INFLUENCES THAT SHAPED THE

THEOLOGY OF PAUL
T.C. SMITH
Furman University (Emeritus)
Greenville, SC 29613

I count it a great honor to be awarded the privilege of participating in this

Festschrift for Morris Asheraft. A survivor of conflicts in three Southern Baptist
Seminaries, Morris has demonstrated that he is a champion of integrity, courage,
freedom, straightforwardness, and all those qualities that go into the making of a stable
Christian character. In the fifty years that I have been associated with him as a close
friend and colleague he has always impressed me as having the ability to confront
issues with deep insights and make statements with precision and exactness.
Since the title of Morris' doctoral dissertation at the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary was "Paul's Claim and Concept of Apostleship," and since he
is now interested in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature, it seemed to me that
the topic chosen would be appropriate because the apostle was greatly influenced by
apocalyptic ideas.
When we use the word theology in connection with Paul, this does not mean
that he was a systematic theologian. He did not set forth a logical and complete
system of theology. It would be morefittingto say that the apostle gave us brilliant
flashes of spiritual insights, and in the presentation of those insights he was limited by
the thought patterns of his day. His concern was to discover the relation of
Christianity to Judaism in which he was nourished. With the exception of a few
garnered insights in his epistles other than Romans and Galatians, Paul was more
concerned with pastoral problems in the churches that he established. He was not
writing as though his letters would one day be incorporated in a new sacred body of
literature. Nevertheless, without Paul, Christianity might have become just another
sect of Judaism. Perhaps he perceived more thoroughly than any otherfirstgeneration
Christian what the distinctive meaning of the new faith contained. This becomes more
clear to us since his letters were preserved.
What were the influences that gave form to the theological thoughts of the
apostle? Before he became a believer in Christ, he was steeped in Palestinian and
Hellenistic Judaism. His Jewish heritage remained foundational for his Christian
thinking. Yet he never considered himself anything other than a Jew to theveryend.
He considered Christianity as the full bloom of Judaism. It was die new Israel of God.
To some extent Paul was influenced by Hellenistic culture. Thus in this article we
shall consider the Jewish and Hellenistic elements that played a decisive role in the
shaping of his theology.
152 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

THE INFLUENCE OF JUDAISM ON PAUL

What was it in his Jewish heritage that prompted Paul to be so violently

opposed to the followers of Christ? By his own admission he was a Pharisee, a
Hebrew of die Hebrews, circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the tribe of
Benjamin. He had advanced in Judaism beyond his contemporaries being extremely
zealous for the traditions, the oral law (Gal 1:14; Phil 3:5; Rom 11:1). According to
righteousness attainable by die observance of the law he was blameless (Phil 3:6). If
we accept Acts as a correct account of his life in Judaism, we learn that he was a
student of Gamaliel I, the grandson of die great Hillel, and was educated according to
die strict manna* of die law in die tradition of the fathers (Acts 22:3; 26:5). Hillel, die
grandfather of Gamaliel I, had come from Babylonia and along with Shammai
represented die last of die zugoth (the pairs of rabbis). He refused to accept die
traditions of the elders which Shammai had upheld unless they could be verified by
Scripture. Therefore, he introduced seven rules of interpretation to bolster the
traditions. Hillel was more Uberai than Shammai. The inherited liberality of his
grandson was demonstrated in Acts when we read that Gamaliel I advised the priestly
council to employ a "wait and see" policy toward the followers of Christ (Acts 6:34-
39).
Assuming that Paul was indeed a Pharisee, what were his beliefs as a
member ofthat party of Judaism? The only first century CE source that explains die
teaching of the Pharisees odio* than what we have in die New Testament is Josephus,
the Jewish historian Though Josephus was a Pharisee, his information about die
beliefs of die group is very meager. Pharisaism that set the norm for Judaism came to
us after die destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, but the Mishnah preserving their oral
tradition was not codified until about 200 CE. Therefore, we must proceed with
caution in ascribing to die Pharisees beliefs that were held before die destruction of the
Temple. However, it is possibletiiatcertain teachings can be supported for the time of
Paul.
Under die influence of Pharisaism Paul would have recited the Shema, die
confession that Yahweh is one. He definitely understood that the rite of circumcision
was forever. He believed that Abraham observed die law of Moses hundreds of years
before it was given on Mt. Sinai. Paul would also be an advocate for die two-fold
law—the written law and the oral law. As a Pharisee he could use the word Torah to
cover all revelation of God to Israel. Hie Greek nomos, the Latin /ex, and English law
do injustice to the translation of Torah. To be sure, when a reference is made to a
statute or commandment, it is a refo^nœ to a cxKksimUar to lex, or law.
AttimesPaul usedfto/no?to apply specifically to the Pentateuch, but he also
used it to cover odier bodes of Scripture under the sections of prophets and writings.
In Pharisaism it was possible for Paul to include as torah the traditions of die fathers
(die crai law), which were interpretations of the written law. The oral law was not a
challenge to Scripture but a confirmation of it The Pharisees were interested in

