A Primer On Pauline Doctrine: Revealing the Mystery of the Body of Christ

By Carol Berubee

The Christian desiring to understand the Apostle Paul's epistles should have some understanding of Judaism, Greek philosophy, and first-century cultural norms. The Christian who seeks to walk with God in this dispensation of grace must grasp the teaching of Paul's epistle to the Church at Rome, particularly Romans 1 through 8, and then revel in the mystery of Christ through His Body, the Church, as revealed in Ephesians and Colossians. As the Christian comes to know the mutually exclusive nature of law and grace, and the inexhaustible grace of God in the Body of Christ, he must then apply those truths in his daily walk with the Lord. These truths of grace and the mystery of the Body form the foundation for all of Paul's teachings on such subjects as salvation, sanctification, the Rapture of the Church, the Bema Judgment, the regulations in the local churches, the gifts of the Spirit, asceticism, giving, marriage, and prayer.

The Christian may find books and articles focused on one or more of the various topics of law and grace, or the Body of Christ, or Paul's doctrines in contrast to Judaism, or Gnosticism, or the cultural setting of first-century Christianity. However, many Christians would like to have a single resource to which he or she may turn as an introduction to Christianity and a companion to more specialized and in-depth books. This primer on Pauline doctrine gives the reader a broad spectrum of knowledge in one volume.

Part I is a sketch of the major differences between the Hebraic and Hellenic mindsets, including the differences with Judaism according to the sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes; the general teachings of the Greek philosophers; and the idolatry of the masses. Paul's religious thought both before and after his conversion is briefly outlined so that we may see how his new Christian theology changed his life and how he navigated the cultural landscape. A brief outline of each of Paul's epistles is then presented to orient the reader to the tenor of Pauline doctrine.

Part II is an exegesis of Romans 1:16-8:28, the text of which is the foundation of Christianity. The world comes under a comprehensive indictment, subject to the wrath of God, but He sends His Son to pay the penalty. Not only are sins forgiven, but sin itself is vanquished, the old man is crucified, and the believer is set free from the power of sin.

Part III is an unfolding of the mystery of Christ, laid out in eight facets. The Body of Christ is revealed to us only by the Apostle Paul who explains the setting aside of Israel; the calling out of Gentiles; the unity of Jews and Gentiles as one New Man; and the Rapture of the Body, the organism in which Christ dwells by His Spirit and which will dwell in Him forever. This mystery, unlike those of the pagan mystery religions, is unveiled and proclaimed to all.

Part IV is an examination of fifteen additional areas of doctrine in light of Paul's unique ministry to the Body. Salvation, sanctification, law and grace, eschatology, ecclesiology, the gifts of the Spirit, the appropriate response to false teachers, the will of God for the Christian, liberty from asceticism and ordinances, the giving of money and goods, marriage, and prayer are explained so that the Christian will understand the unique calling of the Church as a heavenly organism.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Mar 9, 2019
• ISBN: 9781543960853

Book preview

Part I

The Apostle Paul’s Life and Letters

Part I Introduction

To better understand Pauline doctrine, it is prudent to first have a working knowledge of the life of the Apostle Paul in the context of his ancestral Judaism as well as the Hellenic culture that surrounded him. We will briefly trace his lineage, his upbringing, his career as an adversary to Christianity, and his dramatic salvation and new life in Christ that would propel him into the vast Roman Empire as the most prolific proclaimer of the Good News.

A fair amount of time will be spent examining the competing systems of Hebraism and Hellenism. Paul often remains true to his Hebrew understanding, but new revelation will enlighten Paul regarding, for example, the nature of man in relation to sin, and the concept of the reconciliation of man to God. But Paul not only finds himself delineating between Hebraic and Hellenic thought, he must also contend against, and demarcate, the opposing systems of Gnosticism and Christianity. Therefore, time will be devoted in exploration of paganism and Gnosticism in the context of the Roman Empire in the first century AD.

Finally, the thirteen epistles of the Apostle Paul will be presented in brief. The objective is to familiarize the reader with the overall ministry of Paul and the issues with which he was contending, both in terms of the presentation of Christian doctrine and the ensuing persecution. Paul’s epistles are comprised of his response to the false teachers and their false doctrines, presenting us with the content of our understanding of Christianity and life in the Body of Christ.

Chapter 1

The Background of the Apostle Paul

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus

Acts 9

1 But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: 4 And he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? 5 And he said, Who are you, lord? And He said, "I am Yeshua Whom you persecute. 6 But rise, and enter into the city…" 10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias… 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go…to the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus… 13 But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to Your saints at Jerusalem… 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go your way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.

