Twin Pillars

Solemnity of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

Today’s feast is an important one in our Church’s calendar but is not one which gets the attention it deserves because it’s not always that the twenty ninth of June falls on a Sunday. So, don’t be surprised and think this is a new celebration in view of the fact that we have a newly minted Pope. It is a feast of not only one but two Apostles of the Lord, in fact, described in Tradition and in our liturgy as the Princes of the Apostles. St Peter, whose birth name was Simon, is one of the Twelve. St Paul, though not one of the Twelve and not one of the followers of the Lord while He was still on this earth, is also regarded an apostle of the Lord by his own designation in his letters. Some mistakenly believe that Paul also underwent a name change after his conversion, but he actually had two names - Saul was his Jewish name and Paul was his Latin name, since he was a Roman citizen.

Though Saints Peter and Paul were not martyred on the same day, they lived and died as twin giants for one Church and share a feast day, befitting their friendship and their leadership. There is something wonderful in these two holy heavyweights sharing a feast, forever shouldering each other like brothers in their zeal for the Father and acting as twin pillars of the Church. One of the reasons, among many, why they were paired from the earliest centuries of the Church, is not because of their association and encounters recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters, but because they served as a new paradigm for the refounding of the city of Rome, contrasted with another set of siblings - the legendary twin founders of the Eternal City who were said to have been raised by a she-wolf.

According to legend, Romulus and Remus, the former after whom the city of Rome was named, were abandoned at birth and cast into the Tiber River where they were discovered by a she-wolf who nursed them. When they grew up, the twins embarked on a quest to found their own city. Romulus and Remus disagreed about which hill to build their city on. Eventually, Romulus just started digging a ditch around the Palatine Hill and built a wall to mark the boundaries. Remus mocked his brother’s work, and in a fit of anger Romulus killed him and then buried him under the wall which Romulus erected around the city. The story is reminiscent of the first account of fratricide in the Bible; Cain killed his brother Abel. It is also ironic that Rome and her empire were founded on fratricide.

Now contrast this with the re-founding of Rome through the spread of Christianity by Saints Peter and Paul. Although both were unrelated and came from vastly different backgrounds and places of origin, they would find a common home in the city of Rome where both will be martyred. It is more than coincidence that their places of martyrdom and burial would be separated by the ancient wall which had separated the two ancient founders of Rome. St Peter would be martyred and buried within the walls while St Paul would be entombed outside the walls. Two eponymous major basilicas sit above their respective tombs.

Like Romulus and Remus, Peter and Paul too had their disagreements. If anyone had a cause for strife and division, it was these two. They had little in common. Paul was the chief persecutor of the early Christians led by Peter. Even after Paul’s conversion, there were also heightened moments of tension and disagreement between the two, especially on how Gentile converts to Christianity should be treated. In fact, Paul speaks of confronting Peter to his face for backtracking on an earlier decision to welcome these Gentile converts without condition. It took divine action to make these enemies into brothers. Peter and Paul were ultimately bound together in a bond stronger than blood: the love of Christ.

It is in this love that Peter and Paul had the foundation of their relationship. Through Christ, these two men were closer than twins in the womb. Peter and Paul are often depicted together in iconography in a circle, embracing one another in a brotherly hug with expressions of affection, like a pair of twins in the womb of their mother. This orientation is also reflected in the two Roman basilicas built over their tombs. Instead of just facing East, the direction of the rising sun from which the Lord is said to return, the two basilicas face each other across the Tiber - as if perennially yearning to be united in an eternal embrace. In contrast, images of Romulus and Remus, the mythological twins, are usually facing away from each other, as one ended up killing the other.

Peter and Paul remind us that brothers can be born from unlikely sources and that the spiritual bonds of fraternity can be stronger than blood ties. What is stronger than the blood which runs through our veins is the blood shed for us on the cross, a blood which has inspired so many Christians to give up their own life’s blood in knowing that eternal glory awaits them on the other side of the threshold of death. Peter and Paul were united in such a death as this. Early Christian tradition tells us they were imprisoned together for nine months before their martyrdoms on the same day. If the Old Rome was built on fratricide, brother killing brother, the New Rome and her Kingdom were founded on fraternal love, brothers dying for each other.

Today, the effigies of these two great Apostles stand as guardians to the entrances of the major Basilica of St Peter, as stone lions would in front of Chinese temples in the East. If the stone lions were meant to keep evil and inauspicious forces out, our two saints beckon to welcome pilgrims of the world to enter. A pillar must always have a partner, and so Peter and Paul are the twin pillars that hold up the doorway of the Church. So staunch are they that the rest of the faithful must celebrate their feast days together as one. They shared their life for the Faith, and so, to this day, they share it also in the observation of their glorious entrance into life eternal. As we celebrate the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, let us look to their model of fraternal correction and mutual love as we work to spread the gospel message in our own lives.