^ v i u s Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, ΧΠΙ, V.9; ΧΠΙ.Χ.6; XVm. 1.3 and
Wars of the Jews, I. V.2
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 153

scriptural proof to clarify a situation, throw light on a teaching, establish a statute, or

inspire an ethical action
To support a particular teaching the context of a biblical passage was of little
significance. More important to diem was die drawing of versesfromdifferent books
and combining diem to give a different meaning. If they could discover a verse in the
Pentateuch that was upheld by the prophets and confirmed by the Psalms, this was the
best proof possible. Tlie rabbis believed that die law was holy, yet they were aware of
contradictory passages and social regulations that were no longer practicable.
Consequently, congruence was accomplished by interpretation. Philo, die
Alexandrian Jewish philosopher of die first century CE, did this through allegorical
interpretation, but the rabbis resorted to atomistic exegesis. This kind of exegesis
interpreted clauses, sentences, phrases, and even single words out of the historical
context An examination of the Mishnah, Tosephta, and the Midrashim makes this
perfectly clear. In this way die rabbis were able to introduce modification and
development into the unchangeable Torah.
The Pharisees contended that the oral law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai
at the same time the written law was given. The oral law was transmitted by Moses to
Joshua, Joshua to die elders, die elders to die prophets, die prophets to die men of die
Great Synagogue, the men of the Great Synagogue to die zugoth (Pairs), and finally
from die zugoth to the Pharisees. In the Pentateuch some of die regulations were
vague and set forth in general terms. The Pharisees built a hedge around the Torah
with a multitude of specific regulations so that people would not violate the Torah. In
the Mishnah a whole section is given over to sabbath laws that specify what one could
and could not do on the sabbath.
As a Pharisee rather than pressing for a Messiah of Davidic descent, Paul
would take a position to expose those who claimed to be Messiah. If a person was
executed and then impaled, he had to consider that one was subject to the greatest
disgrace and accursed of God (Deut 22:22-23). While die Pharisees after 70 CE
tended to ignore apocalyptic thought, it is evident that they accepted die ideas
advanced by this type of literature before that period of time. One of the teachings that
emanated from apocalypticism was die resurrection fremi the dead The Pharisees
avidly promoted this doctrine while die Sadducees rejected it Finally, die Pharisees
believed that they were the successors to die prophets. To be sure they did not contend
that they were giving a new revelation. There was no attempt to say as did the
prophets, 'Thus says Yahweh." Their position was to be interpreters of the revelation
that was already given
Hie Apostle Paul was not only a product of Palestinian Judaism, but of
Hellenistic Judaism as well. To what extent was his theology shaped by the Jews in
the Diaspora? The larger number of Jews in the first century CE lived outside
Palestine. It has been estimated that the ratio was about five to one. Under die
systematized religious life of the Pharisees in Palestine the average Jew entertained no
doubts about what was right or wrong. But abroad in an environment where alien
culture and religion held full sway, the Jews were put to the test in their faithfulness to

