Question 129: Did Paul Baptize?

Answer:

He answers this question himself (1 Corinthians 1:17). He implies that he had something better to do. Moshiach sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. The value of baptism in the case of the Corinthian converts was that it was a public profession of their faith - it placed them on record. This result would be attained whoever administered the rite and therefore, Paul relegated the duty to some other believers. After he left, the Corinthians began to think there was some special significance about it and for this Paul reproves them.

Question 128: When did Paul go to Rome and how long did, he stay?

Answer:

According to the best available information, the shipwreck occurred in the year 56 A.D. and late in the autumn of that year Paul reached Rome as a prisoner. The length of his stay is uncertain. Acts 28:30 says two years and the author probably knew. It is probable that Paul was then set at liberty and made another preaching tour, going farther west than before. He was afterwards again seized and taken back to Rome. How long a time elapsed between his second arrival and his execution there no one knows.

Question 127: What was the date of Paul missionary journeys?

Answer:

Paul's introduction by the sacred historian (when he was a witness of Stephen's martyrdom), is supposed to have been about A. D. 36. At that time, he was probably between thirty and forty years of age. His conversion took place A.D. 37. He left Damascus A. D. 37. First missionary journey undertaken A. D. 44; his second, three years later and his third, four years after the second.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 126: Was Paul ever married?

Answer:

There is no evidence in the New Testament to show that he was ever married and commentators have held that various passages in which he urges celibacy, show him to have remained single by choice. But this is only an inference. Others take the opposite view, pointing out that at the age of thirty, he was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10) ; as such he "gave his vote" against the followers of Yeshua. Being the youngest of the judges, he was appointed "judicial witness" of the execution of Stephen. According to Maimonides, and the Jerusalem Gemara, it was required of all who were to be made members of that Council that they should be married and fathers of families, because such were supposed to be more inclined to merciful judgment. (See Life of St. Paul, by Conybeare and Howson, volume I, chapter 2.)

Question 125: What part did Paul have in the stoning of Stephen?

Answer:

Paul, at the time of Stephen's martyrdom, was more than a mere spectator; he was an active assistant. There is nothing in the Scripture to show that before his miraculous conversion, he had shown or expressed regret at his participation in Stephen's death. On the contrary, he had become and was, up to the moment when he was stricken down, one of the bitterest and most relentless persecutors of the believers. (See Acts 26:10, 12.) What he may have thought, in his own heart at times, of his share in the tragedy or what influence it may have had upon him, can only be a matter of surmise. There was nothing to outwardly reveal that he brooded over it or that he repented at all, before his own transformation.

Question 124: Was Paul familiar with the Scriptures?

Answer:

It is made clear in Acts 27 that Paul was familiar with "all the learning of the Greeks." Tarsus his native city, was a famous seat of learning and philosophical research and he probably had the advantage of training in its schools. The son of a Pharisee and trained from boyhood to the pursuits of a doctor of Jewish Law, he presumably was instructed in the elements of Rabbinical lore, including of course the Jewish Scriptures. These are the inferences of those writers who have studied his life career. This could not apply to the New Testament writings as we now know them, for they were only in the making and must have been very incomplete; but it is a fair presumption that in his later career, as an apostle, he was not ignorant of such writings as may then have been in existence, dealing with the events of Yeshua' life and ministry. There was no New Testament, in the modern meaning of the term in Paul's day and could not have been, for obvious reasons.

Question 123: What Was the Cause of the Dispute Between Peter and Paul at Antioch?

Answer:

"When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," wrote Paul in Galatians 2:11. In view of this statement of Paul, some have questioned whether we may regard both Paul and Peter as having been acting under inspiration. The question of inspiration is not involved in the incident that took place at Antioch, when Paul rebuked Peter for his inconsistency. It is simply a question of human weakness. While under the influence of certain High Church Jewish-believers, who came from James, Peter withdrew and separated himself from the Antioch believers, "fearing them of the circumcision." The result was that Barnabas, and doubtless many others, were affected by his example, which became a scandal in the community. To save the Church from an apostasy, Paul took Peter to task for his conduct and rebuked him openly, as his conduct was an attack on Gospel liberty. The writings of Paul and Peter that have found their way into the New Testament Canon are beyond doubt inspired, but to say that every word they uttered during their faith lives was inspired is what we do not believe. Paul and Peter had human weaknesses and limitations, like other men. But when they wrote authoritatively under the guidance of Ruach HaKodesh, they were kept free from errors and mistakes and in this way were inspired.

Question 122: What do we know of Paul’s personal appearance?

Answer:

All we know of it from his own writings, is found in 2 Corinthians 10:10, which indicates that he did not possess the advantage of a distinguished or imposing presence. His stature was somewhat diminutive; his eyesight weak (see Acts 23:5 and Galatians 4:15) nor did he regard his address as impressive. Much of this personal criticism however, may have been the outcome of the apostle's desire to avoid magnifying himself or his own talents. A fourth century tablet represents him as venerable-looking and dignified with a high bald forehead, full-bearded and with features indicating force of character. One ancient writer says Paul's nose was strongly aquiline. All the early pictures and mosaics, as well as some of the early writers (among them Malalus and Nicephorus) agree in describing the apostle as of short stature, with long face, prominent eyebrows, clear complexion and a winning expression, the whole aspect being that of power and dignity. The oldest known portrait is the Roman panel of the fourth century, already referred to above.

Frequently asked questions and answers:

Question 121: Who were Paul’s parents?

Answer:

The name of Paul’s parents is not given in the Scriptures. The only mention of his blood relations is in Acts 23:16 and Romans 16:7, 11, but whether Andronicus, Junia and Herodion were really relatives or simply friends is an open question.

Thought for Today: Shabbat January 18

There is a natural, elemental home instinct in our souls, which makes us turn instinctively towards YHVH Elohiym as a flower turns towards the sun.