Pauline Mission

A. Background of Paul

Saul was born in the city of Tarsus around 3-5 CE (Acts7: 56). He received his theological education at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 5: 34; 22:3) who was one of the distinguished teachers of the Law in the 1^st Century C.E. Paul’s pre-Christian life has been presented as a Jewish persecutor. The Damascus experience has become the turning point in Paul’s life (Acts 9: 22, 26). This time Paul received the vision of the resurrected Lord (I CorI5: 8; Gal 1: 16) and a new chapter in Paul’s life has been opened. After this experience Paul had spent three years in Damascus and Arabia preaching the gospel (Gal 1: 17; Acts 9: 19). He had later gone to Jerusalem to see the apostles and could see only two of the apostles, James and Peter. Then he returned to Ci1icia (Tarsus) his own native place and he spent here ten years, which is called the silent years. Later Barnabas invited Paul to come to Antioch and to help him in the church at Antioch (Gal 1: 17; Acts 9: 26; Acts 11: 20).

I. Paul’s Jewish Heritage

The Lukan account of Paul’s life shows that Paul was a conservative Jew who had been born at Tarsus. He was educated at the feet of Gamaliel (Gal. 1: 14). Gamaliel was the leading Pharisee of his day and a member of the Jewish council (Acts 5: 34). Paul boasted of his Pharisaic background and testifies himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23: 6; 26: 5). During the close of the third century and the beginning of the second century BC there was a pious group in Palestine known as Hasidims. The Hasidims stood by the Maccabean struggle because they struggle was primarily for religious freedom. The Pharisees are the descendants of these Hasidims. Etymologically the word ‘Pharisee’ comes from the Hebrew root paras meaning “separated.” The Pharisees separated themselves from anything that was ceremonially unclean. The Pharisees are perhaps the best known among the sects, because of their role as Jesus’ principal opponents in some gospel narratives. The Pharisees believe that the soul is imperishable, and that the souls of the wicked are punished eternally. They believe in fate, free will, and God. They make no concession to luxury, show respect for their elders, and follow the guidance of reason and what is good. They cultivate harmonious relationships with one another and with the community. They observe “traditions of the fathers” which are not recorded in the Law of Moses. The content of these traditions are not known, which can only be conjectured on the basis of the NT and early rabbinic literature. Paul belonged to such a strong Jewish tradition.

In the Pharisaism of Paul’s day there were two 1eading schools of interpretation founded by Shammai and Hillel respectively. Gamaliel was the successor of Hillel. Both in rabbinic traditions and in N. T. Gamaliel appear as a member of the Sanhedrin. Paul was trained in rabbinical Judaism at Jerusalem (Acts 22: 3) and was outstanding as a rabbinical student (Gal 1: 14; 2Cor 11: 22; Phil 3: 5). He was passionately zealous for his convictions. For him the law was to be kept in its totality. He calls himself a ‘Hebrew of the Hebrews’ (Phil 3: 5). With in the context of Diaspora Judaism, his identity as a ‘Hebrew’ shows that Paul was brought up as a proud Jew.

Paul was a Hebrew speaking Jew (2 Cor 11: 22; Acts 22: 1-11). He was circumcised on the eighth day, a Pharisee in keeping the Law (Phil 3: 4-6; Acts 23: 6). He belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11: 1). His Jewish name was perhaps after the   name ‘Saul’ the first king of Israel. He insists that he outstripped “in Judaism” many of his own age among his people (Gal 11: 22). He was a trained Rabbi who used rabbinic traditions (Acts 7: 53; Gal 3: 17-21). As an Israelite, Paul recognized his privilege status as a member of God’s chosen people “to whom belong sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the cult, the promises, and the patriarchs,” (Romans 9: 4-5).

The Pharisaic background may well explain what Paul meant when he says of himself that he was “set apart for the gospel” (Romans 1:1). He may have been looking back on his Pharisaic background, his training as “one set apart,” as a divinely ordained. For it prepared him to become a preacher of the gospel. Despite such strong Pharisaic background, we note that Paul lives in the world of the Judaism of the Old Testament.  His God ids the God of his fathers (2 Cor 3: 14), who spoke through the prophets and who announced the gospel beforehand in the prophets (Romans 1: 2). Paul thinks and expresses himself in Old Testament categories and makes abundant use the O. T. images, quotations, and allusions. Eh cites the Old Testament more that 90 times. His use of quotations of the OT is like that of the contemporary Jewish writers. He accommodates the Old Testament or gives it a new meaning (when he announces his theme about salvation by faith and quote Habakkuk 2: 4 in Romans 1: 17 or Galatians 3: 11); he nay allegorise it (when makes use of the story of Sarah and Hagar and quotes genesis 16: 15 or 17: 16 in Galatians 4: 21-25); sometimes he wrest it from its original context (e.g., when he quotes Deuteronomy 25: 5 about muzzling the ox that treads the threshing floor and applies it to Christian preachers in 1 Corinthians 9: 9). Yet we note that Paul quotes the OT to stress the unity of God’s actions in both dispensations. He looks upon the OT as God’s way pf preparing for the appearance of Christ himself (Galatians 3: 24). For him the OT is still the means whereby God speaks to humanity. He acknowledges that what was written about Abraham is still relevant to Christians (Romans 4: 23-24; cf. 15: 4). Indeed most of Paul’s teaching about God, his theology, is clearly derived from his Jewish background. Yet he is also a Jew of the first century, influenced by various currents of Jewish thinking that are now evident from the post-Old Testament world. His spiritual journey is rooted in his native Judaism.

1. Elements in the First Century Judaism that Throw Light on Pauline Thought

In first Century Judaism the Shammait Judaism element was dominant. In Pharisaism there was a great deal of apocalyptic speculation. They emphasized the doctrine of resurrection, the end of the age and the kingly Messiah. This Judaism can be called the apocalyptic Judaism. There are several aspects in Pauline thought that is better understood against this background.

1. His attitude to the Law. Both Paul and the author of the inter-testamental apocalypse (2 Esdras), the law has been considered as a divine gift to Israel but it could not redeem the sinner because mankind had been doomed to sin. Paul who was a typical Rabbinic who believed that the law had to be obeyed literally.
2. His concept of God as Transcendent. The Hellenistic concept of God was more transcendent and less personal than the Judaistic view. The idea of God in apocalyptic Judaism leads mostly towards the side of transcendalism. Therefore this transcendalism could be another point where Judaism influenced Paul.
3. His concept of Mysticism. The Pauline concept of Mysticism is more related to Judaism. Several scholars have argued that Paul’s mysticism leads to ‘being deified,’ an idea that is impossible in Judaism. Paul maintains a distinction between the creator and creature. First century Judaism was acquainted with the joy of the law but also with the more ecstatic joy of the ‘mystic.’ For Paul, the Christian faith was full flowering of Judaism in which Christ himself had replaced the Torah.

II. Paul’s Greek /Hellenistic Background

1. He was a citizen of Tarsus (Ac21: 39). This city was associated with many great philosophers. This city was famous for Greek art and culture and it also was a politically significant city. This city had produced great scholars of the day and even the young people were excelled in scholarship.
2. Paul’s Roman citizenship brought an extra advantage for him on many occasions (Ac 16:37-39; 22:24-30; 25:9-12). Being a Roman citizen meant great respect, honour and liberty. According to the Roman law, a Roman citizen could not be bound and crucified.
3. Even though Paul was a Pharisee and a trained rabbi under Gamaliel, he preferred to use the LXX instead of the Hebrew Bible. He was highly competent in Greek and he makes effective use of the diatribe style that was used in the Philosophical schools and Stoic ideas.

Paul was a Jew brought up in a Gentile environment. Later he came to Jerusalem to learn under Gamaliel. There are three backgrounds that had most influenced Paul’s life. In this regard scholars have taken there are three lines of approach:

1. The Hellenistic approach that holds the view that his Greek-Roman environment was dominant. For W. Wrede, Paul was in fact the second founder of Christianity. Gunkel argued that the idea of being “united with Christ” was similar to the ideas in the mystery religions.
2. The Jewish-Hellenistic approach. Paul was a Jew who lived in a Gentile environment, hence there was a mingling of the influences of the two backgrounds. For e.g. Paul used LXX rather than the Hebrew OT.
3. The Palestinian Approach. According to Van Unnik that Paul was in Jerusalem during the formative stages. The interpretation of the O. T. in the following passages is distinctly rabbinic (Gal 3: 19; 1 Cor 10:4; 2 Cor 11: 2-6; Rom 4 & 5). The Adam Christ comparison and contrast is influenced by Jewish thinking. Paul’s rabbinic background is very much important for the formation of his thought.

2. The Call and Commission of Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles:

a. The Conversion of Paul

One of the best-known narratives in the NT is the story of Paul’s conversion and his call to be the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was a self-confessed persecutor of Christ (l Cor15: 9; Gal 1: 13). He understood the persecution of the Church in Jerusalem as a measure of his zeal for the law and the ancestral traditions. Ancient tradition has divided up the history into three eras: the era of chaos, the era of the law and the era of the Messiah followed by eternal Sabbath rest. Paul also must have thought that Messiah would supersede the law. But for Paul, it was impossible for Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah because the status, career and teaching of Jesus conformed in no way to his conception of a Messiah’s status. A crucified Messiah was a self-contradiction because Deuteronomy 21: 23 stated that a changed man is accused by God. But his Damascus journey turned out to be a turning point in his life and it changed the persecutor of the Church into an apostle of Jesus Christ? This experience is echoed in his repeated claims that he saw the crucified Jesus, as the exalted Lord (l Cor 9: 1; 15: 8; Gal 1: 15f).

His call and commission were part of the same experience (Acts 9: 17; 22: 14). Paul was compelled to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified one was alive after his passion, vindicated and exalted by God. There would be no resistance against this compulsion. He was completely yielded to this new master. This conversion experience was not a psychological experience but rather he intelligently and deliberately surrendered his will to the risen Christ. From this point, the risen Christ displaced the law as the centre of Paul’s life and thought. The Damascus road experience (where Paul saw the risen Lord) had a tremendous impact in Paul’s life. This experience had dramatic consequences, changing his entire life, self-understanding, theological views, and goals. Formerly all the elements of his life were organized around the central focus of the law. When he saw the revealed glory of Jesus of Nazareth, he very well understood the bankruptcy of the law. Thus the law could no longer be the centre and it was replaced by the risen Lord around whom his life and thought were reorganized to form a new pattern.