Galatians 1

11 For I make known unto you, brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me, that is not after man. 12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it [by men], but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havock of it… 15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles: immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.

Saul of Tarsus was a Jew of the sect of the Pharisees. He was brought up under the teaching of the highly esteemed Rabbi, Gamaliel (Acts 5:34, 22:3). Saul hated that some of his fellow Jews were proclaiming that Yeshua was the Messiah. He viewed this as blasphemy because this Yeshua had made Himself out to be God in the flesh and had taught that there would come a time when the Temple would no longer be in operation, a claim the Jews inferred as the end of Judaism. Since they knew that the Law had been given by God through Moses to the nation of Israel, they couldn’t reason how the Messiah would make a proclamation that implied the coming end of the Law. Not only that, but this self-proclaimed messiah was not freeing the Jews from the boot of the Romans. The Jews wanted nothing to do with this false messiah and considered him a blasphemer worthy of death. Saul of Tarsus wanted nothing more than to lead the charge against the disciples of this false messiah; he believed he was doing God’s work.

It is AD 34, five years after the Cross, when the presence of the Lord Yeshua knocks Saul off his horse and Saul suddenly learns that he has been wrong. Despite Saul’s wretched past, the Lord Yeshua saves him and sends him on a mission. He would become the greatest Apostle and the minister of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Along the way, he would write at least fifteen epistles, thirteen of which we have preserved for us today by God’s determination.

A Hebrew of Hebrews

Galatians 1

13 For you have heard of my manner of life in time past that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havock of it: 14 And I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen [in my race], being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Philippians 3

3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: 4 Though I myself might have confidence in the flesh: if any other man thinks to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Saul of Tarsus was a Jew who took great pride in the traditions of his religion and in his own accomplishments. He mentions that he is of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1) and may be doing so here because Benjamin was the only one of Jacob’s twelve sons to be born in the Land (Israel), very near Jerusalem. Further, after a rocky beginning, the tribe of Benjamin chose to stay with Judah and the house of David.

Paul then states that he is a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee. He is telling the Philippians that the false apostles (these particular ones being Jews, probably all Pharisees) have nothing going for them that is of any religious superiority to Paul. Then, he contrasts his zeal with the zeal of the false apostles. They were tirelessly tracing Paul’s footsteps, coming in after he left, teaching the Law, and leading the people away from Paul and his doctrines. Paul, however, says that prior to being saved he had more zeal concerning the Law than do these false apostles. He had been persecuting believers, thinking that he was doing exactly what the Law required. He had made it his mission to imprison believers, even consenting to their deaths because he saw them as blasphemers against God and His Law, a Law and its righteous demands concerning which Paul says he was blameless.1

And so we see that Saul of Tarsus was the perfect Jew. However, it is not merely the fact that he was born of the tribe of Benjamin and kept the Law that made him a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee. It is important to understand what those two terms mean and how they bear on Paul’s epistles. Saul was raised in a Jewish home, of course, but he also pursued position in Judaism, perhaps even attaining a seat in the Sanhedrin. He lived and breathed his religion; he loved his religion as well as his nation, Israel, and his fellow Jews; he spoke Hebrew (as well as Aramaic, in contrast to most first century Jews who spoke only Aramaic); thus, He was a Hebrew of Hebrews. Saul was also a Pharisee (Acts 23:6, 26:5) and this will, momentarily, be examined more fully within the context of Judaism and as contrasted with Hellenism.

After the Cross, the Lord Yeshua had said to His disciples that they should go into all the world, but we see little evidence of this being accomplished in the Biblical account. Instead, God had prepared Saul of Tarsus just for this task of Gentile missionary work. When we examine Paul’s life, we will see that God could not have selected a better man for the specific task of missionary work among both Jews and Gentiles. What made Paul the ideal Apostle is that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee, a Roman citizen, and one who had vast knowledge of Hellenism. We will see, however, that these credentials were only incidental in comparison to Paul’s submission to the Lord as clay in the Potter’s hands.

Chapter 2

Paul in the Context of Culture and Religion

Hellenic and Hebraic Thought

- Hellenic

Acts 17

30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now He commands men that they should all everywhere repent: 31 Inasmuch as He has appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man Whom He has ordained; whereof He has given assurance unto all men, in that He has raised Him from the dead.

