. Wright’s View of Justification – Debating Justification with N.T. Wright and NPP. Part 7

NPP Reading No. 4 Excerpts taken from: Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught…and Why it Still Matters (Zondervan, 2015) Problems with Wright’s View of Justification [244] I see three false polarities in Wright’s thought. First, he wrongly says that justification is primarily about ecclesiology instead of soteriology. Second, he … Continue reading “Thomas Schreiner’s Critique of N.T. Wright’s View of Justification – Debating Justification with N.T. Wright and NPP. Part 7”

NPP Reading No. 4
Excerpts taken from: Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught…and Why it Still Matters (Zondervan, 2015)

Problems with Wright’s View of Justification
[244] I see three false polarities in Wright’s thought. First, he wrongly says that justification is primarily about ecclesiology instead of soteriology. Second, he often introduces a false polarity when referring to the mission of Israel by saying that Israel’s fundamental problem was its failure to bless the world whereas Paul focuses on Israel’s inherent sinfulness. Third, he insists that justification is a declaration of God’s righteousness but does not include the imputation of God’s righteousness.

Ecclesiology or Soteriology?
[244] Let’s begin with the first point of discussion, which fits with the idea that justification is more about the church than the individual. Wright mistakenly claims that justification is fundamentally about ecclesiology instead of soteriology. Let’s hear it in his own words, “Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.” And, “What Paul means by justification, in this context, should therefore be clear. It is not ‘how you become a Christian,’ as much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’”

[245] Justification has to do with whether one is right before God, whether one is acquitted or condemned, whether one is pardoned or found guilty, and that is a soteriological matter. Continue reading “Thomas Schreiner’s Critique of N.T. Wright’s View of Justification – Debating Justification with N.T. Wright and NPP. Part 7”