After the experience of conversion (cf. Acts 9: 27) in Damascus, Paul went up to Jerusalem where Barnabas had introduced him to the apostles. In Gal 1: 18 Paul states more clearly that he actually met just two of the apostles, Peter and James. Paul’s purpose in going up to Jerusalem was to become acquainted with Peter and inquire of him. The details of Jesus’ ministry and the ‘tradition’ of his teaching that became popular derived from Peter. Paul says that the apostolic commission that he had received is from the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. His objective in going up to Jerusalem was to establish bonds of fellowship with the leaders of the mother church and to obtain from them information that could be obtained from nowhere else.

While Paul had the revelation of the risen Lord, he also had received the tradition of the gospel from the early church. How do we relate l Cor 15: 3 with Gal 1: 12ff. The verb ‘receive’ in both places implies receiving by tradition. It is accompanied by the correlative ‘deliver,’ which implies handing on what one has thus received. Paul was aware of a sense in which he had received the gospel by tradition. What is the relation between the gospel as revelation and the gospel as tradition? The gospel as revelation was what accomplished in his conversion. One thing that convinced Paul was that ‘Jesus was indeed the risen Lord’ and it was the Damascus road revelation. This was the heart of his gospel and he owed it to no human witness. Paul has received the gospel as a matter of revelation. At the same time he also received the tradition as a matter of information in Jerusalem on his visits probably from the apostles.

Paul’s’ conversion was a very significant event in the early church. The book of Acts records how Paul’s conversion became an important factor in the early Christianity and how it contributed to the spread of the gospel. This is very evident in the Paul’s ministry and what God has accomplished through Paul. He himself knew that his conversion was a divinely appointed one. His epistles speak of his own understanding about his conversion experience.

i. In 1 Cor 15: 3ff the list of resurrection appearances is produced by three clauses, which he received and then delivered to his converts:

(a) That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures: The phrase ‘in accordance with the scriptures’ corresponds to a primitive emphasis in the gospel story. Christ died according to the scriptures was part of the early apostolic witness. The statement that ‘Christ died for our sins’ shows of the expiatory significance of the death of Christ. This aspect does not show the prominent feature of the early preaching. The atoning significance of Christ’s death is a primitive emphasis. This emphasis is found in the N. T. E.g. Mk 10: 45; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 1: 8; 1 Jn 1: 7; Rev 1: 5. This atoning emphasis is pre-Pauline and most likely goes back to Jesus’ own self- understanding. The title ‘Christ’ in 1 Cor 15: 3 is significant. The statement means (I) Jesus is the Messiah (ii) that he died for his people’s sins and (iii) that his death took place in fulfilment of prophetic scriptures.

(b) That Christ was buried. Burial is mentioned in order to underline the reality and finality of death that Christ certainly did die. In his death and burial he fully identified with the mortal humanity.

(c) That Christ was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. For Paul the resurrection of Jesus is the fulfilment of the scriptures. In fact it becomes the central focus of his theology, because it is the resurrection that gives validity to the gospel. It was the resurrection that transformed the early Christians and it provided a great momentum to the Christian movement. Resurrection became the central focus of the early Christian preaching and this may be particularly noticed in Paul’s preaching. The fact of resurrection became the faith affirmation of the church and tradition. This tradition has appealed to several passages. Isaiah 53 is a testimonium not only to the death of the Messiah but also to his exaltation.

ii. In 1 Cor 15: 8 Paul refers to himself as one ‘untimely born.’ He received the revelation of Christ in an unusual way. His experience is different from that of the other apostles. The word ‘appears’ is translated here as opthe, which comes from horao. This term is used in the LXX to describe a theophany.

iii. In Gal 1: 14-16 he says that God has given him the revelation that he should preach Christ among the Gentiles. There are two O. T. passages and one refers to the servant and to his commission to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49: 1-6). Jeremiah 1: 4ff “chosen,” “set apart from birth” emphasise on God’s free choice (God’s grace). Same emphasis on grace is found in Gal 1: 15.

iv. In Phil 3: 4-10 Paul lists his qualification as a Pharisee, a pure Israelite descent, born to Hebrew parents, spoke Aramaic. These were his claims before the conversion experience. But he gladly rejected all these for the sake of his increasing knowledge of his Lord i.e., righteousness through faith, and fellowship with Christ in suffering and in his resurrection. A dramatic change from a self-cantered security to one that is Christ- cantered.

b. The Apostle to the Gentiles.

There have been debates among scholars as to whether Paul’s experience on the Damascus road is best understood as a conversion or a call to a definite mission as apostle to the gentiles. References such as Galatians 1, Philippians 3, Acts 9, 22 and 26 speak about Paul’s conversion and call experience. Many biblical scholars earlier understood Paul’s Damascus road experience as a paradigmatic instance of Christian conversion. Today many scholars would describe the same experience as Paul’s unique call to be apostle the Gentiles. This shift in understanding has set the agenda for many recent studies of Paul’s conversion/call. In the New Testament it is in Paul’s letters and the book of Acts that the accounts of Paul’s conversion/call are found. Galatians 1: 11-17 and Philippians 3: 4-17 are the two passages in which Paul writes about his conversion/call experience. In addition, I Timothy 1: 12-17 and Romans are also considered as autobiographical description of this experience. There are three different accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience in Acts: 9: 1-20; 22: 1-21 and 26: 2-23. Historical research prefers the Pauline letters, which are his own accounts of his experience, over Acts, which is a later interpretation of Paul from a different perspective. So methodologically it seems best to start with the accounts in the Pauline corpus and then examine the accounts in Acts. It is also significant to note how the accounts in the letters and Acts are related to each other.

Galatians 1: 11-17 is an autobiographical reference, which is part of Paul’s defence of his gospel. Here Paul’s opponents seem to be Judaizers who insisted that Gentiles keep the Law and be circumcised. Paul argues against this and makes his own experience a part of his argument in order to emphasize the revelatory nature of the gospel. The divine origin of the gospel Paul preaches (Gal 1: 11-12) is also seen in the divine source of Paul’s call (Gal 1: 15-17). Paul uses the experience of his conversion /call to show that his mission to the Gentiles is rooted in divine revelation and divine calling. It is in this context that the difference between his earlier life as a Jew and the present life as an apostle needs to be understood. The contrast between Paul’s former earlier Jewish life and his new life as apostle to the Gentiles is seen as evidence for the divine origin of the gospel.

Philippians 3: 3-17 is not as clear as that of Galatians. The reference to those who mutilate the flesh (3: 2) and Paul’s claim to be the true circumcision (3:3) suggest that Paul is arguing against the Judaizing tendencies in the church. Here Paul’s comparison of himself is with those who think they have reason for confidence in the flesh (3: 4-6). But his new life in Christ brought about a change. It was a complete transformation. Because Paul’s Damascus road experience has totally transformed his life, he sees his life that can be imitated (3: 15-17). This idea of himself as an example of the life in Christ is the underlying purpose of Paul’s account of his experience in Philippians 3: 3-17.  I Timothy 1: 12-16 provides an account of Paul’s conversion. However many scholars do not regard Paul as the writer of I Timothy, and therefore its value as an autobiography statement is questioned. Romans 7: 7-25 has multiplicity of readings and it lacks direct biographical information. Therefore it seems best not to consider this passage as an account, which refers to Paul’s conversion/call.

We derive little information from Paul’s letters about the actual conversion/call event. Instead the Pauline accounts reflect the radical change in Paul’s values and commitments when he received a revelation of Christ. But in the three accounts in Acts we have the events surrounding the conversion /call. From its three occurrence we understand that this event has major significance for Luke’s narrative. The first account, in Acts 9: 1-20 is told as part of the historical narrative; the other accounts, in Acts 22: 1-21 and 26: 2-23 are contained in Paul’s speeches before the Jews and King Agrippa. There has been a tendency in NT scholarship to isolate these conversion/call narratives from the rest of Acts and then to compare them with Paul’s accounts. However it is important to see the passages in their context in Acts. Luke uses them to show the progress of the church from Jewish to a Gentile community and to justify the Pauline mission to the Gentiles. Luke has one tradition about Paul’s conversion/call when he uses in different ways to further his purpose in Acts. Paul is the driving force behind Christianity’s Gentile mission and Luke uses his conversion/call experience to justify that mission and the Gentile Christianity it produced.

It is not an easy task to compare the Lukan account of Paul’s conversion/call with that of Paul’s own account. Paul is making comments about his life as he writes letters to various churches. Luke narrates a story with an overarching narrative purpose. Even though historical research considers the letters as more important than Acts, the material in Acts is essential to understand the events related to Paul’s conversion/call experience. Therefore the difference between the Lukan and Pauline accounts of the conversion/call are rooted in their different purposes. While Luke is interested to show the progress of the church from the Jewish to the Gentile community, Paul is concerned with his relationship as apostle to the Gentile communities he has founded. But Paul and Luke ultimately understood Paul’s conversion/call in similar ways. Both are concerned with the relationship between Jew and Gentile and see Paul’s call as apostle to the Gentiles as an important factor in that relationship. Both see Paul’s conversion/call as a revelatory and transforming event in Paul’s life and the life of the church. And both Paul and Luke see Paul’s experience as a model of the transforming grace of God for the church.

In many ways the question of whether Paul’s Damascus Road experience was a call or a conversion is an artificial one. The question itself seems to impose modern categories on an ancient description of a complex religious event. But asking the question also allows us realise that Paul’s experience is far too rich to fit neatly into any of our categories. It is both call and conversion. No single term would be able to describe the complexities of Paul’s Damascus road experience. Because there are strong contrasts in every account of Paul’s experience, it certainly qualifies as some sort of conversion experience. But it is also important to include the revelatory dimensions of Paul’s experience and recognize it as an experience of call. In other words, Paul’s call to be apostle to the Gentiles is part of a profound and transforming conversion experience. Call and conversion are both aspects of a divine revelation of Christ to Paul. The changes in Paul’s life and his mission to the Gentiles are the results of this profound experience of knowing Christ.

Although Paul is convinced of his call as an apostle to the Gentiles, his apostleship was questioned on several occasions. It was questioned in I Corinthians (I Cor 9: 1); but it was from only one group and not the church as whole and therefore it was an unrepresentative complaint. Paul was able to say, “At least I am (an apostle) to you (Corinthians)” (I Cor 9: 3). Within one or two years the Corinthians again questioned his apostleship in a stronger manner. This seems to be due to the recent arrival of a number of self-professed “ministers” or “apostles” (II or 11: 13, 23), who had launched a counter mission against Paul and the Christianity he preached (II Cor 2: 17-3: 1; 11: 4, 12). Paul defends his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11: 1-33. His Damascus road call by the risen Lord is implicit through out 2 Corinthians. He was an apostle “by the will of God” (2 Cor 1:1) who used the “authority” …the Lord gave (him) for building the Gentile churches (2 Cor 10: 8; 13: 10; cf. 11: 17; 12: 19). He exercised “this ministry of the new covenant (3: 6) by the mercy of God …” He spoke “from and before God (2 Cor 12: 10) and his ‘competence’ to be a minister of a new covenant” is from God.