2
Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 1.1.
154 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

the ancestral traditions. Those elements in Judaism that kept the Jew from being
absorbed into die culture of die Hellenistic world were die Mosaic law, die rite of
circumcision, a monotheistic faith, adherence to die laws of die sabbath, and eating
only that which was kosher. A religion removedfromdie land of its birth to a foreign
territory can be exposed to a different mental and spiritual environment, which can
bring about adjustments so that its character is changed. Nevertheless, as resident
aliens they were forced to abandon some of their provincialism through the lines of
trade, commerce, thought, and social life. Their worship shiftedfromdie Temple to die
synagogue.
Certainly die Hellenistic Jews found it impossible to attend die three required
feasts of die Jews in the Temple—Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. How could a
male go to the Temple three times a year if he lived in Rome or Babylon? After the
destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 CE, what had been a
problem for the Diaspora Jews now became a problem for all Jews. Naturally, the
Hellenistic Jews saw the irrelevance of some parts of their religious legislation. They
knew die ceremonial law was connected with temple worship in which they had no
part To be sure, they paid die temple tax in orda- to be associated with Judaism. With
respect to thetithethere is no evidence to suggest diey paid tiiis.
The Hellenistic Jews were always viewed with suspicion by die Palestinian
Jews. Was their contact with the gentile world of a polluting nature? Did they observe
the law in a strict fashion or did they compromise die Jewish ways of life? Did they
eat with the gentiles and consume food that was not kosher?
We assume that die vast majority of the Jews in the Diaspora observed die
ordinances of the Mosaic law. Yet it was not possible for them to escape certain
influencesfromtiieirenvironment. The translation of the Pentateuchfromdie Hebrew
into Greek as early as 250 BCE in a subtle way introduced Western modes of thought
alien to Hebrew and Aramaic. To survive in the Diaspora die Jews had to make some
concessions. Senne went too far and defected. The Wisdom of Solomon, written
before SO BCE, depicts die defection of some Jews in Alexandria. It just might be that
Paul gives a summary of Hellenistic Judaism in Rom 2:17-20.
It is doubtful that die Jews outside the land of Palestine accepted the two-fold
law of the Pharisees. They were zealous to make converts to Judaism and did so. To
convert to Judaism a pagan had to accept the Mosiac law, be circumcised, accept
baptism, and give an offering to the Temple.
In Paul's day Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, came to the
realization that he had to remove die objectionable depictions of Yahweh in the
Pentateuch. He also had to explain the inconsistencies and the discrepancies as well.
To do this he drew on the current Stoic philosophy in Alexandria, in addition to Plato
and other Greek philosophical schools, to demonstrate that all of diese had copied
from Moses. HemadeiiseoftheaUegoricalmethodofexegesis to go behind the plain
meaning of Scripture and introduced an underlying meaning that was more spiritual.
Philo believed that circumcision was valuable in that it removed passion from the
body. The Passover was a symbol of the passing of die soul from die domination of
the body. He said that pork was the sweetest of all meats, but Jews abstained from
eating it in order to show their self control. (We wonder how he knew the meat was
sweet unless he had tasted it).
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 155