Pruned to bear even more

 Fifth Sunday of Easter Year B

We often have the impression that St Paul’s transition, from a zealous persecutor of Christians to become the Church’s greatest missionary and preeminent theologian, founding countless churches in the process of his arduous journeys and tireless preaching, was easy and uneventful after the initial dramatic event of his conversion on the road to Damascus. The first reading taken from the Acts of the Apostles debunks this myth and gives us an entirely different picture.

The indifference, cold reception and even opposition which St Paul faced in the early Christian community and with its leadership is understandable. His motives were still unclear and his conversion still a subject of doubt and questioning by those whom he had once hunted and persecuted. Given the negative reception he received from the Christian community in the early years of his new found faith, many of us would have wondered why he chose to stay, what would have motivated him to persevere, even tolerating insults and putting up with humiliation at the hands of fellow Christians. I believe that many would have walked out for a much lesser offence. I’m sure you’ve heard a number of anecdotal stories from ex-Catholics who cite hurts, hostility and inhospitality as some of the reasons for leaving the Catholic Church.

Was there something the Church could have done to prevent their leaving? Could the Church learn how to be more hospitable and accommodating, less demanding? Now, there is nothing wrong with hospitality. Having a welcoming spirit is always welcomed. But should hospitality compromise the truth? Should this mean that we have to insulate and protect all our members and bubble wrap them and their feelings to keep them from being hurt or offended? Should we make Christianity less demanding and more accommodating?

I believe you already know the answer and it’s an unpopular one. Let us look at the person of St Paul or Saul, as he was known in our first reading. The experience of St Paul, being rejected by his own community and later subjected to all kinds of trials and hardship, was not just a natural outcome of his sudden conversion, but a necessary part of his spiritual journey. His conversion did not end on the road to Damascus; it had only begun. It is as if every branch that bore no fruit had to be cut away, every stalk that did bear fruit had to be pruned to make it “bear even more.” These experiences would eventually shape his mission and preaching. He would rather risk being unpopular and even being beaten, then to bend and soften the gospel to accommodate the sensitivities of his audience.

St Paul’s resilience could be in part, be the result of his understanding and assimilating today’s gospel into his life. Our Lord, in introducing Himself as the Vine and we the branches, explains that there are two necessary conditions if we wish to bear fruit from this relationship. The first condition is to “remain”, or in some translations “abide”, in Him. Cut off from Him, we are nothing and we “can do nothing.” Our strength, our fecundity, our effectiveness, wholly depends on Him and is derived from Him.

But there is a second condition to this Master-disciple, Vine-branch relationship. Remaining is just the first prerequisite but there is the second element of pruning. In fact, pruning and remaining corresponds with the two-fold invitation of our Lord to all potential disciples: “Repent and believe in the gospel;” and in another place, “deny yourself .... and follow me.” In the traditional description of the three stages of spiritual development, the purgative, the illuminative and the unitive, the purgative corresponds with the pruning and the remaining corresponds with the illuminative and unitive stages. But pruning is not just meant for some, for beginners on the spiritual journey. It is meant for every one and needed for every stage of our spiritual journey. Listen to what our Lord says: “Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more.”

Notice that it is not only those who are barren, who are fruitless, who would need pruning, but also those who are bearing fruit, because such pruning will allow them to “bear even more.” When the pruning stops, even when a tree starts to bear fruit, it may soon become barren unless the pruning continues. We see in this wonderful analogy, the necessity of pain and suffering in nurturing growth. Pain is to a disciple’s spiritual growth, what pruning is to the development of a fruit on a tree. Pruning is not a punishment for a Christian; it is a reward. Spiritual pruning enhances spiritual growth by removing whatever inhibits spiritual growth. As Victor Hugo wrote, “adversity makes men, prosperity makes monsters.” When children are shielded from adversity, they end up becoming spoilt entitled brats.

But isn’t freedom from pain and suffering the ultimate goal of Christian life? In fact, many Christians pursue Christian discipline precisely because they wish to be blessed by God and be preserved from trouble and danger. I believe most Christians have gotten it wrong in this area, which explains how common it is for Christians to complain that God has been unfair to them - good people seem to have it tough whereas bad people seem to flourish and do well. Such complaints betray a misconception in theology, especially in understanding the place of suffering in a Christian’s life.