If the Damascus call was the basis of Paul’s apostleship, its legitimacy is demonstrated by the quality of his ministry (2 Cor 4: 2; 2: 17), particularly among the Gentiles. He knew that he had been called and appointed by God to take the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles (Rom 1: 1, 5; Gal 1: 15-16). From the Council of Jerusalem his ministry to the Gentiles was widely recognized (Gal 2:9) and he himself had no hesitation in calling himself as ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (Rom11: 13). This apostolic commission became the important factor, which dominated the whole of his evangelistic activity during the last 10-15 years of his life (Rom15: 17-20; 1 Cor 9: 16,19-27).

B. Paul the Missionary

Paul was a missionary par excellence. He was always conscious of his call to carry the gospel to the Gentile world. Therefore he was convinced of his missionary task among the Gentiles. The Book of Acts of the Apostles provides us a fairly detailed account of the missionary work of Paul.

1. His Journey

a. First Missionary Journey: It may be said that with the visit of Peter to the house of Cornelius Christian mission to the gentiles was launched. Although group in Jerusalem had not yet fully got reconciled to the fact of the Gentile mission, through Peter’s mission the way was being prepared for the second great expansion of the Christian church. Although Peter had already preached to Gentiles, it was the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who appear to have taken the first deliberate step towards preaching the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11: 1926). Their preaching the gospel to the Greeks resulted in a great response and a great number of the Gentiles became believers in Antioch. It was this growing ministry among the Gentiles in Antioch that brought Paul to the forefront. Although Paul ministered in Antioch it is from the thirteenth chapter of Acts that his ministry becomes more prominent. From now own the book of Acts is concerned entirely with Paul, and the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles through his preaching. The Holy Spirit separated Paul along with Barnabas for ministry, and thus his first missionary journey was initiated.  Their sending-out was preceded by an act of commissioning to their task (13: 3), and with auspicious start they began their journey. This journey took them to many places. From the account of the Acts we see that their ministry was confined mostly to the Jews. Certainly efforts were made to preach the gospel to non-Jews (13: 612; 14: 8-18). But Paul also knew that the Jews were not willing to accept the gospel of Christ and therefore he tells them that he would turn to the Gentiles (13: 44-46). One of the significant things to note here is the focus of the missionary on the God-fearers who had already professed their faith in Yahweh. Paul’s message in Acts 13: 16-41 seems to be more focusing on the God-fearers than the Jews. This appears to be evident in Paul addressing the Jews in the second person plural (cf. v. 16b). Paul and Barnabas understood that the God-fearers would serve as a stepping-stone to the Gentile mission. The God-fearers had already accepted the monotheistic faith of Israel and opened their hearts to Yahweh. Now they were more responsive to the gospel than the Jews.  Having been already opened their hearts to Jewish faith, it was easier for the God-fearers to accept the Christian teachings the missionaries preached. Thus in the first missionary journey the God-fearers became the bridge in taking the gospel to the Gentile world. Thus the ministry of Paul and Barnabas became instrumental in proclaiming the gospel among the Gentiles and establishing churches.

b. Second Missionary Journey: The second missionary journey was initiated by Paul. He suggested to Barnabas that they visit the places where they had formerly preached and established churches. The beginning of the journey was marked by a strong difference of opinion between Paul and Barnabas on account of John Mark. The whole incident is shrouded in mystery, since we do not know why John had left the company at Pamphylia at the first journey. But the fact that it is recorded, indicates that Luke was not concerned to whitewash the difficulties that arose in the early church. At first it appears to be a hindrance to the gospel. But God brought good out of the dissension. Luke shows how the gospel becomes triumphant over every obstacle on its way. The imprisonment of the apostles in Acts 5: 19 could not stop the gospel; they were freed by the angel. The persecution that arose after Stephen’s martyrdom (8: 1, 4) scattered the sparks of the gospel flame. The great persecutor of the church, Saul, is overpowered by the risen Lord and turned into a missionary for the very cause he tried to destroy (9: 1-30). Peter is freed from prison by an angel (12: 7-11). In showdown with a powerful magician (13: 6-12), the gospel is victorious. Even dissension within the church (15: 39-40) could not stop the gospel. Here the separation of the two leading missionaries of the early church did not hinder the spread of the gospel, rather it paved the way for two missionary endeavours. This teaches how God overrides human dissensions within the community and accomplishes his will. The conclusion to which the entire thought unit moves is found in Acts 16: 5: “So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.”

However, it remains a mystery why the Holy Spirit did not record about the ministry of Barnabas and John Mark. Yet it should be noted that the role of Barnabas was in any way not less than that of Paul’s. In fact the Christian church is indebted to Barnabas for bringing up Paul in ministry (cf. Acts 9: 26-27; 11: 25-26). He was a man who had the rare gift of discernment, discerning the potentials and qualities of leadership in people. He had the rare quality of investing in people and was always willing to give a second chance. Therefore it was no wonder why he spoke vehemently for John Mark. The church owes so much to Barnabas for building up John Mark who later wrote the most authentic work on Jesus, the Gospel of Mark.  With the separation, Barnabas went off to Cyprus with Mark, while Paul chose as his companion Silas. Fortunately we know that Paul and Mark came together again (Col 4: 10; Philemon 24; II Tim 4: 11)… and the breach was eventually healed. It significant to note that Paul confesses with his own mouth that John Mark was useful to him (2 Timothy 4: 11).

One of the most significant events in the second missionary journey was Timothy joining the ministry with Paul. During this journey not only were they able to strengthen the churches already founded but also founded other churches (Acts 16: 5). The two important places where Paul and Silas ministered were Philippi and Thessalonica where they had to encounter opposition. There appears to have been a small Jewish community here. The church began with believing Jewish women who met outside the city because there was no synagogue. Later they convened in the home of an important convert named Lydia (Acts 16: 14, 15,40).  Paul’s work in Thessalonica laid the foundation of a church in Thessalonica. Probably the actual time spent here was a good deal more than three weeks. In his letter to the Thessalonians Paul speaks of working for his support so as not to burden the Thessalonians (I Thess 2: 9). References concerning his actions and attitudes among them seem to suggest a longer time of stay. Philippians 4: 16 speaks of the Philippian Christians twice sending help to Paul in Thessalonica. Acts 18: 5 speaks of Timothy and Silas coming back from Macedonia to the apostle in Corinth.

Although a difficult place, Paul had opportunity to preach Christ in Athens, where some of the listeners became believers. Paul’s ministry in Athens bears witness to his passion for souls. The next destination of Paul was Corinth. Romans destroyed Corinth in 146 BC and it was left deserted for almost a century. Julius Caesar rebuilt it in 46 BC as a Roman colony. This new colony became a commercial centre and it provided opportunities of wealth. This resulted in a great influx of people from other regions of Rome. Rome was known for its wealth and wickedness. It was to this city that Paul brought the message of God’s love. Paul was assisted in the ministry in Corinth by Aquila and Priscilla. Although Paul encountered opposition, the ministry in Corinth was fruitful and it led to the founding of a Church.

While Paul was in Corinth he was also concerned about the believers in Thessalonica. He may have heard from Timothy (Acts 18: 5) about the good testimony of the Thessalonians. There is general agreement that Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians during the early part of his stay in Corinth. II Thessalonians may have also been written from Corinth not long after the writing of the first letter. However, the Pauline authorship of the II Thessalonians has been questioned on the ground of differences in the eschatology, the use of the Old Testament and the more formal tone. In Corinth Paul followed his usual method of speaking to the Jews, and as usual his teaching was rejected, and he turned to the Gentiles. The Jews’ opposition generated a great uproar in the city. But Paul seems to have escaped under the Roman law and continued his work (Acts 18: 12-17). The remainder of his stay in Corinth appears to have been peaceful, and when he felt it was time to return to Antioch to report about his success, Priscilla and Aquila went with him as far as Ephesus. They urged him to stay there longer, but with a promise to return later he went by sea through Caesarea to Antioch, and so ended his second journey.

c. Third Missionary Journey: what Luke writes about the third missionary journey of Paul is quite vague. He simply says that Paul “went from place to place through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples” (Acts 18: 23). Paul had already visited Ephesus during the second missionary journey and was eager to return there (acts 18: 19-21). During his visit to Antioch (in the second missionary journey) Aquila and Priscilla continued their ministry particularly in helping Apollos (Acts 18: 24-28). Paul returned to Ephesus in the third missionary journey and spent two years doing a very fruitful ministry there. Paul now wanted to move further westwards and visit Rome. But he first wanted to visit the churches he had established in Greece and to go back to Jerusalem with donations, which he had collected from these rich gentile churches for the help of the poorer Christians in Jerusalem. But the riot in Ephesus made Paul to quickly move from Ephesus. He went to Macedonia, Greece and to Jerusalem.

While Paul’s ministry in Ephesus was fruitful, he was not free from his concern for the churches he established particularly the Corinthian church. Although the New Testament contains only two letters of Paul to Corinthians, it is obvious that Paul had written at least four letters to Corinthians. In 1 Cor. 5: 9 is a reference to a letter he had already written, and to distinguish it, it is referred to as ‘the previous letter.’ In 2 Cor. 2: 4, 9, 7: 8 there is a reference to a letter which grieved them, and the references suggest that it must have been some other letter than our present first letter, so that this is distinguishable as ‘the severe letter,’ our two present letters being the second and fourth in the series respectively. Some commentators believe that at least a part of the ‘severe letter’ may be found in our present 2 Cor. 10-13, but others think that this letter is a unity and the ‘severe letter’ has been lost, along with the ‘previous letter.’ From Ephesus Paul went through Macedonia to Greece (Corinth), where he spent three months (20: 3). His intention was to return from there to Jerusalem, and then set off again westwards towards Rome (19: 21), and with this in mind he wrote from Corinth (during the third missionary journey) a letter to the church at Rome to prepare the way for his visit. The Greek world in the eastern part of the empire had been evangelised (Rom. 15: 19, 23) and “Paul desired to transfer his ministry to the Latin world, going as far west as Spain (Rom. 15: 24). Evidently, he expected the Roman church to serve as his base of operations, much as the church at Antioch in Syria had served previously. He had hoped earlier to go directly to Rome from Achaia, but his presence was essential at Jerusalem if the Gentile contribution were to carry the full meaning he wanted it to have (Rom. 15: 22-32). Therefore, in place of a personal visit, as preparation for his future coming to them, and to declare the righteousness of God, Paul sent this formal letter to Christians he had never met in Rome. The letter itself is the longest and most systematic of Paul’s writings, and more a comprehensive exposition of the Gospel.

