Chapter 3 : The real Paul.

The image we have of Paul is strongly influenced by the 13 epistles attributed to him. I will show in three points who the Paul we find in the book of Acts is. It is important to understand each character in the Word of God because his presence is never due to a desire to fill up, but must teach us things about God and ourselves. I will show the weight of his flaws, not to diminish him, but so that each of us can understand that God can use us despite them. This does not give us an advantage to keep them but teaches us that we must not think that he will use us only when we have rid ourselves of our faults. The journey is long, and thinking that we must finish it to begin to serve him is often a reassuring excuse. He will choose the order in which to solve our problems, and will use us even though some are still unsolved. Paul's example helps us understand this. He was indeed a servant of God, but, like Simon, his weaknesses and mistakes should make us understand that God knows what he is doing. Like Gideon, we are what God sees in us, and our task is to understand him.

The first point I will therefore address is that concerning Agabus.

When Paul decides to go to Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit speaks to the disciples and warns them that Paul's journey is not God's will. Although we often hear the opposite, the text nevertheless clearly tells us:

• Acts 21.4 : And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days : who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

So it is indeed God, since I recall that the Spirit in question is the Holy Spirit, and therefore that he is God, who told the disciples that Paul should not go up to Jerusalem. We are therefore the guardians of our brothers, and if one of them does not listen to the Holy Spirit we must inform him. What is interesting is that Paul will not listen, he had already made his decision and was not ready to listen to the brothers. It will follow that God will send a prophet, and this time, we note well that the prophet in question, who happens to be Agabus, does not tell Paul what he must do, because that is not the function of prophets, they must only announce what will be:

• Acts 21.10-11 : And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

The consequence was simple: God warned him that he would be put in chains, which indeed happened. It will also be noted that he will be imprisoned for two years and no conversions will be cited during this entire period of time. On the other hand, when he finally obeyed God by leaving for Rome, the conversions started again in the most beautiful way (Acts 21 and following).

There are three problems in the same passage, but this is a special case because it comes from the book of Acts and not from one of the epistles attributed to Paul. The difference is that this time, the events depicted must be true. The difference is significant and deserves to be highlighted because it is important to understand the Paul of the book of Acts independently of the false impression left by the epistles falsely attributed to him. The text in question is the following:

• Acts 23:6-8 : But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees : and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit : but the Pharisees confess both.

The three problems lie in the assertion of his Pharisaism, in the deliberate creation of a scandal and in the assertion of the reasons which led to his arrest.

a) a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.

The particularity of this point is therefore that it does not highlight something false, but rather information that is important to take into account about Paul. The important information is found in verse 6 : ... I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Of course, some will argue that Paul meant that he had been a Pharisee, but they would be twisting the scriptures. Paul does say that he is one, in the present tense, and this obviously poses a problem. Especially since we are here in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which, incidentally, is a text of the Word of God. Therefore, this statement, whether true or not, was actually made by Paul.

Jesus told us in the Gospel according to John, speaking of the law : If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken (John 10.35), which obviously meant that it cannot be. So what Paul said in the book of Acts necessarily has a scope that cannot be neglected by the fact that it is indeed the transcription of his words. Consequently, there is a Cornelian choice that we are all called to make. Given that he spoke these words well, then:

1️⃣ either Paul lied by saying he was a Pharisee.

2️⃣ either he told the truth.

And we must also keep in mind what Jesus said about the Pharisees, of whom Paul says he is one, namely:

➡️​ They have insufficient righteousness to be saved (Matthew 5.20)

➡️​ They are blind men who go into the pit (Matthew 15.12-14)

➡️​ They give dangerous teachings (Matthew 16.12)

➡️ ​Matthew 23.3-4 : ... for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

➡️ And finally, they are hypocrites, wicked, foolish, blind, full of extortion and intemperance, they are serpents and brood of vipers (Matthew 23.13-36)

So here we have the image of Paul making a statement about himself that seems to condemn him. Let's not forget that he is in full disobedience at the moment he makes it, since this arrest follows Agabus' warnings about his disobedience, explained in the previous point. He announces with his own mouth that he has not yet completely renounced what he was and still considers himself to be. The problem, therefore, lies essentially in our understanding of him. His fault here is obvious, but it does not represent a condemnation, simply a stage in his journey.

b) The scandal.

The second and third problems in the same passage lie precisely in the end of this same verse where he claims to be a Pharisee. Let's look at the second first.