The Apostle Paul’s proclamation to the Greeks in Athens of the coming judgment of God was met with mocking and doubt, with only a few believing. The Greeks, in general, believed that men who died stayed dead. The Greeks in the Areopagus could believe that Yeshua was resurrected if he were a god, but it was apparent that this new idea spoken of by Paul was too foreign for these philosophers to believe. But another obstacle for Paul in the Areopagus was that if the Lord Yeshua will be the Judge, as Paul proclaimed, then there must be human actions that are seen as needing judgment. The Stoics believed that sin was out of ignorance, not evil or ill will; therefore, for Paul to say that God had in times past overlooked ignorance, but now was commanding all men to repent in light of a coming day of judgment, meant to the Stoics that they could no longer rely on ignorance as a defense. Paul’s preaching implied man’s responsibility to God for his actions, which was contrary to common Stoic thought.

Stoics were also strict determinists, the free will of man being only temporary wanderings from the one road on which everyone travels. Those side roads always led back to the one road. Therefore, how could God judge men if He had determined their lives and their free will always put them back on His determined path, especially since taking the side roads was out of ignorance, not evil? Paul will answer this argument in Romans 9.

The Stoics also believed that the world was cyclical and would continually repeat, but there was no afterlife of the soul in the personal sense; that is, either the soul would live on, awaiting the next cycle, or it would be absorbed into the world soul, reappearing in the new cycle. In neither of these cases, however, would a person live on in the afterlife as themselves. Paul, however, will often remind us of the resurrection of all people, the significance of which is that each soul/spirit will live personally and eternally.

The Epicureans believed that the gods existed, but not – as the Stoics believed — in a providential way; thus, they would have been of the free will persuasion. They also believed that the body and soul were made of matter, just as everything else in the universe. The body and soul had to be joined together to form life, but the matter that made up the body was stronger than the matter that made up the soul so that when the body died, the soul disintegrated; hence, no afterlife of any sort and certainly, then, no reason for a god to judge men.

The philosophy of Gnosticism must be introduced here. It is Hellenic, but Gnosticism has crept into Christianity among those who would profess to disagree with the many other tenets of Greek philosophy. Gnosticism is a web of ideas and not all Gnostics adhere to any particular set of beliefs within this web. It is best, for this discussion, to focus on the Gnostic beliefs prevalent in Paul’s day.

The Greek philosopher, Plato (c. 427-347 BC), wrote of the demiurge, the one who created the material aspects of the universe. While Plato saw the demiurge as good and benevolent, later philosophers built on Plato’s idea of the demiurge. The Gnostics developed the idea of the demiurge as antagonistic to the will of a supreme being, so that the creative work of the demiurge was fundamentally flawed, either as a conscious effort to oppose the supreme being, or as an unconscious act reflecting the nature of the demiurge. The Gnostics believed that evil exists either because the work of the demiurge was inherently flawed, or that evil was a way for the demiurge to entrap the divine in his own material universe. This latter postulation resulted in a more developed narrative as Gnosticism began to flourish.

It was believed that the demiurge’s mother was named Sophia, which means wisdom. She was a part of the divine pleroma, which was the supreme being and fullness of all that exists. Sophia was a creator, but she had created apart from the consent of the supreme being, which resulted in her giving birth to the evil demiurge. The demiurge, having been born outside the approval of the supreme being, was isolated, not knowing his mother or his origin, and unconsciously created the universe in the likeness of the realm of the divine pleroma. The demiurge, then, was the king over the material and animal realms of the universe; however, he was not the ruler over the spiritual realm, being unaware of his mother, Sophia, who was the source of his power. Because Sophia, who was wisdom and who possessed divine power, was the mother of the demiurge, her wisdom and power were trapped within the material of man, the flesh. But man was also trapped within the material universe. The goal of the Gnostic was to find this inner divinity, this wisdom and power within; it was this sliver of the divine within that would connect him with the divine pleroma and transcend the imperfect material realm, including the body of flesh.

First century Gnostics, in general, believed that human flesh, being an element within the material universe, is evil or imperfect. This belief led to one of two actions: one either denied the flesh and tried to live an ascetic life, or one indulged the flesh with the thought that there’s nothing that can be done to stop the evil from having its way. By indulging the flesh, one was cooperating with Nature. Because the material body was perceived as evil or flawed, it was antagonistic to Gnostic belief to embrace the Resurrection of Christ. If the body was evil, it was inconceivable that God would resurrect the body, much less that Christ was now at the right hand of the Father in Heaven in that resurrected body (cf. 1 John 4:2-3).