Philo found it necessary to consider the period of time before the Mosaic law
was given. What about Abraham? Did he observe the written law before it was
given? Philo set up two laws—the law of nature and die Mosaic law. Abraham and
the patriarchs observed die law of nature, a concept of the Stoics. The Stoics affirmed
that the law of nature was "law embodied and vocal." Tlius Philo contended that the
law was embodied in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The patriarchs lived by a higher
law, but Moses produced specific laws drawn out of die unwritten law of nature.
Philo believed that the written law was subject to error in wording, to a lack of clarity,
and to misunderstanding. The law of nature was clear and without error. He argued
that die Mosaic law was secondary to the law of nature, but if a person observed the
Mosaic law, it was possible for that cm to be transformed from a bodily person to
spiritual person This would open the way for the observance of the higher law of
nature.
It is doubtful that Paul had any acquaintance widi die philosophical system of
Philo. The only possible connection might have come through Apollos, an
Alexandrian Jew, who came to Ephesus before Paul returned to that city. This
account is recorded in Acts 18:24-28. Paul does refer to Apollos in 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4-6,
but whether he had any direct contact with Apollos is unknown. However, being a
Hellenistic Jew, Paul must have faced similar problems in Judaism as those
manifested by Philo.
When Paul appeared on the scene as a believer in Christ, the proclamation of
the Gospel was just entering the Hellenistic world. For the early church the
emergence of the apostle at this moment in history added a distinctive influence and
significance. When he moved die Gospel out to die Hellenistic environment, die
fellowship of believers could no longer be a sect of Judaism which tacked on Jewish
traditional views about Jesus and his imminent return. Christianity could no longer be
simply a Palestinian movement. Paul's rabbinical and Hellenistic background were
paramount as aframeof reference. His contribution to the movement produced a new
direction that ultimately resulted in a severance with Judaism.
Paul's experience with the risen Christ did not afford ready made answers for
him. This required interpretation from his Pharisaic training. Occasionally, he
admitted an indebtedness to the primitive Christian tradition, but we should not
assume that he solved all his personal problems or intellectual dilemmas through the
solutions of other evangelists. He was confident that he also possessed the spirit of
Christ and was capable of giving an interpretation of die Christian faidi. His
experience soon led him to insights centered around the cross, the law, the
resurrection, faith, and apocalyptic thoughts. To present diese concepts he leaned
heavily on his Pharisaic training, and he used those tools of the rabbis to make clear
this case. Some of his interpretations seem a bit far-fetched in our day, but he was
working according to the standards of rabbinical exegesis in his day.
Before he became a Christian, Paul considered the preaching of the early
church as the worst kind of blasphemy because of the declaration that Jesus was
righteous and through the resurrection became equated with Yahweh. To be sure he
believed in die resurrection from the dead, but how could a crucified Christ be an
emissary of God? The Deuteronomic law specifically classified him as one accursed
of God (21:23). That die crucified Christ was a stumbling block for Paul is quite
156 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

apparent in his constant references to the cross and the crucifixion (1 Cor 1:18-25; Gal
2:20; 3:10-16; Phil 3:18; Eph 2:16; Col 1:21-23) But what for Paid, die persecutor of
the church, was a stumbling stone of offense, became fen* Paul, the believer, a
cornerstone (Rom 9:32-33).
To the Jews the cross was not only a curse from God but a symbol of
weakness, and to die Greeks it was folly and illogical. However, Paul could say that
radia-than being a sign of weakness, it was a symbol of die power of God. Rather
than being a sign of foolishness, it was the wisdom of God. Contrary to the cross as
being a curse, he said it was a blessing in that Christ delivered usfromthe curse of die
law by having been considered by Deuternomic law accursed of God (Gal 3:13).
Christ is not an anathema, but anyone who does not love die Lord Jesus Christ is
anathema (1 Cor 16:22).
Paul who was so steeped in Pharisaism was obliged to relate the Christian
faith to law. Just like many Pharisees, the law meant to Paul all of God's revelation
both written and orai. He could use die word law to encompass the Pentateuch, the
prophets, and die writings. FurthernK)re, he iised the Greek word «owo^ (law) in the
sense of a principle, or he could refer to nomos as a halachah of his own making (1
Cor 14:34).
Tlie rabbis and Philo were forced to explain the kind of law Abraham and the
patriarchs obeyed since they came before die Mosaic law. We ha ve already noted that
the rabbis declared that Abraham observed die Mosaic law before it was given to
Moses. Philo said that they obeyed the law of nature, a law that was superior to the
written law. From his rabbinical training the Apostle perceived the weakness of the
reasoning of this position
In Rom 4:1-25 Paul used die second principle of interpretation of Hillel to set
the record straight relative to Abraham. This was die gezera shava. Hillel had said
that where the same word occurred in two biblical passages, each can throw light on
the other. In chapter 4 of Romans the word that require
(reckon or consider) in Gen 15:6. Then Paul set before his readers the same word in
Ps 32:1-2. The rule of Hillel stated that if in two passages of Scripture words occur
that have identical meanings, bodi laws, no matter how different, were subject to the
same regulations and applications. This was an inference or analogy of equivalence.
Inch¿q^4PadrefeiTedto/b¿72oma7tentimes. By means ofthe gezera shava he
proved that Abraham came into arightrelationship with God by faidi alone and not on
the basis of works. Furthermore, this relationship based on faith came before die rite
of circumcision in Gen 17:20. Paul went on to appeal to Ps 32:1-2 in order to
demonstrate that "not counting (logisétaì) sin" was the same as forgiveness from God.
He was aware of the fact diat David was circumcised when he wrote this, but pointed
out Abraham's faitii was counted to him for arigjitrelationship, and that in David's
case forgiveness was the same as counting arightrelationship.
Previous to chapter 7 ofthe Roman letto* Paul hints here and there that some
sortofconnœtionexistedbetweœtiielawandsin(3:20;4:15;5:13,20;6:14). At last
in Rom 7:7-8:1 he met the issue head on. In this passage he seemed to divide his life
into three periods. Thefirstperiod was a time when sin was dormant in him, and he
was able to live a life without restraints. This might be called a time of innocence.
The second period was ushered in when he became a bar mitzvah. As a son of the
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 157