Now from Corinth Paul went to Troas and from there to Miletus and called for the elders of the Ephesian church to meet him there (20: 17). His address to the elders was an address of farewell in which he urged them to take their responsibilities as leaders seriously. Paul’s farewell was a very touching one and he knew that he would not see them again. On his way back to Jerusalem Paul came to Caesarea where the Hoy Spirit spoke through Agabus about what would happen to Paul in Jerusalem. During his journey back, Paul had taken with him representatives of the Gentile Churches appointed to carry their contributions to Jerusalem.  The presence of these men, Paul hoped, would be a further witness to the Jerusalem church of the divine blessing on his Gentile mission. But Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem turned out disastrously. In the Temple precincts he was set upon by some of his old enemies from proconsular of Asia who accused him of sacrilege (polluting the sacred area by bringing Gentiles into it). He was taken into custody by the commander of the Roman garrison and sent to Caesarea to stand trial and from there he was sent to Rome to appear before the Roman Caesar. It cannot be determined as to what had happened to Paul in Rome.

2. Paul’s mission strategies:

Paul was always conscious of his calling as a preacher of the gospel. Therefore he was determined to win as much of the Gentile world for Christ as was possible within his lifetime. When he realized that the task would not be completed within his lifetime he tried to bring the Christian community of Rome to share his vision. His plan involved pioneer evangelism, preaching the gospel, as he said, “not where Christ has already been named” (Rom 15: 20-21), but laying the foundation himself. The essential thing was a combination of strategic planning and responsiveness to divine guidance. The whole enterprise was undertaken “by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15: 19). Following are some of the key strategies that Paul made use of in missionary work:

a. Paul Maintained a Close Contact with the Home Base: Ever since Paul’s ministry along with Barnabas in Antioch began, the city was gradually becoming a centre for the church’s mission. It is also significant that Paul launched out his missionary work from Antioch. At the end of his every missionary journey he returned to Antioch and reported to the church about what God was doing among the Gentiles. He was convinced that the world wide Christian mission must have a strong support base at home.

b. Paul Confined His Efforts to Four Provinces: Paul seems to have taken up with a passion to evangelise as many places as possible. This deep desire took him to many places of the Roman world, mainly four provinces Galatia, Asia, Macedonia and Achaia. He was instrumental in establishing churches. While he was writing to the Roman Christians, he regarded his work east and west of the Aegean as completed: “I no longer have any room for work in these regions” (Rom 15: 23). His ministry from Jerusalem to Illyricum is certainly a great one. As R. Allen has put it, in AD 47 there were no churches in the provinces of Galatia, Asia, Macedonia and Achaia. Now, ten years later, these four provinces had been evangelised so thoroughly that Paul could speak of his work in that part of the world as done, and he was planning to repeat a similar program in the Western Mediterranean. Paul’s missionary activity lasted 12-15 years. Within this short span of period he was able to establish strong, autonomous and indigenous churches.

c. Paul Concentrated on the Principal Cities: Paul had an extensive kind of ministry. He concentrated on the principal cities situated along the main roads. These cities were centres of Roman administration and Greek civilisation. Athens was a cultural centre and Ephesus was a religious centre of the Roman Empire. In these cities he was assisted at times by colleagues working either in those cities or in neighbouring ones. During his Ephesian ministry, for example, his colleagues worked in outlaying parts of the province of Asia…while he himself was active in Ephesus, so that “all the residents of (proconsular) Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19: 10). Paul wanted the local churches, which he had established, to play an important role in continuing his ministry. Once he had established a church and had given it basic teaching, his hope was that he could pass on to another place in the confidence that it would take up his gospel witness and spread the message (I Thess 1: 8).

d. Paul Made Synagogue the Chief Centre of His Ministry: An important strategy of Paul was to launch his mission in a new city. In the cities he first attempted to go to the synagogue, where he offered his Christian interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, and especially of the prophetic writings. In the Synagogue Paul found three distinct groups of people, the Jews, the Proselytes and the God-fearers who already had knowledge of the One God, Yahweh and the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. In the Synagogue Paul had the opportunity to witness to an attentive, devote and intelligent audience. Thus Synagogue provided Paul the best opportunity to proclaim the gospel in the Roman World. Most of his converts came from the Proselytes and the God-fearers. Along with the God-fearers, Paul also aimed at Gentiles who were on the fringes of the synagogue. These people would naturally hear Paul’s interpretation of the covenant, the gospel of Christ. There were other non-Jews who accepted the monotheism and lofty ethics of Judaism. These people would find new possibilities for their own participation in Paul’s interpretation of the people of God. When people accepted the message that Paul had preached, they were formed into an assembly and they chose as their self-designation a Greek term, ecclesia, which means “called out,” or “called together.” They were called together from Jewish or non-Jewish backgrounds to be the new covenant people. This strategy had an appeal that spanned the whole socio-economic spectrum of urban Roman society. In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul indicates that most of the members of the church there were poor and socially undistinguished (I: 26). Yet Paul’s letters give examples of people from both socially and economically upper strata of the society having come to Christian faith. For example city treasurer of Corinth (Rom 16: 23) and Corinthian and Ephesian believers with large houses, which could accommodate entire Christian community (1 Cor. 16: 19).

e. Paul Preferred to Preach to Responsive People: Not all people are equally responsive to the gospel. The Jews listened to Paul as long as he spoke of Israel’s glorious history, but refused the moment they tried to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was Israel’s long promised Messiah. Paul believed that every ethnic group has the right to hear the gospel and he would gladly preach to them. But if any group adamantly and consistently refused the message, no further purpose could be served by continuing to preach to them. He found it better to move to another group who would respond to the gospel.

f. Paul Baptized Converts on Confession of their Faith: There is no evidence in the NT that the early church required a waiting period between conversion and baptism. For e.g. 3000 people who accepted the message of the gospel on the day of Pentecost, were baptised immediately. The Philippian jailor who must have come from Gentile background was baptised along with his family right after their confession of faith (Acts 16: 33). However this does not mean that Paul was interested in numbers at the expense of quality. Yet he found it essential to bring his converts together into an assembly where they would be able to growth in the maturity of their Christian faith.

g. Paul Remained in One Place Long Enough to Establish a Church: As a missionary his desire was to establish churches. This required a considerable time of stay in a place in spite of difficulties and other problems. This had given him the needed time to teach the believers and make them strong in their newfound faith. This is evident in the missionary mindedness of the Pauline churches. These churches played important role in the evangelisation of the neighbouring regions (1 Thess 2: 1-2). This offers a great challenge for us in our contemporary missionary work in India. Paul’s examples ought o challenges us in making our churches more mission minded and mission oriented.

h. Paul’s Consciousness of His Communities. In his mission Paul was always conscious of the communitarian dimension of the church. The Pauline community included both the slaves and the master. Paul’s letter to Philemon addresses the problem of a community in which these both groups are found. His letters indicate the need to foster some sense of unity and commonality among such a socially and economically diverse group of people, especially those to the Corinthians. The favourite term that Paul uses in addressing the members is “saints,” which means, basically, “set aside for” or “ dedicated to” [God]. In the new community, both the slave and the master are saints without any distinction of their socio-economic backgrounds. However out side in the society they were to abide by the social necessities of their time. Yet he reminded them to exhibit their Christian character in their Master-Slave relationship. A master should be a good and a loving master to the salves; similarly the slaves ought to obey, respect and fear their masters (Ephesians 6: 5-9).

i. Paul Made Second-line Leaders: Paul realised the need for a concerted effort in bringing the gospel message to the outside world. This we notice in his team of people who assisted Paul in his ministry. His first ministry was with Barnabas in Antioch, which in all account was a team-work. Barnabas and John Mark associated with him in his first missionary work. There were also young men like Timothy, Silas, Luke, Aristarchus, Gaius, Tychichus, Trophimus, Epraphas, Epaphroditus, Archipas, Apollos, Titus, Priscilla and Acquilla. In Romans 16 he sends greetings to 27 persons by name many of whom had been his fellow workers.  As a leader he learned the importance of bringing up men and women to responsible positions of ministry, would carry on the ministry after he was gone.

j. Paul Became All Things to All: He became all things to all people in order to win them to Christ (I Cor 9: 19-23). His desire was to win others to Christ by all means. One of the major issues in the Gentile churches was the issue of idolatry and food offered to idols. Paul’s knowledge was that an idol has no real existence and it solved the problem for him. But he realised that all believers did not have this knowledge. Therefore he advised sympathy and understanding on the part of the mature believers. He was willing to go all the way for the sake of the weaker believers and not touch meat (I Cor 8). However there are instances where his actions might be questioned and we do not have an answer to some of his actions. How do we explain Paul’s decision to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16: 3) and his refusal to do the same for Titus (gal 3-4)? Yet Paul was always conscious of his call and ministry and never compromised on the essentials of the Christian faith. Paul was a missionary and a pastor par excellence. He was not a mere dreamer but a visionary who wanted to translate his vision into a reality. His strategy as a missionary and his efforts speak volumes about it.

C. Major Pauline Teachings

1. Christ.

The term Christos is perhaps the most significant term used in the Pauline writings.  Although Paul uses the term as a virtual second name for Jesus, he was well aware of the larger significance of the term Christos/Messiah. Paul’s use of the term Christos may be best explained by the fact that Paul received a tradition associating the term Christ with the core of the early Christian message: the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 15: 3-4). This received tradition coupled with the singular experience Paul had of Christ on the Damascus Road …go far in explaining the distinctive ideas associated with Jesus being the Christ.  Paul in his letters attempts to juxtapose Christ with various names and titles. Another important use of the term is found in the en Christo formula that encapsulates (summarizes) Paul’s view of the condition and position of Christians-they are in Christ.