• Acts 23.6-8 : But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee : of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

The text clearly tells us that the reason for Paul's statement is that one part of the assembly was composed of Sadducees and the other part of Pharisees, and it is not even necessary to know much about these two sects to understand what this means. This is made clear to us in verse 8 : For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both. These two sects had sharp disagreements concerning the issues that Paul deliberately highlights. The reality of what is happening is simply that Paul is deliberately creating a scandal to get himself out of a difficult situation.

The virulence of his reaction stems from what he has just done, which introduces the conversation he has with his audience. Responding to the high priest, whose identity he did not know, he will say to him : God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law ! (Acts 23.3). However, whether he did not know his identity or not, it turns out that he has just cursed the high priest. Even though God had withdrawn from Saul, David trembled at having simply cut off a piece of his cloak. Paul is aware that he has just done something serious that risks having very direct consequences if he does not divert attention.

He cursed Aaron's descendant, who was in charge of the temple. Immediately after learning what he had just done, he decided to create a scandal in order to set the two parties against each other and thus divide them. Yet the Paul of the Epistles will repeatedly assert that this should not be done, as for example in the first epistle to the Corinthians, in the following two verses:

• 1 Corinthians 10.32-33 : Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God : 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

It should be noted that while the Paul of the Epistles says that one should not create scandal, specifying that he does not do so, he also adds that he does not seek his own advantage. Yet this is exactly what happened in the passage from Acts. He deliberately created a scandal in order to create division and gain an advantage from it. Also, this adds to the difference between the real Paul and the fictitious one of the 13 Epistles attributed to him.

c) His arrest.

This third problem is therefore again in verse 6. There he gives us the reason for his arrest. His words are very exactly : of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. We have already seen that he said this sentence specifically to create a scandal, but let us now see if in itself it is true. Especially since we know why he was arrested, the text of the book of the Acts of the Apostles takes us back to it.

Now we find the details of his arrest in chapter 21. First of all the text tells us:

• Acts 21.27-30 : And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help : This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place : and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple). 30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together : and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

So things are clear, according to this text, although they are mistaken, the people are in good faith. What the people believe is based on the fact that they thought Paul had brought Trophimus of Ephesus into the temple ( verse 29 ). This is the reason why they : drew him out of the temple. Then, the tumult attracts the Roman cohort who, unable to understand what is happening because of the hubbub, put Paul under arrest.

• Acts 21.31-33 : And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. 33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.

There, I have just shown the reason for his arrest, yet he affirms in his desire to create a scandal, that he is put on trial : of the hope and resurrection of the dead. The reason given is not in accordance with the reality expressed in this same book of the Acts of the Apostles.

This short passage therefore contains three specific points demonstrating that the Paul we are talking about still had a long way to go. And his presence in the Word of God is a vibrant reminder that God can use us during the journey and will not wait for us to be perfect according to our standards. It is obvious that Paul was frivolous in his remarks, and none of them is justifiable. It is not appropriate to look at them with a blind eye, but to admit that God acted in a moment of weakness for Paul, because he was still in transformation, as we all are. It is amusing to note the idolatry that many believers devote themselves to, who choose to understand this passage in a way that honors the person of Paul more than the truth. Yet the same behavior does not exist with regard to King David, whose faults everyone admits. These same faults whose importance is fundamental because nothing in the Word is there by chance, but everything has teaching value. God did not intend for His written Word to be thick to help us fill the long winter evenings, but because we needed the information preserved there for our own edification. To deny Paul's faults is to deny ourselves the lessons that were put there to help us grow. Paul was a bloodthirsty tyrant who met the Lord; that alone is a lesson in itself that should teach us to pray for the salvation of the tyrants who rule our peoples. But beyond that, what the book of the Acts of the Apostles shows us in various places is that Paul's sincerity had made him a tool for God, even though he still had flaws, some of which seemed severe. But what seems severe to men is not necessarily so to God, who judges man according to the truth and not according to appearances.

It is important to look at each character in the Word of God, detaching ourselves from what we would like him to be, so that the meaning of his presence becomes a driving force in our lives.

The essence of what is said here comes from the teaching on the notion of apostle, which can be found in its entirety in the following link ( link )

a) Barnabas, Paul, Jude et Silas.

The book of Acts of the Apostles presents several peculiarities regarding the very notion of apostle. The most obvious is that Judas had to have a replacement, and therefore there could only be 12 apostles of the Lord, not one more. This specification of apostle of the Lord, or of Jesus Christ, is never present in the book of Acts, yet it will be permanent thereafter. I will return to this shortly. The condition for being one of the 12 was strict:

• Acts 1:21-22 : Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

This makes this book the story of the 12 apostles.