commandment he now knew what sin was by means of the law. The knowledge of sin
brought about an outer and inner struggle in hislife. While Paul admitted that the law
was holy, just, and good, it was also a springboard for operations to cause him to sia
The law had provocative powers, and actually acted as a catalyst in promoting sia
Paul observed that his life was dominated by die powers of sin. He did not mean that
the law by nature was the power of evil or destruction, but through its use by sin it
became a power of destruction.
As we have previously observed, Philo believed that through the observance
ofthe Mosiac law a person could be transformed from a bodily person to a spiritual
parson. Paul did not think so. The inner conflict in his life made him think otherwise.
Within himself diere was a battìe being waged. Paul portrayed diis struggle in
rabbinical terms of yetzer hatov (the good impulse) and the yetzer hora (the evil
impulse). He wanted to do die good and what wasright,but there was always the evil
impulse that dragged him dowa There was no motivation, no driving force, no
dynamic for obeying the law.
The third period of Paul's life was that time when the principle ofthe spirit of
life in Christ Jesus set him free from die yetzer hara. By no means did he intimate
that he wasfreefromsin, but he was liberatedfromdie power of sin, and the Spirit of
life gave him the dynamic and motivation through faith to submit to die will of God
and overcome sia
In Galatians 3 Paul exposed the inferiority ofthe law. It was only one state
in die revelation of God. Prior to the giving ofthe Mosaic law, Abraham came into a
rightrelationshipwidi God by faidi. Now God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
Paul went cm to show the inferiority of die law by its remotenessfromGod. Paul could
not have invented this tradition because we find it in Acts 7:38,53 and in Heb 2:2.
Apparently it camefromdie early church because die Hebrew and LXX texts do not
even imply this. In later rabbinical tradition this reading does occur. Paul was saying
that the law was doubly remotefromGod God gave it to die angels, the angels gave
it to Moses, and then Moses gave it to the Israelites. On the other hand Abraham
received die promise on the basis of faith strictly from God. Consequently, the law
demonstrated a separation between God and the people whereas the promise on the
basis of faith presented die people's unity with God. Finally, Paul argued that die law
was inferior in that it was a pedagogue to bring us to Christ The law, as Paul knew it,
was not a liberating and life-giving concept. It was nothing but a series of dead
repressive statutes that cast a shadow over all human attempts to getrightwith God.
The law seemed to extinguish the hope that die promise inspired.
Paul also followed the practice of Philo and the rabbis in spiritualizing and
allegorizing die law. For the purpose of argument he used Scripture in a way which
was alien to die plain meaning (Gal 3:16; 4:21-31; 1 Cor 2:10-13; 9:8-11; 10:1-5;
14:21; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Rom 7:1-4; 10:5-13). In accord witìi die exegesis of his day
Paul took the liberty of selecting a catena of passages from Scripture, culled at
random, in order to reenforce his argument (Rom 3:10-18; 9:11). While Paul used a
quote from Habakkuk the prophet in Gal 3:11, he chose it again and used it in die
letter to the Romans as his theme (1:17). Interestingly enough, he quoted Hab 2:4 in a
version of his owa The LXX stated that one shall Uve by God's steadfastness while
the Hebrew text indicated that arighteousperson will Uve by his own steadfastness in
158 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

