In modern times Paul has not had a very good press. Thus Okot p’Bitek writes: “This ex-Pharisee, who has been described as the ugly little Jew, was a small man barely five feet tall, bow-legged, a chronic malaria patient with serious eye trouble. We learn from Acts Chapter IX that he became a mental case for a short time, and on recovery he joined the Christians whom he had formerly persecuted. Paul was a great woman hater” (Let the Earth Hear His Voice, p. 1219). Apart from the statements that Paul was an ex-Pharisee and that he joined the Christians whom he had earlier persecuted, none of this, of course, can be substantiated.
One wonders whether such writers ever take the trouble to read Paul. So much of what Paul contributed to our understanding of the Christian faith has passed into the common stock of Christian knowledge that few realize what we owe to him. Most Christians would, for example, unhesitatingly call John “the Apostle of love.” But Paul used the word agape, “love,” seventy-five times, while it is found in John’s Gospel only seven times, with a further eighteen in First John. True, John uses the corresponding verb more often than Paul (thirty-six times as against thirty-three), but Paul has an emphasis on love that ought not to be overlooked. He, not John, wrote First Corinthians 13, and the importance of love pervades all his writings. He addresses people as “beloved” twenty-seven times (next are II Peter and I John, each with six). He is fond of the word “brother” (one hundred and thirty-three times, with Acts next at fifty-seven).
These days we are fond of singing about “amazing grace.” About two out of every three New Testament occurrences of the word are in Paul (one hundred out of one hundred and fifty-five). Paul loved to dwell on what the grace of God is and does.
We should also include peace, that “peace of God, which passes all understanding.” The expression is, of course, a quotation from Paul (Phil. 4:7), who uses the word peace forty-three times, with Luke’s thirteen being next. It is not only that the concept means so much to Paul that he repeatedly uses it in a way the other New Testament writers do not. He brings out its significance as in Ephesians 2, where Christ’s atoning work is seen as bringing peace with God and man. In line with this Paul sometimes sees the atonement as a process of reconciliation. Some modern theologians see reconciliation as the most important single way of viewing Christ’s saving work. But those who press this view rarely go on to notice that this is an insight practically confined to Paul.
Indeed, much of what we commonly accept about Christ’s saving work we owe to Paul. We talk naturally about the Cross, but none of the New Testament writers does this except Paul. The Cross is mentioned in the accounts of the crucifixion and once in Hebrews. But apart from this it is only Paul who uses the term. So with the death of Christ. Other writers refer to it, of course, but they do so by using expressions like “the blood.” Explicit references to Christ’s death are almost all Pauline.
So is it with some of the concepts we commonly use to interpret that death. Paul taught us to speak of justification. In the sense of being accepted before God this idea is found once only in the Gospels, twice in Acts (in a speech of Paul’s, Acts 13:39) and three times in James in what seems to be a discussion aroused by some recollection of Paul’s teaching (James 2:21, 24, 25). We cannot say that the terminology is purely Pauline but we can say that it is only Paul in the New Testament who develops it into a significant category for interpreting Christ’s saving work. Imputation is also a Pauline concept, as is adoption.
Surprisingly, so is the Gospel. Paul uses the word “gospel” no less than sixty times out of its seventy-six New Testament occurrences (next is Mark with eight). In line with this is his love for the promises of God. The word promise is found in Paul twenty-six times, with the next most frequent use fourteen in Hebrews (since Hebrews is so much shorter, this shows that the concept is important to this writer also). Paul’s interest in promise is plain. He sees the purpose of God as marked out by the promises He made and coming to their fullness in the Gospel.
We often refer to our Saviour simply as Christ and it would seem that this too we owe to Paul. Paul uses the term three hundred and seventy-nine times and it is found in every one of his epistles. But outside Paul the most frequent use is in Acts where it is found twenty-five times. The highest number in the Gospels is nineteen in John and the highest in the non-Pauline epistles is twenty-two in First Peter. To speak of Christ is thus characteristically Pauline and while this is not confined to his writings it is not found anywhere else with anything like the frequency in Paul. This apostle also uses the human name Jesus quite often. His total of two hundred and thirteen times is exceeded only by John with two hundred and thirty-seven. Matthew has the name only one hundred and fifty times with both Mark and Luke in the eighties. Paul loved to dwell on the name of his Saviour.
P’Bitek’s verdict that Paul was a “great woman hater” is one that is often heard these days. Why is a mystery. If we were asked who of the New Testament writers was most interested in women we would probably say Luke. And we would be wrong. Luke uses the word “woman” forty-one times, but Paul sixty-four. And his words are not those of a woman-hater. It is true that he says that women should be in subjection to their husbands, but this is part of his argument that all Christians should be in subjection to one another (Eph. 5:21ff.).
He tells us that women should keep silence in the churches and learn by asking questions at home (1 Cor. 14:34ff.). We tend to fasten our attention on what was a first century commonplace, that women did not speak in public assemblies. And we pass over Paul’s revolutionary idea that Christian women should learn about the faith. Where else in the first century do we find the idea that women should learn? Everybody accepted the idea that education was for men.
Paul is clear that a wife has rights over her husband’s body, just as he has over hers (1 Cor. 7:4). He sees both sexes as equally necessary “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). He pays glad tribute to the work of women with whom he had labored (Phil. 4:3). In Romans 16 he refers to thirteen women as against eighteen men, not a bad proportion in a first century document.
Let us be done with the nonsense that Paul was a narrow-minded fanatic, principally noteworthy for his hatred of women. He was a great soul, and his influence on all subsequent Christianity may be gauged from the fact that so much that is now accepted as basic Christianity we owe under God to the great Apostle.