Gnostics also taught that man (the soul of man) is not inherently evil,2 but only sins out of ignorance, thus seeing himself as sinless (in relation to God), a belief to which the Stoics were adherents. Gnostics also believed that one must receive secret knowledge or wisdom directly from God if he was to be liberated from the evil body and universe. Therefore, one could attain salvation from the evil material world, including the body, by adhering to the special knowledge revealed to him by God. The belief that one finds ultimate freedom and purity as he comes to understand the secrets of life and the universe was typical Stoicism. This revealed knowledge, however, was not merely of the mundane facts about the universe, but self-enlightenment, not unlike modern New Age teachings of self and inner divinity, or some aspects of psychology. It may be readily seen, then, how a general Gnostic belief has permeated virtually all human thought in one way or another, particularly concerning free will and the ability of man to tap into that remaining sliver of good within; or, that one must receive a word from God that would help direct his path.

- Hebraic

Paul uses the term Hebrew of Hebrews rather than Jew of Jews because Hebrew is the ancient term that refers to the whole of Israel. Jew comes from Judah, one of the twelve tribes that lived in Judea and Jerusalem. By the time of Christ, Jew had come to refer to all Hebrews, not just those of the southern Kingdom (primarily comprised of Judah and Benjamin).  By using Hebrew, Paul seems to be indicating that he identifies with the ancient Israel, but – following his salvation experience on the Damascus Road – has come to recognize Judaism as practiced by most Jews as mere religion, devoid of faith, and having ascribed to God many rules and regulations He did not in fact give them.

By the time of Christ’s birth, there were three main branches, or sects, of Judaism: Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene. The Pharisee sect was the largest and most popular of the three, perhaps because they appealed to the common people. Pharisees not only believed and practiced the Mosaic Law, they also believed that God had given an Oral Law, an explanation of Mosaic Law that would, in the second century AD, be compiled and written (the Talmud). Pharisees believed in resurrection in the age to come, at which time there would be eternal rewards. Pharisees put as much weight on the Prophets as they did the Law. Although they used Exodus 3:6 and 15 in the Law to show that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob even though these men were dead (implying that they lived on in an afterlife, subject to God), they could also go to the Prophets and other texts to show resurrection (e.g., Job 19:25-26, Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19).

Sadducees were strict legalists, adhering to Mosaic Law to the letter and rejecting the Talmud. They were less popular than the Pharisees, probably because they were the elitists, appealing to the aristocrats and Priests. Sadducees did not believe in resurrection (Matthew 22:23, Acts 4:1-2), nor did they believe in afterlife of the soul, eternal rewards, or the world to come. They didn’t believe that a man had a spirit (an angel) in addition to a soul. Sadducees did not interpret the Exodus passage in the same way Pharisees did and since Sadducees gave more weight to the Law than to the Prophets — and since there seemed to them to be no teaching in the Law affirming resurrection — they didn’t believe in it. Because they were strict legalists, they believed ritual life for Jews could only be properly observed in Temple worship, and through the Priests, whereas Pharisees had adopted the more liberal ideas of worship in synagogues and individual prayer. The Pharisees were only somewhat open to Hellenism, while the Sadducees were welcoming of Greek philosophy and culture.3

The Essenes emerged from Judaism as a new sect in the second century BC (although they would say they have their roots as far back as Enoch) and endured until near the end of the first century AD, having succumbed, in large part, to the Roman response to the Jewish Revolt in the AD 60s. Although we call them Essenes, or holy ones, these terms were used only by outsiders; the Essenes most often called themselves the brotherhood. Essenes were opposed to what they saw as abuses and false teachings by both the Pharisees and Sadducees, and so left Jerusalem for the wilderness of the Dead Sea to live a monastic life. Although a large assembly of Essenes lived in this monastic compound, there were also many Essenes dotting the land of Israel in villages, living among those outside the brotherhood.4 The brotherhood opposed other Jews primarily because they (the brothers) were, in some ways, borrowing either from the Persian mystery cult of Mithras, or from Gnosticism, considering themselves to be the recipients of secret knowledge and wisdom from God that they would use to benefit what they believed to be the already present Kingdom of Heaven.

The Essenes fell somewhere between Pharisees and Sadducees on several issues, including the belief that although there is no resurrection, there is a spiritual afterlife.  While Sadducees, like Epicureans, believed the soul died with the body, Essenes believed the soul to be eternal; however, the spirit left the body at death and floated away, the virtuous soul resting beyond the sea, while the immoral soul would be imprisoned under eternal torment.5 There is some indication that Essenes may have held to reincarnation, a belief most likely borrowed from the Zoroastrians of the East; therefore, Essenes generally believed that the virtuous soul would eventually be reunited with a body. However, it must be pointed out that these Essene beliefs are not so clear cut. Hellenic belief, in general, is that the soul, not the spirit, floats away, and there is no eternal torment.