obedience to die commands of God. Paul said, "he who through faith is righteous
shall Uve." Habakkuk used the Hebrew word 'emûriah which means steadfastness,
dependableness, or fidelity. Paul used the Greek substantive pistis ("faith"), which
bears an active connotation rather than die passive verbal adjustive pistos which
means "faithful."
The apostle in his letter to the Christians in Rome affirmed that the Gospel
was the power of God unto salvation to all humanity because therighteousnessof God
"is being" revealed in it, beginning in faith and continuing in faith. What did Paul
mean by therighteousnessof God? Did he use this expression to amplify the Old
Testament concept ofrighteousnessin the forensic and educai sense, or did he present
something new? He considered it an activity on the part of God just as it was
elucidated in the Old Testament, but he departedfromthe Old Testament view in that
he removed the forensic and ethical notions from the concept. Dikaiosune tou theou
was not understood by him as an ethical quality which God possessed, nor did he think
of it as a divine verdict of acquittal issued to those who were guilty. He saw it as an
action of God in history bringing humanity into arightrelationshipwith himself. For
Paul die noun ctikaiosurie and the verb dikcàoo ("to makeright")were the same as
katallagë ("reconciUation") and katallasso ("to reconcile") as Rom 5:1, 9, 10, 11
affirm.
Admittedly, there are places in Paul's epistie where dikaios ("righteous") is
used with ethical meaning, yet die main thrust of dûs word and its cognates is a
relationship or condition that now exists with God by faith in Christ. If we are
interested in knowing what Paul said about die educai conduct of Christians, we gain
this information notfromhis concept ofrighteousnessbutfroman understanding of his
teaching about union with Christ.
TTie Pharisaic teaching of die resurrectionfromdie dead, which entered in by
way of apocalyptic literature, probably had the most influence on Paul in his about
facefrompersecutor ofthe church to his experience with therisenLord. However, he
gave a different interpretation of what die resurrection meant. In 1 Corinthians 15 he
answered a question that camefromthe church in Corinth. The congregation wanted
to know what kind of body would be raised. Doubtless, some of the members still
held to a Greek view of immortality of soul. At death the soul was absorbed into the
world soul, and die individual lost his or ho- distinct personhood. On the other hand
some perhaps retained the Pharisaic teaching that supported a crass materialistic body
that was raised. While the personhood was preserved, die spirituality of the event was
ignored. Paul refused torelinquishthe spirituality of die event and the personhood of
the individual and proposed die resurrection of a spiritual body.
Embedded in Paul's epistles are many traces of apocalyptic ways of
expressing matters. Did he get these modes of thinking from the early Christian
community tradition or was he influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature? There
seems to be no doubttiiathe obtained these notionsfromboth. Some of the teachings
ofthe apocalyptists seeped into Pharisaism before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, yet
those that did not fit into normative Judaism were ignored. The Phariseesretaineddie
doctrines of the resurrection from die dead and the two ages—'ôlam hazzeh ("this
age") and die côlam habba ("the age to come"), but diey relegated angelology and
demonology to a subordinate role. From the writings ofthe Qumran community we
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 159

discover that this sect in Judaism was weU oriented in apocalyptic thought.
While Paul was not bound to a scheme of history as that advanced in Jewish
^xx^lypticism,hecameveryclosetoonein2Thess2:l-12. He believed that people
were engaged in a life and death struggle with unseen supernatural powers and that
time was moving forward to God's great crowning victory over these forces. He held
to die teaching of this age and die age to come. Paul did not foUow the details of this
type of Jewish literature. He was influenced more by die general spirit of die
movement. Then, too, he Christianized this mode of thought by proclaiming the
imminentreturnof Christ. For a time he was persuaded that he would be alive when
Christ returned (1 Thess 4:16-17; 1 Cor 7:29, 15:51), but after some terrible
experience at Ephesus (2 Cor 1:9-10) he was not so certain
If we had some way of knowing die chronological sequence in Paul's letters,
perhaps we could determine at what point he moved awayfromthe imminent return of
Christ and settled down to a mystical union with Christ. It is noticeable in 2
Corinthians (the severe 10-13 and die letter from Macedondia 1-9), Romans,
Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians (if by Paul) that die apostle did not engage in
discussions of die immediate termination of die age. It is voy clear in his letter to the
Romans that the end of all things was not near because he looked for a time when the
Jews as a group would confess faith in Christ (11:11-12). There are those who
suggest that Paul returned to apocalyptic thought in Rom 13:11-14, but he does not
specificallyreferto the termination of die age in this passage.