The presence of verse 14 of chapter 14 is therefore a particularity :

• Acts 14.14 : Which when the apostles (apostolos), Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

This is the only time Barnabas and Paul are called apostles. It is strange, not that they are called apostles only once, but that they are called apostles at all. Precisely for the reason I mentioned before, there could only be 12, and if we do not know Barnabas, we at least know that Paul does not correspond in any way to the passage from Acts 1.21-22 quoted before. Moreover, Barnabas and Paul are both part of the church at Antioch which we are told specifically contained prophets and teachers, not Apostles (Acts 13.1 : Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul). The first thing to understand is that this specific appellation concerning them is made when they are in Lystra (Acts 14.8), therefore sent by the church of Antioch. This strangeness is better understood when we look at the rest more closely and specifically chapter 15.

Let us keep in mind, in understanding chapter 15 of the book of Acts of the Apostles, that Barnabas and Paul will not be called apostles again throughout the book of Acts.

The situation is that a dispute arises about circumcision between Barnabas, Paul, and the brothers in Antioch. Not finding an agreement, the brothers decide to go and ask the opinion of those who are the depositories of Jesus' authority, the Apostles. This means that Barnabas and Paul are not considered part of it (Acts 15.2 : When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles (apostolos) and elders about this question). A group is formed and all these fine people go up to Jerusalem and tell the Apostles what concerns them (Acts 15.4 : And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles (apostolos) and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them). After stating their difference, the apostles and elders met to discuss it, which means once again that Barnabas and Paul were not part of it (Acts 15.6 : And the apostles (apostolos) and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Finally, a decision was made and the Apostles and elders decided to add to Barnabas and Paul, Jude and Silas (who were prophets) and send them back to Antioch (Acts 15.22-23 : Then pleased it the apostles (apostolos) and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas ; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren : 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner ; The apostles (apostolos) and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia). These two will be the voice of the Apostles. So the troop goes to Antioch, and Jude and Silas are the voice of the Apostles. This is where a verse comes in that helps us understand why Barnabas and Paul are called apostles. The verse in question is :

• Acts 15.33 : And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles (apostolos).

What this translation tells us is that the brethren let them return in peace to the apostles. The real meaning is that they were sent back to those who made them apostles. Which indeed are the apostles. The difference is that the original meaning was talking about those who made them apostles. This may seem strange, but this is exactly what this verse means. Jude and Silas are the people concerned by this verse, even though Silas will decide not to return to Jerusalem. So, based on this chapter, there are 16 apostles in the book of Acts of the Apostles, the original 11, Matthias replacing Judas and finally Barnabas, Paul, Jude and Silas. The difference lies in the one who sends.

b) The one who sends.

Jesus is the apostle of God (Hebrews 3.1). The 12 disciples of Jesus are the apostles of Jesus, the other four are the apostles of the first 12. Once again, what makes this sentence strange is precisely the fact that the meaning of the word apostle is not yet sufficiently anchored in us. No matter what these 4 will or will not be later, in the immediate future, it is the 12 who sent them, they are therefore their ambassadors. When they arrive in Antioch, they do not speak for God, but for the apostles of Jesus. This is why when a dispute arises, the brethren of Antioch turn to those who sent Barnabas and Paul, they do not turn to God for the answer. They have a problem with the preaching of those who were sent, so they turn to those who sent them.

This is easier to understand with the text of the setting aside:

• Acts 13.2-4a : As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus, ...

This scene takes place in Antioch, the Holy Spirit is not speaking to Barnabas and Saul, but obviously, from the form of the sentence, to people in charge of this church, which are not specified. All that can be deduced with certainty is that the Holy Spirit did not speak to them, he did it to others by telling them to set them apart. They will do it and send them out, according to the will of the Holy Spirit, not Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus does not agree, but only that it is not Jesus who sends them. Only the first 12 and Matthias were sent by Jesus. So, although it is the Holy Spirit who gives the direction, it is the church that sets them apart, and finally, it is at their sending that they will be called 'apostles' (Acts 14.14 : The apostles Barnabas and Paul ...). They then end their journey in this same chapter and return to Antioch, therefore to their starting point, which ends their sending.

• Acts 14.26 : And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.

It is at the beginning of the next chapter that the trouble arises that will justify going to the apostles, at this point, Barnabas and Paul are no longer apostles. They were during their work, but it has ended. This is one of the differences with the apostolate of the first 12 and Matthias, their service as ambassadors (which means apostle) is permanent, because what Jesus (who is the one who sent them) told them to do is permanent.

The only one who calls Paul "an apostle of Jesus Christ" is the Paul presented in the epistles attributed to him. The book of Acts of the Apostles invalidates the possibility that anyone could be an apostle of Jesus Christ.