Freedom from pain and suffering is a promise of a Christian’s future glorification; but pain and suffering are a part of his present sanctification. No pain no gain. In this life, the cross is a necessary part of our spiritual journey. The pain of spiritual pruning is not the result of a malicious and sadistic God who loves watching us suffer, rather such pain arises from our inordinate attachments, our inability to let go of the things which inhibit our spiritual growth. When these things which we are attached to are removed from our lives, we are enhanced, not diminished. Whenever the Lord prunes us, we lose a part of ourselves, but it’s the part we can do without - our pride, our stubbornness, our selfishness, our greed, our ambitions, our need for approval. But in doing so, our attachment to Him the Vine, becomes strengthened and because of the tightening of this bond, we are enriched in virtue and grace.

So, the next time you encounter adversity or difficulty, do not resist or run away or complain. Instead, welcome it as a blessing. Obediently and patiently submit to the pruning hand of the Vine Dresser. Don’t just settle for what is easier, more convenient, more comfortable, less demanding. Rather, give to God your best and your greatest – Deo Optimo Maximo – knowing that whatever He has pruned from your life, will not make you poorer but richer, it will not make you weaker but stronger, it will not make you smaller but greater. As how the Lord promised St Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor 12:9)

Concordia Apostolorum

Solemnity of St Peter and St Paul

People who know me would know that I have an obsession with what seems to be Catholic trivia – small tiny details with regards to Catholic architecture, art, music and history all excite me, to say the least. One of the most exciting things which I have discovered over the years is this little publicised or known fact about the major basilicas in Rome dedicated to the two great apostolic princes, patron saints of Rome, we fete today. Now, you may have heard me mention that churches were traditionally built with a certain orientation, facing East, the position of the rising sun and the direction Christ ascended to heaven and is expected to return. Interestingly, the word “orientation” comes from the Latin “Orient,” which means “East”.

The two basilicas, the Basilica of St Peter in Vatican City and the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls, however, were not built with the above orientation in mind. Their architects, or at least those responsible for the rebuilding, enlargement of these two great churches, built them with a deliberate intention of making them face each other – both stood on opposite banks of the River Tiber facing the direction of the river which divides the city of Rome into East and West (or north and south), standing as emblems and guardians of Rome – one to its north and the other to its south. The symbolism of this configuration witnesses to the fraternal camaraderie of these two great apostles. It was St Augustine who spoke of their twinning in this fashion: “Both apostles share the same feast day, for these two were one; And even though they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter went first, and Paul followed. And so we celebrate this day made holy for us by the apostles' blood. Let us embrace what they believed, their life, their labours, their sufferings, their preaching, and their confession of faith.”

According to early Christian traditions, Peter and Paul met one last time in Rome under the persecution of Nero.  They were imprisoned together in the Tullianum, Rome’s oldest prison reserved for the greatest enemies of the state.  For nine months, Peter and Paul “pray, preach, and prepare” for their birth into eternal life.  Little is known about this period of their lives but it must have been a time of grace for the friends to spend so much time together discussing the things of God.  Artists have rightfully been captivated by the final embrace between the Christian brothers as each goes off to give the ultimate testimony of their earthly life.  Peter was crucified upside down on the western side of the Tiber River and Paul was beheaded on the eastern side, perhaps in God’s Providence so that from both sides of the river, the whole city, might be sanctified by their blood. And finally, the two basilicas, which stand as living testimonies of their martyrdom, mark the spots where their remains were said to be buried.

Both in art as well as in architecture (the orientation of the two basilicas facing and reaching out to each other), Saint Peter and Saint Paul, once rivals, are now depicted as embracing each other in symmetric unity with their arms intertwined, a form of image known as the Concordia Apostolorum - “The Apostolic Harmony.”  Two men, from such different backgrounds, made brothers in Christ and apostles to the whole world.  It is hard for us to imagine the love that they had and now have for one another, the depth of their friendship brought about through their shared faith in Jesus Christ. 

The early Fathers saw the harmony of these two apostles as a historical allusion that recalls the legend of the founding of the city of Rome by the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus, both sons of a wolf mother.  Their city matured into an Empire that was one of the most powerful civilisations in human history.  Yet over 800 years from the founding of the city of Rome, another set of brothers, Peter and Paul, not natural brothers, but united by the bonds of the Spirit in Christ, laid a foundation of a new civilisation which would outlast and outshine the Roman Empire.