THE INFLUENCE OF HELLENISM ON PAUL

In Acts we learn that Paul was born in Tarsus of Ciucia. While he does not
refer to Tarsus in his epistles, he does say that he wait into the regions of Syria and
CiUda after his visit to Cephas in Jerusalem ( ^ 1:21). Apparently this area was die
beginning of his missionary activity. We can assume from this that he had some
attachment to Tarsus. The city ofTarsus had a long history of culture. It had seen the
power of die Hittites. It had been the seat of government of a Persian satrapy. Indie
Hellenistic age it was a significant city. Hie university ofTarsus according to Strabo,
a contemporary geographer, surpassed die universities of Athens and Alexandria in
general education. Tarsus was a center of Stoicism due to the fact that several Stoics
were bom tr^i^ including Athenodorus, the confidant of Augustus Caesar. In addition
to this contact with Hellenistic culture and religions in Tarsus Paul naturally would
have confronted Hellenism in his missionary journeys.
To what extent was Paul influenced by Stoicism, the mystery cults ofthe day,
and Hellenistic mysticism? First we shall consider Stoicism. Though Paul was
acquainted with Stoicism, he did not have an academic knowledge ofthe philosophy.
Perhaps some of die teachings of die philosophy he picked up in the market places or
on the street corners. Hie apostìe definitely copied die rhetorical style of die Stoics,
which was the diatribe, the name given to their discourses. The diatribe consisted of
rhetorical questions, the use of an imaginary objector, short disconnected sentences,
concrete illustrationsfromlife, irony, and personal appeal. The diatribe style manifests
itself in such expressions of Paul as "I am telling the truth," 'Then are we to infer?,"
"But who are you, o man?," What are we to conclude?," "But I ask," "Surely you
160 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

know." For Paul to show a knowledge of Stoic ideas that were in the air when he was
writing, however, does not imply dependence on Stoic ideas for his theology.
Hie word conscience, suneidesis, which Paul used is definitely of Stoic
origin (Rom 2:15; 8:1; 1 Cor 10:25,27; 2 Cor 1:12; 4:2; 5:11; 9:14.) The Stoic said,
"Live according to nature." This was the law of the rational universe which had
become immanent in people. In Rom 2:15 Paul saw in die lex natura a revelation,
though it was not complete. Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher of die first
century CE, followed Stoicism with the use of die law of nature and held that it was
superior to die written law. This is the law that Abraham and die patriarchs followed
before the law of Moses came into existence. In Colossians when Paul portrayed
Christ as die unifying principle of life, he used a Stoic term sunestêken (1:17). No
doubt he chose this word with which his constituents were familiar to show the cosmic
significance of Christ All these expressions of thought show that Paul was keenly
aware ofthe popular teachings ofthe Stoics. The most significant difference between
the preaching of Paul and the Stoics was that Paul's religion was grounded in historic
events of the incarnation, the cross, and die resurrection, while die Stoics center of
devotion was pantheism with no roots in history. Stoicism could speak of God within
but offered no God widiout. Then too the quality oïapatheia (apathy) which was so
precious to the Stoics had no appeal to Paul who was highly emotional. Stoicism was
a philosophy of despair and Paul knew this. There was always a sense of futility. God
is nothing more than heimarmerië (fate). We admit that Paul used Stoic ideas and
terms, but he did it to communicate his gospel to those who were obsessed with
Stoicism. Thus it is important that we not overestimate the contribution of Stoicism to
die mind of Paul.
Now we turn to examine Paul's indebtedness to the mystery cults of die
Hellenistic world In this area of study the old religio-historical school, in which
Gunkel played an important role for die Old Testament and Bousset in die New
Testament, affirmed that Christianity was a product of its environment. Previously
Christianity was considered as somediing new, and now parallels for Christianity were
discovered everywhere. Nothing seemed to be new. Instead of Paul being, as he
claimed, a "Hebrew of Hebrews", he was now turned into a "Hellenist of die
Hellenists." Bousset and other contended that Paul's chief ideas were similar to
syncretistic Oriental cults that pervaded Greek culture. It is certainly true that Paul
used terminology that was in vogue during the first century CE. The mystery cults
used such words as mustêrion, teleios, sophia, gnosis, sotena, kurios, and the apostle
Paul took over these words but not for die purpose of grafting mystery cult ideas upon
die Gospel of Christ Many of Paul's converts had been members of mystery cults
such as Isis and Serapis, Attis and Cybele, Mitiira, and die older Greek Dionysiac and
Eleusinian cults. The apostle used die terminology that gave surface expressions ofthe
cults in order to show a higher meaning of diese words in die revelation of Jesus
Christ As a missionary it was essential for him to do this. It is true that Paul's
preaching included as basic the dying and rising of Jesus to receive the tide kurios
(Lord), and this teaching was akin to the dying and rising Savior gods ofthe mysteries.
However, Paul's teaching was founded on an historical fact while the mysteries were
based on a legend widiout any historical validity. It must also be added that it was not
the affinity of Christianity to mystery cults that made an impression upon die pagan
JOURNAL OF THE NABPR 161

