Important Figure in Christian History - Essay Example

Introduction The apostle Paul is arguably the most important figure in Christian history besides Jesus himself (Miller, par His ministry was the defining factor leading to the spread of early Christianity. He was responsible for writing a large portion of the books comprising the New Testament. Paul's interpretation of the Crucifixion and preoccupation with the divinity of Christ, born out in his sacrifice and resurrection, helped set the tone for the tenants of Christianity. To Paul, Christ's life and teachings were secondary to the seminal event of his capital punishment and subsequent escape from the throes of death. Ironically, Paul did not consider himself to be Christian, nor a father of a new religion. Rather, he thought of himself as an observant Jew who believed the experience of Christ was a natural extension of Judaism. The prolific and well-documented writings of Paul, from his astute letters to the Corinthians to the Book of Romans, offer remarkable insight into his attitude and interpretation of how the Scriptures applied to the great moral and spiritual questions of his contemporaries. Paul's writings dealt with issues from homosexuality to the treatment of women. From them, one might glean a hint of what Paul's attitude would be with regard to the major moral questions of today. This paper considers how Paul would view the present day issue of capital punishment. The major scriptural evidence concerning this question seems to suggest that Paul would likely support the notion that capital punishment is just. Several of his writings have been interpreted as holding, implicitly or explicitly, that the state's authority to punish wrongdoers with death is upheld by God. For Paul, whose life's course was directed by perhaps the best known episode of capital punishment in human history, and who ultimately met the fate of a martyr himself through capital punishment, the notion that there were offenses worthy of state imposed death was natural and logical. Paul was a product of his time, and his attitudes reflected that reality. The Historical Paul According to Jeffery Sheler, "The Apostle Paul, some scholars now believe, was more instrumental in the founding of Christianity than anyone else--even Jesus himself" (par. 1). He goes on to describe Paul as "a tireless mercenary and prolific theologian [who] almost single-handedly transformed a fringe movement of messianic Jews into a vibrant new faith that, within a few generations, would sweep the Greco-Roman world and alter the course of Western history" (par. 2). Paul achieved a "larger-than-life" stature in the early Church that made him as much a target of those seeking to quell his revolutionary ideology as he was a spiritual leader of a budding new sect of Judaism. "He was reviled by religious and political adversaries and arrested, beaten, exiled, and eventually executed for his zealous preaching in the Roman precincts of the Mediterranean rim" (par. 3). John McRay, in his seminal work on Paul's life published in 2003, emphasizes that "Paul was not the founder of Christianity, that he never ceased to be a Jew, and that Christianity is not a Gentile religion" (p. 12). According to McRay, Paul's contribution to the development of Christianity was his assertion of the doctrine that either Jews or Gentiles could be saved through baptism in Christ. "Monotheism as seen in the faith of Abraham was the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith Paul proclaimed, and God is thus the Father of all believers" (p. 12). Thus, Paul's teaching molded an evolved and progressive formulation of Judaism; and he did not consider believers in Christ to be practicing a separate religion. Many biographical glimpses of Paul's life and his work can be found in the Acts of the Apostles. Born as Saul of Tarsus and brought up under the strict orthodox laws of Judaism, Paul's early career was actually devoted largely to persecution of Christians (par. 12). He subscribed to a particularly zealous sect of Judaism that advocated a kind of holy war against perceived heretics. "It was in that spirit of 'holy war' that Saul of Tarsus pursued the Christian heretics-men, women, and children-who when caught were often beaten, imprisoned, and even executed" (par. 13). Certainly his acts prior to his conversion evidenced an embracing of capital punishment, at least for heresy. Paul's conversion took place on the road to Damascus, where he was headed to arrest Christians. The book of Acts recounts that he was blinded and Jesus came to him with a directive to cease his persecution of Christians. He went on to Damascus where "he was 'filled with the Holy Spirit' and regained his sight, was baptized, and immediately began proclaiming Jesus as 'the Son of God'" (par. 15). Paul had been called to be "a witness to all the world;" and he carried out his mission to proclaim the inauguration of a "new age for Israel" as zealously as he previously carried out persecution of Christians. Did this conversion change Paul's attitude with regard to capital punishment Arguably he did undergo a fundamental paradigm shift that altered the moral framework in which he viewed capital punishment. Yet evidence from scripture suggests that he never stopped believing in the propriety of execution as a form of punishment, so long as it was sanctioned by God. Scriptural Evidence While the death penalty is debated today, in the First Century A.D. it almost certainly would not have been. The Bible itself is replete with examples of the ultimate sanction being carried out for offenses that, by today's standards, would seem to be relatively minor or