We do not find the expression of Jesus the Christ in Paul. He does not feel the necessity of stating the formula Jesus is the Christ, nor does he argue for the idea. He along with others accepted the commonly regarded earliest Christian confession that Jesus is the Lord (Roman 10: 9). This evidence strongly suggests that the messiahship of Jesus was not under debate in the Pauline communities, and that Paul himself took it as a presupposition for all other confessions. Paul does not attempt to demonstrate the messiahship of Jesus in his letters.   From a careful observation of Paul we understand that his usage of the term Christ suggests that in the main his meaning was not derived from early Jewish ideas about God’s anointed, but rather from traditions about the conclusions of Jesus’ life and its sequel, coupled with Paul’s own Damascus Road experience. These events force Paul to rethink what it meant for someone to be the Davidic Messiah. The fact that Paul and other early Christians used the term Christos to refer to someone, who died on the cross and had risen from the dead, indicates the extent to which the meaning of the term was transformed. Christos brought salvation to humanity through his death and he is now seated at the right hand of God over all the principalities and powers. For Paul, Messiah was not a conquering hero who would overthrow the Romans, but one who destroys the power of darkness and sins and brings redemption to humanity.

Paul was well aware of early Jewish ideas about Messiah being a Jew born under the Law (cf. Gal 4:4) and of Davidic ancestry (cf. Rom 1:3), and he is happy to affirm it. There are also various places where Paul referred to the fully human character of this Christos (Rom 5; 17-19; Phil 2:7; Rom 8:3). Yet Paul went far beyond his Jewish contemporaries in his understanding of the Davidic Messiah (Rom 9:5). Here Paul understands the Christ as not only assuming divine functions in heaven but in some sense properly being called God.

Paul’s use of Christos in the salutations of his letters also points to an exalted view of Jesus (Phil 1:2). The term Christos, if studied in the context of its varied uses in the Pauline letters, reveals how the apostle drew on, amplified, transformed and transcended some early Jewish ideas about the Messiah.  For Paul the content of the term Christos was mainly derived from the Christ event and his own experience of that event. This led to three elements in his preaching about Christ that were without known precedent in early Judaism: (1) Messiah is called God; (2) Messiah is said to have been crucified, and his death is seen as redemptive; (3) Messiah is expected to come to earth again.

One of the most important teachings of Paul about Christ was the death of Christ, Christ crucified. He uses a rich and varied range of metaphors in his attempts to spell out the significance of Christ’s death: representation (2 Cor 5: 21), sacrifice (Rom 3: 24-26), curse (Gal 3: 13-14, cf. Deut 21:23), redemption (Rom 3: 24; 1 Cor 7: 23), reconciliation (2 Cor 5: 18-20; Col 1: 20; Eph 2: 16), conquest of the powers (Rom 6: 7-10; 8: 31-39). Yet these are only metaphors; the significance of Christ’s death could be adequately expressed only in imagery and metaphor. As with all metaphors, the metaphor is not the thing itself but a means of expressing its meaning…. It may be noted that Paul uses several metaphors together- redemption and sacrifice (Rom 3: 25) representation and sacrifice (2 Cor 5: 14- 21), redemption and curse (Gal 3:13). The point here is that no one metaphor is adequate to unfold the full significance of Christ’s death. Therefore we cannot make one of these images normative and … fit the rest into it, even the predominant metaphor of sacrifice.

One of the common themes in all the metaphors is the initiative of God: ‘God sent,’ ‘God made,’ ‘God in Christ,’ and ‘God gave.’ Jesus does not act in any way independently of God or in opposition to God. The act of Jesus is the act of God.  In all this the centrality of the death of Jesus becomes prominent in Paul and for him there is no alternative scheme of salvation. For him it is not the incarnation or the teachings of Jesus that are important, but it is the death of Christ. It is therefore the cross that becomes the focus (centre) in Paul’s theology. It (cross) becomes determinative for his whole perspective, a criterion by which he measures other would-be-gospels… (1 Cor 1: 18-25; 2 Cor 12: 1-10 and Gal 6: 12-15). Paul’s teachings remind us that the death of Christ can never be dispensed with in Christian theology; it becomes central to Christian theology. At the end of all discussion, Paul’s message as God’s ambassador on Christ’s behalf is stark. Christ’s death offers as effective response to the power of death and its sting (sin). That response is itself death. Those who ignore that response will find that their death is their own,…. But for those who find in Christ’s death the answer to sin and death, who identify with him in his death, there is the prospect of sharing with him also in his resurrection beyond death.

If the cross of Christ becomes the centre of Paul’s theology, so does his resurrection. Christ who died on the cross is the one whom God raised from the dead. Without the resurrection, the cross could be a cause for despair. Without the cross, resurrection would be an escape from reality.   For the resurrection of Jesus is a very decisive event. It was through and by means of the resurrection that Christ became the last Adam, Son of God in power, Lord, conjoint with God in veneration, life-giving Spirit. Paul does not seem to make any distinction between the resurrection of Jesus and his exaltation. For him the resurrection itself was the exaltation of Christ. It is worth noting in the Christology of Paul. On the one hand the risen Christ is the last Adam, prototype of God’s new human creation…. On the other, he is on the side of God, co-regent with God, co-life giver with the Spirit. And in between he is the Son of God and this sonship is shared with those who believe in him…. Yet he is also the Son of God and he is Lord.  While the imagery of Christ that Paul uses seems to be confusing, yet the impact of the experience is very profound for Paul. The experience was primarily of Christ as one risen…and this is an ongoing experience, in worship, in daily life as a constant point of reference, and in and through the Spirit. Even while Paul makes use of several imageries, his theology is within the bounds of his inherited monotheism. Jesus as Lord does not infringe on God as one, and even the highest praise given to the exalted Christ is “to the glory of God the Father.”     

One of the most important teachings of Paul about Christ was the death of Christ, Christ crucified. He uses a rich and varied range of metaphors in his attempts to spell out the significance of Christ’s death…-representation (2 Cor 5: 21), sacrifice (Rom 3: 24-26), curse (Gal 3: 13-14, cf. Deut 21:23), redemption (Rom 3: 24; 1 Cor 7: 23), reconciliation (2 Cor 5: 18-20; Col 1: 20; Eph 2: 16), conquest of the powers (Rom 6: 7-10; 8: 31-39). Yet these are only metaphors; the significance of Christ’s death could be adequately expressed only in imagery and metaphor. As with all metaphors, the metaphor is not the thing itself but a means of expressing its meaning…. It may be noted that Paul uses several metaphors together- redemption and sacrifice (Rom 3: 25) representation and sacrifice (2 Cor 5: 14- 21), redemption and curse (Gal 3:13). The point here is that no one metaphor is adequate to unfold the full significance of Christ’s death. Therefore we cannot make one of these images normative and … fit the rest into it, even the predominant metaphor of sacrifice.

One of the common themes in all the metaphors is the initiative of God: ‘God sent,’ ‘God made,’ ‘God in Christ,’ and ‘God gave.’ Jesus does not act in any way independently of God or in opposition to God. The act of Jesus is the act of God.  In all this the centrality of the death of Jesus becomes prominent in Paul and for him there is no alternative scheme of salvation. For him it is not the incarnation or the teachings of Jesus that are important, but it is the death of Christ. It is therefore the cross that becomes the focus in Paul’s theology. It (cross) becomes determinative for his whole perspective, a criterion by which he measures other would-be-gospels… (1 Cor 1: 18-25; 2 Cor 12: 1-10 and gal 6: 12-15). Paul’s teachings remind us that the death of Christ can never be dispensed with Christian theology; it becomes central to Christian theology. At the end of all discussion, Paul’s message as God’s ambassador on Christ’s behalf is stark. Christ’s death offers as effective response to the power of death and its sting (sin). That response is itself death. Those who ignore that response will find that their death is their own,…. But for those who find in Christ’s death the answer to sin and death, who identify with him in his death, there is the prospect of sharing with him also in his resurrection beyond death.

If the cross of Christ becomes the centre of Paul’s theology, so does his resurrection. Christ who died on the cross is the one who God raised from the dead. Without the resurrection, the cross could be a cause for despair. Without the cross, resurrection would be an escape from reality. For the resurrection of Jesus is a very decisive event. It was through and by means of the resurrection that Christ became the last Adam, Son of God in power, Lord, conjoint with God in veneration, life-giving Spirit. Paul does not seem to make any distinction between the resurrection of Jesus and his exaltation. For him the resurrection itself was the exaltation of Christ. It is worth noting in the Christology of Paul. On the one hand the risen Christ is the last Adam, prototype of God’s new human creation…. On the other, he is on the side of God, co-regent with God, co-life giver with the spirit. And in between he is the Son of God and this sonship is shared with those who believe in him…. Yet he is also Son of God and he is Lord.  While the imagery of Christ that Paul uses seems to be confusing, yet the impact of the experience is very profound for Paul. The experience was primarily of Christ as one risen…and this is an ongoing experience, in worship, in daily life as a constant point of reference, and in and through the Spirit. Even while Paul makes use of several imageries his theology is within the bounds of his inherited monotheism. Jesus as Lord does not infringe on God as one, and even the highest praise given to the exalted Christ is “to the glory of God the Father.”

There is another important aspect of Paul’s Christology, the pre-existence of Christ. Although this is envisaged in a number of passages, it is more clear in 1 Cor 8: 6 and Col 1: 15-20. In both these passages it is stated that “all things” (ta panta) were created through Christ. Colossians 1: 15-20 mentions the phrase “firstborn of all creation.” It could be understood as equivalent to first created being. However the context makes it clear that the primary sense is that of precedence over creation. He in whom and through whom all things were created is evidently thought of as “before all things,” that is, prior to all things. …there can be little doubt that a role in the original creation of the cosmos is attributed to God’s Son, the Christ Jesus. Christ is identified with Wisdom. Wisdom is the “image of God.” That is, the invisible God has made himself visible in and through his wisdom (Col. 1: 15). Wisdom is God’s “firstborn” in creation. God “made all things by wisdom,” “through whom the universe (to pan) was brought to completion.” Wisdom was “before all things,” and “holds all things together”…. Clearly, then, Paul was attributing to Christ the role previously attributed to divine Wisdom…. In thinking of pre-existent Wisdom Paul now thought of Christ. Several passages may be considered in this connection such as: I Cor. 8: 6 and Col. 1: 15- 17. There are also passages like Gal. 4:4; Rom 8: 3; I Cor. 10: 4; Phil 2: 6- 11. Apart from this there are pre-existent Adam passages such as I Cor. 15: 44- 49; 2 Cor. 4: 4-6; 8: 9. It may be said by way of conclusion that Paul has a conception of the pre-existence of Christ. As we have seen earlier it is the pre-existence of Wisdom, which is identified as Christ.   There is also the imagery of the pre-existent Adam and there is no clear thought of the pre-existence of Christ independent of the wisdom and Adam imagery.