Essene belief bordered on, if not actually consisted of, angel worship. Though the Bible names only Michael and Gabriel, some of the Essene writings contain names of many angels. Pharisees believed in angels, but understood them to be below Yahweh, and not worthy of worship, though Pharisees, and Jews in general, were very aware of angels and believed them to be messengers and ministering spirits sent from God.

Pharisees viewed resurrection as a means to participation in a definite Judaistic Kingdom on earth, but Essenes did not hold this view. Rather, they, like the

Sadducees, didn’t generally believe in resurrection and so there would be no opportunity for the deceased to inherit an earthly Kingdom. The Essenes, in fact, were waiting for their messiah, the Teacher of Righteousness, to conquer all enemies, chief of whom were the Romans. It would seem that following this final battle of Good and Evil, the Elect of the New Covenant having been avenged, there would be a Last Judgment, but then there are various views as to an earthly Kingdom of righteousness for those who survive.

On the whole, Judaism is earthly. All of the promises made to Israel in the OT revolved around an earthly Kingdom to come; Pharisees believed they would be resurrected and participate in this Kingdom; Sadducees and Essenes didn’t believe in a resurrection, and they had varying views on a future earthly Kingdom. The belief of the afterlife that was held by the brotherhood, in which there would only be a spiritual state, or perhaps reincarnation, is similar to Hellenism; yet, the Essenes were very much opposed to Hellenism in other ways, particularly in the Greco-Roman worship of many gods.

The Essenes agreed with the Sadducees that only the Zadokites had authority as Priests; indeed, some of the brotherhood documents indicate that they viewed themselves as the rightful sons of Zadok and, therefore, were the true Jews. While the Pharisees saw the Talmud as authoritative (and, by extension, those Rabbis who interpreted and taught the Talmud), and the Sadducees saw only the Priesthood as set forth in Mosaic Law as authoritative, the Essenes produced their own writings by which they lived. In some of these writings, the Teacher of Righteousness was to rule. There is debate as to whether this Teacher was supposed to have represented (in prophetic terms) Who we now know was the true Messiah, or whether he should be viewed as another authority altogether.

Within Judaism, the Hellenists were those who had adopted Greek philosophy and culture (particularly the Greek language) to varying degrees. Judaism had been Hellenized to a rather large extent in the third and second centuries BC. Hellenists typically were those who did not believe in resurrection; this was the main difference between the Hellenists and the Pharisees. Sadducees, although Hellenic in their views on the afterlife, may or may not have been the Hellenists with whom Saul of Tarsus disputed (Acts 9:29). The main contention between Paul and these Hellenists would have been that of resurrection.

- Similarities and Contrasts

The major set of contrasts between Hellenic and Hebraic thought are 1) cyclical vs linear; 2) philosophical vs historical; 3) ideas vs acts; 4) impersonal vs personal; and 5) time insignificance vs time significance.6

Abram lived in Ur of the Chaldees, about 150 miles southeast of Babylon. It was around the year 2000 BC when Abram’s father, Terah, took his family to Haran in Assyria, some 500 miles northwest of Ur. After Terah died, God called to Abram. For the 2000 years of human history preceding this call of Abram, man had lived a circular life. The pervasive thought of man was that life occurred in cycles so that there would come a day when the earth would be burned up and then start over, a pattern that would repeat forever. There was no concept of time or how often the cycle would repeat.

When God called Abram, however, He began a truly historical narrative in which time would be measured. There would be a middle and an end in which all men would be held to account by a personal God. Abram was entering into a whole new life, the concept of which must have been beyond comprehension, a fact which makes his obedience to the call of God truly incredible. Until God called out Israel through Abraham, humanity on the whole was circular. Israel stood apart as a nation of history with Prophets who foretold of real events on a timeline. Then, with Christ coming into the world, we have a major point on the timeline that will never happen again. The Cross will not be repeated.

Hellenic thought has always been circular and that’s one of the reasons the philosophers had a hard time with Paul in Athens. Life after death for them was the soul going out and waiting for everything to start over again. And even when it started over, the soul was not personal so that it wouldn’t be you starting again in a new body. You would be wiped clean and would live on as someone else, and on the cycle would go; therefore, Paul’s teaching of the judgment to come would’ve been ill-received.

The Apostle Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, explains Christianity as …not a system of ideas, but a series of events…[W]hat he is concerned with is not the solution of intellectual problems about God, man, and the universe, but a drama being enacted on the world-stage in which God and man play their parts, whose issues are salvation or perdition.7 The Hebraic mindset is about God and His promises, and how the Jew, particularly through his actions, would fit into God’s plan, while Hellenic thought is one of impersonal forces and intellectual ideas.