world but the difference. The pagans vàio were willing to syncretize their religion
could see in Christianity something new and different
Paul had to use die religious ware ofthe Stoics and mystery cults that were
so replete in the Hellenistic world Since the language ofreligionand philosophy was
die currency of die day, Paul had to use it if he wanted to be clearly understood.
Admittedly, Paul was familiar with mystery terms that were current when he wrote,
but to say that he had a thorough going acquaintance with mystery literature is another
thing. In fact, only the initiated knew what the inner meaning of the cults was. Yet
diere were certain words and phrases that got into the public arena, and these were the
ones Paul used. He had no in-depth knowledge of die mysteries as initiated would
have.
To say Paul derived die word kurios as a tide for Jesus from the cults is to
overlook die fact that kurios in the LXX that Paul used is a translation for die sacred
name of God Yahweh. Why should he have to take somethingfromthe mystery cults
that already had meaning in his Hebrew heritage?
Largely on the basis of Paul's boasting about his mystical experience in 2
Cor 12:1-5 and his constant use of the en Christo formula in his epistles, there are
those who believe that the apostle was overly influenced by Hellenistic mysticism.
Relative to die mystical experience, it is to be noted that it occurred 14 years previous
to his writing the account in the Corinthian correspondence. Thus it had to do witii an
event in his early days as a follower of Christ Also one must bear in mind that he
related die event only because there were those in Corinth who liked to boast about
visions. Paul referred to this as an exceptional vision, and he did not habitually live on
this level. This is perhaps the same experiencerecordedin Acts where Paul speaks to
the Jews who previously tried to kill him (22:17-21). In this case Paul received his
call to go to die Gentiles on that occasion.
Concerning die en Christo formula that Paul used over 100 times in his
epistles (either this formula or the equivalent), it seems that this phrase is a shortened
form of die ceremonial expression in baptism "to be baptized in the name ofthe Lord
Jesus Christ." By being baptized die believer was incorporated into Christ Yet this
type of mysticism had no kinship widi the mysticism in the Hellenistic mystery cults.
The mysticism of die cults held a contempt of life and longed to ascend die ladder to
deity through spiritual exercises and finally become deified. Years ago Adolf
Deismann advanced two types of mysticism. One he called "acting" and die other he
named "reacting". Tlie "acting" type is diat in which die mystic sedes to have
communion with the deity by his own action, and the deity responds to that action.
The "reacting" type is that in which the deity takes die initiative to get the attention of
the mystic so that the mystic will react
It is quite obvious that Paul's mysticism had no connection with mysticism in
the Hellenistic world, because it was Christ, not Paul, who initiated the union. It was
not a human achievement but a gift of God. This union came not by performing acts
to get the attention of God, but by God's self-revelation and God's self-impartation.

3
Adolf Deissmann, The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1923) 195.
162 PERSPECTIVES IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

There is enough in Judaism to account for Paul's mysticism. The prophets

had mystical experiences. In Jewish apocalyptic literature diere is an abundance of
mystical experiences. In fact, Paul's vision in 2 Corinthians is very similar to that of
Enoch in the apocalyptic document I Enoch. Paul did not have to go outside his
Jewish heritage to encounter mysticism.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property ofthe American
Theological Library Association.