       Another significant theme in Paul’s Christology is the Parousia the coming again of the exalted Christ. The Parousia theme is more dominant in Paul’s earliest letters- 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Paul wrote the 1 Thessalonians to respond to a serious problem in the Thessalonian church. The problem was that the Thessalonian believers feared that their dear ones who had died would be disadvantaged or even missed out at the parousia. Paul’s response provides the single clearest statement of is parousia belief (1 Thess 4: 13-18). In 2 Thessalonians Paul makes one of his most powerful statement on the parousia theme. If it was death that occasioned Paul’s response in 1 Thessalonians, it was the problem of unexpected events prior to the parousia that led Paul to write 2 Thessalonians. Here the expectation of the Thessalonians was so great and they were taken up by overheated eschatological enthusiasm. The Thessalonians had been given to believe “that the day of the Lord has come,” that it was already present (2: 2). Paul’s response was to calm the fires of enthusiasm by insisting that crucial events were yet to intervene before the end (2: 3-12). In contrast to the Thessalonian letters, Paul’s later writings do not have much to say, at least explicitly, on the coming (again) of Christ. …. Of the seven references to Christ’ parousia, six occur in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and only one elsewhere: I Cor 15: 23, referring to the sequence of resurrections, “Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ’s at his parousia.” I Corinthians has four other references about the parousia: 1: 7-8; 4: 4-5; 11: 23; 16: 22.  Apart from this, Philippians has a rare indication in 3: 20-21. In Colossians there is a reference to the (final) “revelation” of Chris as a revelation in glory.  Although reference to parousia is not very evident in other Pauline letters, it can be claimed with confidence that the coming again of Christ was a firm part of Paul’s theology, maintained consistently from first to last in our written sources. Paul’s conviction that parousia was imminent and becoming ever closer also seems to have remained remarkably untroubled by the progress of events and passing of time.

Another very significant phrase used very often in the Pauline writings with regard to Christology is in Christ. The phrase is used repeatedly when he speaks of the personal appropriation of the work of Christ. It is the major soteriological expression of Paul. Generally the phrase in Christ as used in the Pauline writings can be understood as another way of saying Christian. E.g. “to all the saints in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1: 1; Col 1: 2); “the dead in Christ”  (I Thess. 4: 16; 1 Cor. 15: 18). There are also passages where the ideas of instrumentality and causality (“by” or “through Christ”) or source (“from Christ”) could be read into the phrase, and a perfectly intelligible and theologically proper meaning would emerge (cf. Rom. 5: 10; 14; 14; II Cor. 3:14; Phil 4: 13). But there are passages where the personal flavour is prominent: “that I may gain Christ and be found in him,” (Philippians 3: 8,9); “if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation”(I Corinthians 5: 17). Paul speaks of Christ “in us” as man’s only hope for present fulfilment ad future glory (Col 1: 27) and being “in Christ” as man’s only basis for justification and acceptance. For Paul in Christ refers to a loving response and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This relationship is a personal and most intimate communion …with God and of God through Christ with humanity and thus it becomes the basis for the Christian’s life, hope and acceptance.

Paul sees God’s acts through the person of Christ as very distinctive. To describe God as having acted in Christ or redemption as being in Christ conveys Paul’s thought. He also found it important to define how we should live under Christ’s saving lordship…. The phrase therefore became a vehicle for Paul to describe the life of faith under Christ’s lordship in a world where other powers and temptations were present. To act “in Christ” is to act in faith and obedience in the face of false alternatives.

2. Salvation:

Although the term “salvation” has a wide range of meaning, in the Bible it is used for deliverance or redemption from sin. In the New Testament it is understood as deliverance from sin where a person is brought into eternal life with God through the vicarious death of Christ on the Cross. However Paul is not only concerned about deliverance from sin but also from the consequences of sin. He seems to be more interested in the concept of salvation and it is evident from the fact that he uses the term “salvation” and related words more often than any other New Testament writer. Paul’s understanding of salvation is very much rooted in his knowledge of the person of Christ and his salvific act. He understands “salvation” as the very purpose of the incarnation of Christ (I Timothy 1: 15) and therefore it becomes central to the Pauline understanding of Christianity.

For Paul “salivation” is a very comprehensive word, which brings out the truth that God has redeemed people from the desperate state of sinfulness through the person of Christ. Paul sums up what God was doing in Christ: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5: 19). Salvation has its origin in God and Christ gave himself up in order to bring about that salvation and thus fulfilled God’s eternal plan for the human race. The origin of salvation in God is also made evident in God’s call extended to the world:  God “ saved us and called us with a holy calling” (Timothy 1: 9). Here the idea of call brings out the truth that salvation comes as a result of a prior divine initiative.  And this call is extended through the preaching of the gospel of salvation (1 Cor. 1: 21; 15: 1-2; Eph 1: 13; 1 Cor. 3: 15). This call for salvation is given through human agency, where the human instrumentality becomes important in bringing to men and women the message of God’s Good News. Yet salvation is not brought about by human effort and human instrumentality. Paul affirms this fact in several places: e.g. Ephesians 2: 8; 2: 5; 2 Thessalonians 2: 13; Titus 3: 5. Along with this Paul also makes it clear that while salvation is open to all, all will not be saved. He quotes from Isaiah: If the number of the children … will be saved (Romans 9: 27). While salvation is available to all and while God wills “all people to be saved” (1 Timothy 2: 4), it is given only to those who respond to it in faith. Therefore a response of faith to what God has done in Christ, is essential for salvation.

In the Pauline writings salvation is understood as three-dimensional: past, present and future. As has already been noted earlier, Paul understands salvation as something God has brought about through the death of his Son. “You have been saved…” (Ephesians 2: 8-10); “when were dead in trespasses… you have been saved (Ephesians 2: 5). Although used in the Present Perfect Continues Tense the verb (saved) has to be understood as something done by God in the past- i.e. salvation already achieved. “Christ delivered us from the power of darkness” (Colossians 1: 13); “For we were saved in hope” (Romans 8: 24).

While Paul looks at salvation in the past, some thing that God accomplished in the past, he also emphasizes that salvation is here and now. E.g. “gospel is the power of God for salvation…(Romans 1: 16-17); “Look, now is the acceptable time…day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6: 2). Here salvation is understood as a present happening. This present tense is made even more clearer: gospel is “the power of God to us who are being saved” (1 Corinthians 1; 18); “those being saved” (2 Corinthians 2: 15). The sense of salvation being in the present is also made evident in Paul’s prayer for Israel: “my prayer is for their salvation” (Romans 10: 1). While …there is an eschatological dimension to the salvation for which he prays, the emphasis in this passage is present: he wants Israel to be saved now!  Salvation is an event rooted in the past and it is also a present reality, which we can experience here and now. At the same time it is also a future hope when we will experience complete salvation. While there are passages like 1 Corinthians 5: 5, which are vague, there are yet passages which indicate a futuristic aspect of salvation: Philippians 3:20; Romans 13: 11; 11: 26; 2 Timothy 4: 18. Paul is clear that ultimately sinners will face the wrath of God. But there is ultimate deliverance for those have believed in God through Jesus Christ.

For Paul salvation is a comprehensive term that includes a multiplicity of aspects. Sometimes more than one of these aspects occur together, as when the apostle says that Christ has delivered us “from so great a death” and who will deliver and adds that this is the one “on whom we have set our hope that he will deliver” (I Cor 1: 10). Paul speaks of sinners being delivered from sin and therefore he speaks of God’s justification of sinners. But he is also certain about the present power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Here salvation includes an ongoing triumph over the forces of evil. The apostle looks beyond the present to the future and sees salvation as having its effect throughout eternity. Therefore for Paul salvation is not simply negative, as deliverance from sin, but it is more.  We are not simply delivered from sin and its power but God has transformed us into the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1: 13).

3. Church and its sacraments

The term ekklēsia  (assembly) is derived from the ek-kaleō (“call out,” a verb used for the summons to an army to assemble). Outside the OT and NT the term was characterised as a political phenomenon. It was the assembly of full citizens (cf. Acts 19: 39; 19: 32 & 41). It was regarded as existing only when it actually assembled.

Paul uses the term ekklēsia 62 times. The first is used to refer to a local assembly or congregation of Christians (I Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thess 1: 4; 2: 14; Gal 1:2). The term is also used to refer to a house church, an identifiable object. It was in about the middle of the third century that early Christianity owned property for purposes of worship. Till then Christians gathered in houses and convenient places for worship and fellowship (Acts Col 4: 15; 16: 15, 40; Rom 16: 23). Ekklēsia also had a wider reference than local assembly or house churches. It is also described as a heavenly gathering and eschatological entity (Col 1: 24; Ephesians 1: 22; 3: 10, 21; 5: 23-2, 27, 29, 32) and universal church. As members of the body of Christ believers are not only related to Christ himself but also to one another even when they are separated by time and distance. They are raised with Christ and are destined for a heavenly kingdom.  They are born into the family of God through their faith in Christ. God calls them into his family and makes theme members of his household. Thus the church has its origin in God himself.

Paul uses significant images and metaphors to refer to the church. These images are not always synonymous with ekklēsia. They have different connotations. There are many images used of the church. Following are some of the important imageries:

The imagery of body: The imagery of body is used as symbolic to the unity of the church. Paul comparers the church to a human body to show how different gifts can exist within the one church (Romans 12: 4-8). He further uses it to illustrate the relationship between Christ and believers (1 Cor. 12: 12). Body and its members suggest the closeness, which bring together all believers. Just as the various parts of the body are necessary for efficient function of the body, the gifts of each one is necessary for the function of the church. Here there is no individualism but a corporate dimension of the church, yet there is room for use of individual abilities. The imagery of body is further used to refer to the unity of the church in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10: 17). The significance of the church as a body is again brought out in the unification of the Jews and Gentiles, which was accomplished on the cross (Ephesians 2: 14).