Concerning evil and sin, the Hellenic explanation tends to be in terms of defect, the Hebraic in terms of defection.8 For the Greek, man chooses the wrong only because he is ignorant of the right; he is helpless in his state of diminished knowledge and bodily imperfection (defect). For the Hebrew, it is a matter of the will; God’s will for man is not realized because man is acting in disobedience and rebellion (defection). Herein lies a source of considerable contrast between Hellenic and Hebraic life, but it is to be noted that Paul comes down the middle. As we will see in Part II on Romans, Paul indicts man as to his life-choice of sin and subsequent actions (defection), and he presents us with the facts that man is a sinner both by nature and position in Adam (defect). And, for Paul, this state of man is mediated by Satanic forces.

The Hellenic conception of demons was relatively unimportant in contrast to the Hebraic (particularly, the Pharasaic) conception in which Satanic forces were seen as the main source of man’s problem, so that man would not be disobedient if only he could be free of Satanic influence. For the Hebrew, Israel was seen as lying between the opposing forces of God and Satan, although Israel was generally identified with God while the Gentiles were identified with Satan. To the contrary, throughout Paul’s epistles, we see a clear dichotomy between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, between light and darkness. Paul tells us that those who are saved have been translated from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light, and that there has never been a state that lies between the two.

Paul breaks once again from his Hebraic upbringing when he cites the new concept of the flesh as the source of sin. For the typical Hebrew, sin was caused by outside agents, prompting the Jew to defect from his faith and from his God. While Paul concurs that Satanic forces are real and are active agents in compelling man to sin, he also learns from the Ascended Lord that man, since the fall of Adam, is now sinful in himself: …in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing… (Romans 7:18). The Jew saw himself as neutral in regard to sin, but Paul says we are all bondslaves of sin (Romans 6) until we are regenerated and set free. And then, Paul contradicts the Stoic when he continues, For the good which I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I practice (Romans 7:19). The Stoic would contend that man would do the good if the good is clearly seen, but Paul is emphatic that man cannot, of himself, do the good even when clearly seen; he must be set free from sinful flesh and this liberation must come from without.

For the Greek, salvation is attained through knowledge; knowledge of good would lead to a life of good. Man should choose the good based on knowledge without resorting to feelings or desires. Salvation lies beyond what we can sense and beyond the imperfect (or evil) body, and resides in ideas and knowledge of one’s self in the universe. For the Jew, faith [belief] comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). In Hebrew, hearing is much more than being aware of sound; it is to obey. Hearing without obedience is not true hearing. For the Greek, to see is to know (unto salvation); for the Jew, to hear is to obey (unto salvation). The Hellenic view is that intellect is the key; it is the intellect that sees, understands, and is then set free. The Hebraic view is that the will is the key; it is the will that hears, trusts, and is then set free. In all of this, Paul is squarely in the company of the Hebrews, with one exception.

The Jews believed man ought to repent and must repent if he is to be justified before God. This repentance was predicated on confession of sin. Paul does not speak of confession of sin and sees repentance as only possible through regeneration; that is, repentance is possible only because the Lord Yeshua made it possible by faith. Therefore, when the Jew speaks of hearing, trusting, and then being set free, he has in mind confession of sin and repentance as products of hearing and as preludes to freedom. Paul, in contrast, considers hearing as the activator of faith (which is always trust and obedience unto repentance), resulting in freedom, so that faith/trust/repentance is one event concurrent with salvation. In Pauline doctrine, there is no real distinction, as to time, between faith, repentance, and salvation when one is justified upon believing the Gospel:

Hebraic: hearing → faith/trust → confession of sin → repentance → freedom/salvation

Pauline: hearing → (faith/trust)(regeneration/repentance)(freedom/salvation)

Concerning sanctification, however, because the will of the justified man has been set free and his mind is being renewed day by day, Paul teaches a more distinct linear pattern. The justified man is able to completely understand the Word, choose between evil and good, repent after the evil has been chosen, and be restored to full fellowship with God:

Hebraic: hearing → faith/trust → confession of sin → repentance → freedom

Pauline: hearing → faith/trust → repentance → freedom

Along this line, it should also be noted that Paul’s doctrine of reconciliation has no parallel in either Hellenic or Hebraic thought.9 The typical Hebrew belief is that God can be reconciled to man if man confesses his sin and repents, but Paul teaches that Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice has secured the reconciliation of man to God. It is not, as the Jews thought, that man can, by his actions, cause God to be reconciled to him, but that God has already, at the Cross, reconciled man to Himself. The consummation of this reconciliation is not dependent on confession and repentance of any number of sins, but belief of the Gospel.