not offenses at all, at least from the standpoint of legal responsibility. People were put to death for adultery, heresy, and many other acts that were repugnant to the morality-based laws of Judaism. Similarly, methods of execution that were routine in biblical times, such as stoning and crucifixion, would be considered barbaric, cruel and torturous today. Nevertheless, this was the world in which Paul lived. There is evidence in Paul's writings that he accepted the reality of the death penalty; and not only condoned it but upheld its propriety. In Acts 25:11 Paul asserts "if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar." Paul essentially acknowledges in this passage that it may be just to put him to death if he has transgressed the law. His appeal to Caesar would be the natural legal due process that one would consider to be the right of a person accused of a capital offense who pleads innocence. Paul did not consider the law of the governing authority to be less legitimate than God's law. In fact, his writings can be interpreted as suggesting that the government is God's channel to imposing his wrath upon evildoers. In Romans 13:1-4, Paul declares "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The notion that the political sovereign is a "minister of God" is fraught with potential problems. As we all know today, corruption is rampant in politics. Arguably, it was just as much a factor in Paul's day. What happens when the state has clearly transgressed the law of God Based on the evidence from Paul's writing, there is little or no allowance for refusing to submit to that rule even then. Perhaps it was Paul's view that God's will had put that governing authority in place, and when God wills that it be replaced due to transgressions or any other reason, then it will be. Until then, it is the responsibility of citizens to obey the law and submit to the rule of the political sovereign. This kind of political philosophy could be interpreted to apply to many different types of systems, from modern democracies to monarchies and dictatorships. The logical extension of that argument is that the laws passed by the governing authority, including those pertaining to the death penalty, are sanctioned by God. Paul was no hypocrite in this regard. He willingly subjected himself to the judgment of the governing authority, even when that judgment mandated his own death. As he was about to be martyred, Paul wrote to Timothy, "The time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith" (2 Tim. 4:6-7). Paul resigned himself to the reality that he would be put to death; and much as Jesus did not resist his arrest by Roman authorities and accepted his fate, Paul seemed to accept the judgment that he needed to be executed for teachings that were not consistent with the mainstream ideology of the time. Arguably, there is little reason to think Paul's attitude would be different today. The belief that acts of incumbent governments are willed by God is fairly common among the religious. Moreover, the number of crimes for which capital punishment would be meted out has been substantially reduced; and the means of administering capital punishment have become less cruel (although some would argue that the three drug cocktail administered in lethal injections simply masks the suffering of the condemned person). In the Western world, most countries no longer practice capital punishment at all, and those that do tend to confine its application to cases of murder. These changes make it even more likely that Paul would not be opposed to the death penalty today, given the intellectual religious framework within which he would approach this question. Conclusion The death penalty debate has been undertaken from the standpoint of public policy, politics, and religion. The religious aspect of the debate offers perhaps the most fascinating look at the fundamental questions of morality that are evoked by capital punishment. The commandment "though shalt not kill" is one of the pillars of Judeo-Christian life. How does one reconcile capital punishment with that immutable directive The Apostle Paul has offered a construct of the state as an agent of God that enables such reconciliation. A careful examination of the historical Paul, as well as his writings in scripture, reveal that his attitude toward capital punishment evolved from an eager embrace prior to his conversion, to a post-conversion acceptance of the justice of the death penalty provided that due process is observed. Paul's contributions to the formation of Christianity cannot be overstated. The extent to which he proselytized following his own conversion experience essentially made him the father of Christianity. Having written roughly half the books comprising the New Testament, Paul has left a legacy of early Church doctrine that provides great insights into his attitudes, beliefs and interpretations of scripture. These insights can inform a deeper understanding of many vexing issues confronting modern society, such as the death penalty. Works Cited McRay, John. Paul: His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Miller, S. "The Quest for the Historical Paul: Would Your Congregation Want this Apostle to be its Pastor" Christianity Today. 41(1997):39. Sheler, J. "Reassessing an Apostle." U.S. News & World Report. 126(1999):52. The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952. Also, as you requested, here is how you should cite to this paper: Kriston, Steven A. "How Would the Apostle Paul View the Present Day Issue of Capital Punishment" 2006. For in text parenthetical cites, you want to cite to Kriston and the paragraph number. Read More