The imagery of the Temple: The figure of the temple is used metaphorically in the New Testament to denote the people of God.  Paul develop this imagery of the church as the community of the redeemed which, through the sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit, is constituted as the dwelling place of God. In I Corinthians 3: 16-17, uses naos theou (“the temple of God) for the local congregation. By means of the temple imagery Paul makes plain that the Corinthian church is God’s temple because the Spirit of God dwells among God’s people. Since all the Corinthians together constitute the temple of God there is to be unity among them. If God dwells among them they (the temple) are to be holy (2 Cor 6: 16-18) and Ephesians 2; 20-22). The temple imagery is more powerful in Ephesians 2: 20-22. The Jerusalem temple was to be the place where all nations at the end of the ages would come and worship and pray (Isaiah 66: 18-20; 2: 1-5; Micah 4: 1-5). The temple imagery is to be understood as a fulfilment of this promise. Through Christ both gentiles and Jews are brought together and for the new temple of God. Thus the temple imagery conveys significant meaning for Paul.

The imagery of the Household of God:  The people of God are often spoken of the in New Testament as a family. Here God is Father (Romans 8: 15; Galatians 4: 9) and all those who are saved through Christ are the children of God (Galatians 4: 1-7), with Jesus being the first-born of the family (Romans 8: 29). Therefore Paul often uses the term “brothers” while addressing believers. The theme of family relationship is prominent in I Timothy, where the church is described as “the household” (oikos) of God (I Timothy 3: 15). The image of family is indicative of one’s treatment of fellow Christians, care and concern for others, particularly those who are week.

Paul’s teaching on Christian sacraments is very much related to his teaching on the church. Sacraments have special significance and meaning for the life and work of the church. Simply put it sacraments would mean ‘sacred rites.’ In the New Testament sacraments refers to two major rites of divine institution, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is in Pauline letters that we find clear teachings on Baptism and the, the Lord’s Supper.

a. Baptism: Baptism could be considered as existing right from the inception of the church. This may be confirmed by the NT evidence of baptizing ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1: 4-8), the ministry of Jesus (John 3; 25-26; 4: 1-3), the apostles from the day of Pentecost on (Acts 2; 37-41) and the missionary commission of the risen Lord (Mathew 28: 19).

Paul in several places in his letters deals with the doctrine of baptism. For Paul baptism is not a mere external rite, rather a symbol that signifies deeper meaning and truth for the church. From the references about baptism in Pauline letters, it appears that Paul assumes that all believers in Christ have been baptized (cf. Romans 6).  The clear references to baptism in Paul are found in Romans 6: 4; I Corinthians 1: 13-17; 15: 29’ Ephesians 4: 5; Colossians 2: 12; Galatians 3: 26-27.

The basic Pauline statement about baptism is found in Galatians 3: 26-27. One of the significant phrases he uses for baptism is “putting on Christ” or “clothed with Christ.” Here the imagery is of stripping off (old or polluted) clothes and putting on fresh ones indicating transformation of character. This imagery is frequently used in the Old Testament (Isaiah 52: 1; 61: 10; Zechariah 1: 1-5). Through the symbolic act, those who are baptized ‘took off’ their old life and ‘put on’ Christ, thereby becoming one with Christ. Thus they are qualified to participate in life in the kingdom of God. The two statements in Galatians 3: 26 and 27 are complementary: v. 26 declares that believers are god’s children “through faith,” and v. 27 associates entry into God’s family upon union with Christ, and Christ sharing his sonship with those baptized. It is an example of Paul’s linking faith and baptism in such a way that the theological understanding of faith that turns to the Lord for salvation, and of baptism wherein faith is declared, is one and the same. The rite of baptism is Christological at heart, signifying union with Christ.

Another phrase that Paul used is ‘united with Christ’ in his death and resurrection (Romans 6: 3-8). This equates baptism with dying and rising (cf. Col 2: 12, 13). Since baptism signifies union with Christ, Paul saw it as extending to ‘union with Christ in his redemptive actions’ (Romans 6: 1-11). Paul is not giving a theological explanation of the nature of baptism, but expounding its meaning for Christian life. People who are baptised also died to sin and therefore could not still live in sin. Thus baptism for Paul is “death to sin.” When we were baptised to Christ we were ‘baptized to his death’ (Romans 6: 3 cf. gal 3: 37) and in Christ we rise to live the resurrection life.

Baptism is also related to the Spirit. I Corinthians speaks of “baptism by one Spirit.” Many see baptism as the outward confirmation (expression) of the inward ‘seal’ by the Spirit (2 Cor 1: 21, 22; Ephesians 1: 13; 4: 30). This leads us to the eschatological dimension of baptism. In its relation to the present work of Christ and the Spirit, it externalises the outpouring of salvation in the age of fulfilment, because it s the initiatory rite signifying the believer’s entrance into the new age (Titus 3: 5).

b. Lord’s Supper: As in the Gospels, in Pauline teachings also the Lord’s Supper involves the backward look in thankful remembrance for the sacrifice of Christ and the look forward in hope. The Pauline teaching on Lord’s Supper is clearly set forth in Corinthians 11. The teaching arises out of the situation in the Corinthian church. There was the danger of turning back to the worship of idols and the potential divisions in the Christian church including that between the rich and the poor. As a response to the situations in Corinth Paul develops his teaching on the Lord’s Supper. Paul cites a tradition that he received concerning the Table of the Lord, which he had earlier passed on to the church.  It appears to be an accepted, authoritative tradition of the church, which had the authority of the Lord. The tradition described what had happened on the Last Supper and Jesus’ instruction to the disciples that they do it as a memorial of his death. It is important note the theological significance of the Lord’s Supper that Paul develops on the basis the tradition that he talks about in I Corinthians 11. Paul’s teaching serves to enhance the significance of the Supper by anchoring it firmly in God’s redeeming purpose, so that it proclaims the Lord’s death (I Cor 11: 26). Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper can categorised into the following:

i. The Lord’s Supper is a fellowship with Christ: He speaks of partaking of the bread and the cup as having part with Christ. “Participation” is the translation of the Greek word koinōnia, so often rendered as “fellowship” in the New Testament. In the celebration of the Lord’s Supper there is certainly a recalling of the fellowship of the Last Supper of the Lord Jesus with the disciples and even the breaking of the bread on the first Easter day (Luke 24: 30-35).

ii. It is feeding on Christ: While the sacrament of baptism has a once-for-all nature, the Lord’s Supper is repeated. The life of Christ has been offered for sins once and for all on the cross. And we receive life in accepting Christ. Baptism signifies that. At the same time that life is also offered to us constantly for the nourishing of our spiritual lives day by day. The Eucharist speaks of that. There were ‘spiritual food’ and ‘spiritual drink’ in wilderness journey of Israel (I Cor 10: 3,4). In Israel the people could eat some of the animal sacrifices offered (I Cor 10: 18). The Lord’s Supper was in some sense, the counterpart for Christians. Christ said, “I am the bread of life,” and “ My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Thus what is in John’s Gospel (6: 35, 55) is close to what Paul implies about the Lord’s Supper expressing the truth of Christians feeding their spiritual lives on Christ.

iii. Lord’s Supper expresses the unity of Christians: The mention of the word “all” (all drank from the cup) in the Last Supper of the Lord is significant. Paul draws out more explicitly the significance of their fellowship together in I Corinthians 10: 17. He expounds the inner meaning of the Lord’s Supper as a communion with the Lord in his death and risen life, signified in the bread and the wine (I Cor 10: 16). It is here Paul discovers the unity of the church, for as the members share together the one bread they exhibit their oneness in Christ, they are part of the one body of Christ. Perhaps the words of I Corinthians 11: 29 rebuking “any who eats and drinks without discerning the body of he Lord” are probably to be understood as speaking of Christians as the “body” of Christ. At least the context of the chapter is the rebuke of ‘divisions’ when Christians in Corinth met together (cf. I Cor 11: 20-22). Paul continues to say that all who share in the body and blood of Christ are one in Christ. They are brought into a unity with one another where social distinctions cannot be allowed to exist. Thus the Lord’s Table is celebrated not only as a memorial of the death of Christ, it can also be a celebration of the oneness and unity of all believers in Christ.

iv. Lord’s Supper is the pledge of loyalty: Paul speaks of eating at the Lord’s Table as indicating allegiance to Christ and not to idols. There can be no compromise (I Cor 10: 21, 22). To eat at the Lord’s Table is to be committed to him, identified with his people and dedicated to his service.

Paul’s teaching on baptism and the Lord’s Supper is more than a theological articulation. He has described the meaning and significance of these sacraments for the life and ministry of the church. From the Pauline teachings we are able to gain a clearer understand on this important subject of Christian sacraments.

4. Justification and reconciliation

Almost all discussion of justification in the NT is found in the letters of Paul, particularly in Romans and Galatians.  The Pauline vocabulary for justification is grounded in the OT and it seems to express the notion of ‘rightness’ rather than ‘righteousness.’ In the OT ‘justify’ is more preferred than ‘justification.’ Here justification results from an action of God whereby an individual is set in a right relationship with God-that is vindicated or declared to be in the right. Paul echoes this emphasis, using the verb dikaoō, “to justify,” relatively often, but generally avoiding using the noun dikaiōsis, “justification” (Romans 4: 25). The verb denotes God’s powerful, cosmic and universal action in effecting change in the situation between sinful humanity and God by which God is able to acquit and vindicate believers, setting them in aright and faithful relation to himself.  

Paul sets justification primarily against the background of Jewish legalism and its attempts to make the law the basis of salvation.  He strongly condemns such attempts (Galatians 1: 6-9). Fro him justification is the gist of God through blood of Christ. This is entirely apart from the Law. The Law, in fact, is not capable of leading one to righteousness. He looks at the atoning work of Christ for the justification of people in terms of covenant rather than Law. He attempts to show that justification has from the time of Abraham been through faith in the God who keeps covenant and never by the Law. By justifying the sinner he sets him free from condemnation.

In Paul’s formulation God is both just and the one who justifies. Sin demands judgement and must be dealt with. God deals with sin directly in the death of his Son one who became sin for humanity that they might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5: 21).  Therefore for Paul, justification is rooted in the nature of God who alone is able to take initiative in redeeming humanity. It is God’s grace, which is manifested through the grace of his Son. Thus we have the often-repeated confession that Christ died “for us” (Romans 5: 8; I Thess 5: 10) or “for our sins” (I Cor 15:3). This justification is received only through faith and faith alone (Rom 3: 22; 5: 1). This faith is a simple trust in the sufficiency of the work of Christ, a trust by which one freely and wholeheartedly identifies with Christ.

Justification by faith is always to reaffirmed, because within each person there is the almost inevitable and natural desire to establish personal righteousness, to be able to stand before God on the basis of personal character and piety.  But the revival and well-being of the church is rooted in the understanding that the just shall live faith (Romans 1: 17; Heb 10: 38; 11: 7).