The Cultural Milieu

In addition to the Hellenization of Judaism and the known world, regarding philosophy and language, there was another integral layer of religion permeating all aspects of life. While some of the people sought the cerebral musings of the philosophers, virtually all of the people were steeped in the worship of gods and goddesses. The common people, the poor, and those in the rural and agricultural areas, were readily embracing their ancestral gods and goddesses, even if they were not well-versed in the tenets of Stoicism or Epicureanism.

The culture of the Roman Empire into which Paul journeyed in the first century was an amalgamation of beliefs from Persia, Egypt, Assyria, and Greece, as well as Rome. While the Romans had their pantheon of gods and goddesses, the Hellenization of the Roman Empire led to the merging of the Greek gods with the Roman. As travel became less difficult, people from the Far East and from Africa settled into the areas of the Roman Empire, bringing with them their own gods and goddesses. The beliefs of the Persians and Egyptians were added to those of the Greeks and Romans, often undergoing adaptation.

The typical family in the Empire would have their ancestral gods, those deities whose influence and intervention, and whose traditions of worship, had been passed down to succeeding generations. In addition to the family gods, there were the city gods and Empire gods. All of these gods and goddesses were integral to daily life in the regions into which Paul entered with the Gospel. For example, when God healed a man through Paul in Lystra, the people said, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. They proceeded to worship Paul and Barnabas as the Roman gods Mercury and Jupiter, respectively (Greek gods Hermes and Zeus, respectively). There was a temple of Jupiter there in Lystra and the priest of the temple brought oxen to sacrifice (Acts 14:8-13).

Worship of the city and Empire gods provided the structure upon which one’s social calendar was built. For most pagans, there was a feast or festival every month for one god or another. Some of these festivals lasted for a day, but some spanned several days. The most common ritual during these festivals was animal sacrifice, but there were some festivals for gods of agriculture that included walking the boundaries of plots of land in an effort to sanctify the tract. Several of the festivals involved drunkenness and general immorality as integral to the worship of the gods. In addition to these annual festivals for the city and Empire gods, there were daily rituals revolving around family gods. And as life events would occur, such as pregnancies or sicknesses, additional help of the gods would be sought.

The Greek pantheon of six gods and six goddesses is well known, but there were a particular few other gods that were also important to the people, including Apollo, Demeter, and Aphrodite, as well as Dionysus, Herakles, and Asklepius. Among the imported gods, the most widely worshipped were the Egyptian Isis and the Persian Mithras.10, 11 Popular among the philosophers was the Egyptian Thoth whom the Greeks recognized as their Hermes.

Apollo was the god of divination and prophecy. His sanctuary at Delphi was one of the most sacred places in the Greek world for revelation and interpretation. Aphrodite (Babylonian Ishtar, Semitic Astarte) was the goddess of love and so her followers included prostitutes and the men who paid them. Demeter was the goddess of fertility and of the fruits of the harvest. As such, she was popular among the common people who sought her gifts of food. The worship of Demeter revolved around birth and death as evidenced in the seasons, with a festival celebrated twice a year for initiates of the mystery. Dionysus was the god of the vine and was worshipped by those of every social status, such worship ranging from dignified ceremonies and parades to orgiastic celebrations and festivals.12

The Egyptian goddess, Isis, was a savior and protector, and was also associated with justice, law, and agriculture. Isis was the head of a classic mystery cult. Her mysteries…promised salvation to initiates… She also answered prayers in a very personal way, with compassion and power.13 Mysteries were a very important part in Egyptian religion and made it terribly attractive to people because one could be introduced into a special knowledge and a special way of viewing things and probably a special promise of afterlife…14

Along with the importation of Isis, the Roman Empire also welcomed the Persian god, Mithras, the ascendent god of Zoroastrianism. He was the sun god and was worshipped, especially, on Sunday.15 Mithras, like Isis, was the head of a mystery cult in which members had to be initiated through ritual and then participate in many rituals as part of a private, secretive group. As a mystery cult, its initiates received secret knowledge from Mithras that was individually tailored. We see elements of Zoroastrianism among the Essenes who venerated the sun and the rising of the sun, and who also admitted new members only through water baptism. Ritualistic washings were frequent and, like Zoroastrianism, communal meals were shrouded in secrecy, ritual, and rules. The Essenes, true to mystery cult form, believed they were the recipients of special knowledge that set them apart from all other Jews.