Along with the doctrine of Justification goes the doctrine of reconciliation. Just like justification, the teaching on reconciliation is also found clearly set forth in the writings of Paul. The term used for reconciliation katalassein (Romans 5: 10 and 2 Corinthians 5: 19) signifies God’s reconciliation with the world. God for the sake of Christ now feels toward humanity as though they have never offended him. The cause of rupture between God and sinners has now been healed. Restoration has been achieved through the death of Christ.  Reconciliation becomes very important because without it there is no thought of salvation, of faith, regeneration or of Christian life. It is God who took the initiative and through his word he reveals that he is fully reconciled to humanity because of Christ.

Reconciliation was made possible through the vicarious atonement of Christ. This act of Christ is the key to understanding reconciliation.  In Paul’s own words, “he became sin for us” and borne the guilt and punishment of human sin. In this very act of Christ is found the imputation of human sin upon Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness upon sinners. This is the kerygma, the message of the Gospel, which informs the sinner of God’s reconciliation with sinners through Christ and powerfully persuades the sinner to accept this truth in faith. Paul puts it as “ be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5: 20). Paul further understands that God has entrusted to the church “the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5: 19).

Within Paul’s discussion on reconciliation there is also a caution. There were enthusiastic followers who believed that their baptism brought the completion of salvation here and now. There were also intruding teachers who discounted morality as irrelevant once the spirit had been saved. To such people Paul gives a caution, the ‘not yet’ of reconciliation, which unlike justification, is still going on, and needs to be renewed continually. Hence the call to Corinthian Christians, “Be reconciled to God “(2 Cor 5: 20). God has reconciled the world to himself, but people need to learn to live with moral sensitivity and vigilance until the end comes.

5. Paul’s understanding of Law:

Most of Paul’ teaching about Law is found in his letters to Galatians and Romans. His major argument in Galatians is that the promise is historically prior to the law and therefore promise must be superior to the law. Paul states that eth law was introduced 430 years after the promise was given to Abraham (Gal 3: 17). Thus he looks at law as being subordinate to promise. This did not mean that law and promise were opposed to each other. He recognised that law is an expression of God’s grace. Indeed the whole was based on promise. If the whole law had been kept, salvation would have been assured. But Paul knew full well that no one had kept the whole law (except Jesus Christ). The main weakness of the law was that it could only show that people had transgressed (Gal 3: 21). In these ways Paul brings out clearly the essentially negative aspect of the law. But if the law is so inadequate, what was its purpose?  If it did not conflict with promise it must have some positive aspect.   This is to be seen in its function, which differed from that of the promise. Both run side by side. The promise was never superseded by the law. It was always there, and found its fulfilment in Christ.

i. The Function of the Law: In explaining eth present function of the law Paul makes several assertions about the nature of law in respect to the individual.

a. The Law brings the knowledge of Sin (Rom 3: 20; 4: 15; 7: 7). The law is conceived as a standard for the pronouncements of the judgement of God (as a revelation of what God expects humanity to me). This explains why Paul can say that apart from the law he would not have known sin. He does not imply that before the establishment of the Mosaic Law, sin was unknown. He sys in Romans 5: 13 that sin was in the world, but was not ‘counted’ before the law was given. What Paul seems to say is that the function of law in this sense is didactic. It teaches that sin is an offence against God. He further says that the commandment is ‘holy and just and good’ (Romans 7: 12) and it cannot be wholly set aside. If it revealed God’s will in the past it is still the same. But the Christian approach inevitably differs from the OT approach in that the promise supersedes the law. Knowledge of sin is still needed, but the promise brings immediate assurance of cleansing. B.

b. The Law stimulates sin. This is a very difficult aspect of Paul’s teaching. He makes statements like, “Law came in, to increase the trespass” (Rom 5: 20), and “that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure” (Rom 7: 13). He would never admit that what was good could promote evil. In Romans 7: 13 he attributes the result not to the law, but to sin, which made use of the law for its own purposes. Paul’s underlying thought seems to be that prohibition provokes resistance. Humanity has to be convinced that sin was of such character that they have no hope of attaining righteousness through their own efforts. It is because the law does this that Paul can assert that the strength of sin is the law (I Cor 15: 56). In all these passages Paul is using the word ‘law’ in the sense of legal statues, which must be observed.

c. The Law is Spiritual: Paul contrasts the law with the ‘carnal’ nature of human beings (Rom 7: 14). If the law makes sin more sinful it is not the law’s fault. The fault lies with humanity. Sin would not be stimulated if humans were not carnal. The real function of the law is spiritual.

d. The law s burdensome: One who is committed to the law was committed to the whole law (Gal 5: 3). The breaking of one commandment was equal to breaking the whole law (Gal 3: 10). This made life under the law burdensome. In order to safeguard against unwitting breaches the Pharisees surrounded the law with many traditions making the law more burdensome. The gospel offered release from the minute regulations.

e. The law pronounces a curse. Law condemns sin. Here Paul shows the impossibility of any one to attain righteousness through the law (Gal 3:11). He sees Christ becoming a curse for us to redeem us from the curse of the law (Gal 3:13).

f. Works of law cannot earn righteousness: Righteousness is by faith and not by works of law. Paul sees faith as the key to righteousness in the OT (Rom 1: 17 cf. Hab 2: 4). Therefore Paul puts heavy emphasis on the fact that justification is faith and not by works of the law.

g. The law is a tutor until Christ: The word paidagōgos was a person who had charge of the moral education of a child until the child reached maturity and independence. Paidagōgosi was a guardian. Similarly law was a guardian and had a protective function. But Paul says that a person of faith is not under paidagōgos the custodian (Gal 3: 25). This function of the law has no further function for the Christian. Paul does not mean that the law leads people to Christ. In fact Christ changed this pedagogic function of the law.

h. The law is fulfilled in Christ: Paul says that Christ is the end (telos) of the law (Rom 10: 4). The word telos would mean ‘termination.’ In what sense did Paul conceive of the termination of law in Christ? The answer is found in the words eis dikaiosynēn which literally means “unto righteousness” or in connection with righteousness.” In this sense Christ is the end of the law “unto righteousness” or “in connection with righteousness.  The law is terminated in respect of contractual obligations but not in respect of its functions as the standard of God’s judgements. It may be noted that what is under discussion in this passage is the Israelites’ attempts to seek a righteousness of their own. Paul shows that since Christ’s coming the law had ceased to have any function in this quest. It may also be observed that telos also conveys the idea of completion and in this sense Paul says that what was preparatory in the law finds its fulfilment in Christ.

ii. The continuing Value of the Law: The foregoing discussion on the law should not be taken to mean that Paul advocates the total rejection of the law. Paul a positive approach to law because of its value in assessing the nature of Christian liberty.

iii. He regarded the law as holy. His statement about the holiness of the law in Romans 7:12 is clear, whether we regard the passage as autobiographical or not. For the apostle the law is still holy, because it is God’s law. In this he shared the same approach as Jesus. Now that he has become a Christian, he no longer recognizes law as a means of salvation, but it still represents for him the authoritative standard of God. It is, therefore, of crucial significance to discuss in what sense the law is still valid for the believer.

iv. Paul understands the law as having a different meaning for believers. The law is longer approached as a written code, which kills (2 Cor. 3:6). It is approached through the Spirit. When a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed from his mind when he reads the Mosaic Law (2 Cor. 3:16). The result is freedom through the Spirit. But does this mean that the law no longer applies and that the believer has freedom to act contrary to the law? Paul would never agree to it (Romans 6: 1). For him freedom was not disregard of the law, but a release from being entangled by it (cf. 5:1). Yet he does not precisely define what part the law plays in his new-found freedom in Christ. He seems to hold that although he is no longer in bondage to the law he can’t dispense with it. In Christ he approaches it from a new point of view. He is controlled by the law of Christ rather than by the law of Moses. The commandments of Christ have now become authoritative for him (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19.

a. Keeping the commandments is now dominated by love. In the practical section Romans Paul cites several commandments, but sums them up, as Jesus had done, in the commandment about love (Rom. 13:9). He considers that love to one’s neighbour fulfils the law, which shows a totally different approach from legalism. Love of this kind is possible only through Christ. It brings a whole new dimension to the understanding of the law. Although Paul appeals to the Mosaic Law, he nevertheless argues that all things are lawful (1 Cor. 6:12). Yet he stresses that the law of love is dominant. He judges what is expedient, not by whether- it is permissible by law, but by whether it is helpful to others (cf. his argument about foods offered to idols, 1 Cor. 10: 23 ff). Legalism is replaced by love, which may, in fact, be more limiting than a legal contract, but is motivated by a more powerful urge.

b.  It is the Christian’s obligation to uphold the law. Paul makes this quite clear in Romans 3:31, where he rejects the view that faith overthrows the law. In what sense did he mean that we uphold the law? Since Christ, in meeting the sacrificial demands of the law on people’s behalf, fulfilled the law, in that sense the law was upheld. In a similar way, the believers in Christ uphold the law by their identification with Christ. In a sense, therefore, the law becomes inward. It no longer consists merely of external demands, but requires an inward conformity to the one who has perfectly fulfilled its moral and ceremonial demands. The believer has become subject to the law of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21 -en nomos Christou). The believer now approaches the law of Christ out of love and out of fear as in the case of the Mosaic Law.

Many of the problems raised by false teachers in Paul’s churches involved a legalistic approach to Christian life (Galatians and Colossians. Cf. Titus 3: 9; I Tim 1: 7; 4: 3).  In such a context Paul saw the need to affirm the liberty of the believer in Christ, because s/he is no longer under the law but under grace.

Endnotes:

Hudson D.F. Lifer and Ministry of Paul. Serampore: The Board of Theological studies the senate of Serampore, 1988.

Becker, J C.  Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh: Vassal press, 1980.

Cerfaux, L.  Christ in the Theology of St. Paul. Nashville: St. Paul’s publications, 1988.

Friendly Note

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! We are deeply thankful for your visit to BD Materials. It is our mission and joy to serve Bible students, pastors, and believers with high-quality theological resources that strengthen faith and understanding of God’s Word.

At BD Materials, you’ll find study notes, articles, question papers, and valuable academic content designed to support your biblical and theological education. We are dedicated to helping you grow in knowledge, ministry, and devotion to Christ.

We also invite you to explore our partner sites: Telugu Gospel Lyrics, featuring inspiring gospel song lyrics in Telugu, and Theological Library, a hub for Christian book summaries and devotionals.

Your encouragement means a lot to us! We invite you to share your study materials, articles, or insights with our community. Thank you for being part of this mission—may God bless your studies and ministry abundantly!