In addition to the gods and goddesses, there were demi-gods, the offspring of unions between gods and humans. Demi-gods were perhaps the most beloved by the common people given their nature of part god and part human. These demi-gods were viewed as empathetic toward humans, having suffered as humans themselves, yet possessing powers due to their god nature. One such demi-god who enjoyed high praise among the people was Asklepius, the god of healing through medicine and divine power. He was the one who enabled physicians to treat the people, but he also responded to the prayers of the people by miraculously healing them himself. As such, he was seen as a savior god.16, 17

- Snapshot: Ephesus

As the commercial center of Asia Minor, there were several roads connecting Ephesus with the interior of Asia. The port city of Miletus across the bay was one of the largest ports in the Empire. Ephesus was also renowned for its religious fervor, so that Ephesus was a mix of Greek commerce along with idolatrous worship and the magical arts. The temple of Artemis (Diana) in Ephesus was reputed to be the grandest temple of Diana in the world,18 and designated as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.19 The altar in this temple was large enough to sacrifice hundreds of animals simultaneously.20 Diana was associated with birth and death, and it was thought that she helped women, and even animals, in labor. As with all the other gods, there were several festivals associated with Diana, including her birthday.21

The Apostle Paul entered Ephesus for the second time in AD 55, spending nearly three years ministering the Gospel there. As a result of Paul’s preaching, all in Asia heard the word of the Lord, including both Jews and Gentiles. Many pagans turned to the Lord Jesus, renouncing their idolatry and burning their books of magic arts. Idol making was a lucrative business. A silversmith named Demetrius made replicas of Diana’s temple as well as idols of Diana and, through his work, many craftsmen were employed. Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, resulting in many pagans forsaking Diana, was disrupting the business of the craftsmen. Demetrius was not only concerned about his business but the reputation of Diana and her temple, that she should even be deposed from her magnificence, whom all Asia and the world worships (Acts 19:27). A mob ensued and confusion reigned as the people sought to put an end to Paul and his ministry. For two hours, the people cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, for Ephesus was the temple-keeper of the great Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter [or, Heaven].

It cannot be overstated how much adoration the people had for their goddess, Diana, and how much pride they took in their magnificent temple, which served as a beacon for all of Asia Minor. Not only was there a grand temple in Ephesus, there were other temples dotting Asia; Paul, for example, would have also encountered a temple of Diana on the edge of a plateau overlooking the Mediterranean Sea in the port city of Perga.22 Along with one’s family gods, and local city gods, anyone in Asia would have also had idols of Diana in their homes, would have worshipped her, and would have prayed to her regarding life and death issues.

- Snapshot: Corinth

While Athens was the education and cultural center of Achaia (Greece) and was known to have a shrine on every corner, Corinth was the chief city in terms of government and commerce, though also very religious.23 In 146 BC, the Romans burned Corinth to the ground, leaving only part of the marketplace, a fountain, and partial remains of the temple of Apollo. The Romans rebuilt the city one century later, restoring and enlarging temples, and building a marketplace that was larger than any in Rome,24 making Corinth an important city for both religion and commerce. Due to the influx of men from all over the world, Corinth boasted of a wide array of religious traditions.

In addition to the bustling trade of Corinth, the city was known world-wide as one of vice and carnality. To Corinthianize (Gr. korinthiazesthai) was to live a life of sexual impurity and drunkenness. In addition to the temple of Apollo, the temple of the goddess Aphrodite was a significant influence on the Corinthians as the base of prostitution. Although the temple was in ruins in Paul’s day, the culture of prostitution remained; the prostitutes had simply moved their base of operation to the shops in the city below so that fornication was commonplace in Corinth.25

There were many other gods in addition to Apollo and Aphrodite. The Greek Hermes, the Roman Venus, the Greek Artemis, Asklepius, and the Egyptian Isis, all had temples or shrines in Corinth. Poseidon was important to this city that boasted of two ports, for he was the god of the sea. Demeter was a goddess popular with the common people because she, like Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians, was the goddess of fertility and the harvest. Although the main temple of Demeter was just outside of Athens, her temple in Corinth was no less important.26

Paul had more problems with the Christians in Corinth than in any other city. It is no wonder that these new believers were misunderstanding Paul’s teachings. For example, Paul would teach that they were not under law, but under grace, and that all things are lawful. The Pauline party took this to mean that they could continue on in fornication and drunkenness, the vices of Corinth which these believers had known all their lives, and of which they had partaken as part of routine ritual. Throughout the Empire, in this Greco-Roman culture in which there existed not only Hellenic philosophy and Gnosticism, but gods, goddesses, and mystery cults, with all of their feasts, festivals, rituals, and vices, it is understandable why Christians in the midst of these opposing forces were hard-pressed to abandon ancestral beliefs and practices.

The normal Christian life, however, is one of purity and holiness, one of a singular love of God in which the