The contrast between these two sets of “brothers” is remarkable.  According to the ancient Roman myth, Rome was violently established when Romulus killed his brother as they laid the city’s walls.  In comparison, Peter and Paul built up the civilisation of love found in the Church with brotherly affection by tearing down the walls between nations and tribes.  The Roman Empire, would rule the world through fear and violence under the shroud of the pax romana.  Peter and Paul would set the example for the Church to serve the world through faith and charity under the mantle of the pax Christi.  The spiritual kingdom of the Church would far surpass the boundaries of time and space to which the Roman Empire had aspired. 

As noted by Pope St. Leo the Great, the Roman Empire which was the great teacher of error became the disciple of Truth under the guidance of the two great apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Through preaching truth in word and practicing charity in deed, Saint Peter and Saint Paul re-founded the city of Rome for Christ. Even though Peter and Paul were to continue in their mission to preach the good news to both Jews and Gentiles, Paul was confirmed in his special mission to the Gentiles as Peter was confirmed in his preaching to the Jews. 

Since the first Rome was founded on fratricide, Rome needed to be re-founded as a Christian city in fraternal love.  The blood of the brothers united in Christ serves as the seed of the Church which will grow in time.  We sing their praises together, according to Tertullian, because they “poured forth all their teaching along with their blood.”  Their witness in teaching and their blood is what truly makes Rome the urbs sacra and urbs aeterna, the Holy and Eternal City.  It was their martyrdom in Rome that at last led to the unending reunion between Peter and Paul in the true Holy and Eternal City, the Heavenly Jerusalem.  For eternity, they are united with one another and with their Redeemer who called them both to the great mission of bringing the gospel to the entire world.

Since their bond and mission was based on Truth and Love, it should not be surprising that it should also be marked by fraternal correction for fraternal correction flows from love. Saint Paul publicly admonishes Peter for his actions in backtracking in an earlier decision (cf. Gal 2:11).  Often this scene is over emphasised by those pitting Peter and Paul against one another.  Rather, it should be read as a passage demonstrating true fraternal correction, the fruit of fraternal love.  Because of the bonds of friendship forged in the love of Christ, Paul objects to Peter’s actions.  Paul is concerned with Peter’s deeds not his doctrine. An admonishment like this could rupture any friendship but not for these two.  In fact, it led to its growth between these two men.

Today as we contemplate these two pillars of the Church, our prayer should be to re-commit ourselves to the Church’s unity and mission in all aspects of our lives. It is a mission not just to confirm and encourage our brothers and sisters, but a mission which also demands fraternal correction. For without Truth, love would be a lie. With the grace that comes through that prayer, together we can all be the sign of unity in Christ that God intends for the healing of our often fragmented Church and disordered world.

Continuity and Reform

Solemnity of Ss Peter and Paul

I have often wondered why these two saints, Peter and Paul, were celebrated together. Were not each deserving of a special day of celebration, each in his own right? Both had certainly earned it. Who could say enough about these great preachers of our faith? Yet, the Church, in its wisdom, had deigned to celebrate the feast of their martyrdom on a single date. In a sermon in the year 395, St. Augustine of Hippo said of Sts. Peter and Paul: “There is one day for the passion of two apostles. But these two also were as one; although they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter went first, Paul followed. We are celebrating a feast day, consecrated for us by the blood of the apostles. Let us love their faith, their lives, their labours, their sufferings, their confession of faith, their preaching.”

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who had a knack of drawing catechesis out of stone, had this to say about the juxtaposition of these two figures, standing as guardians at the Plaza of St Peter’s Basillica. “Christian tradition has always considered Saint Peter and Saint Paul to be inseparable: indeed, together, they represent the whole Gospel of Christ. In Rome, their bond as brothers in the faith came to acquire a particular significance. Indeed, the Christian community of this City considered them a kind of counterbalance to the mythical Romulus and Remus, the two brothers held to be the founders of Rome. A further parallel comes to mind, still on the theme of brothers: whereas the first biblical pair of brothers demonstrate the effects of sin, as Cain kills Abel, yet Peter and Paul, much as they differ from one another in human terms and notwithstanding the conflicts that arose in their relationship, illustrate a new way of being brothers, lived according to the Gospel, an authentic way made possible by the grace of Christ’s Gospel working within them. Only by following Jesus does one arrive at this new brotherhood ...”

The common feast day of the “twin” apostles, so to speak, brings a long biblical pattern to its final expression. Throughout the bible, one tradition seemed responsible for stability and continuity, the other for enrichment and expansion. The first conscientiously cared for flock and protected it from external threats; the second looked beyond the safe confines of the paddock. The first secured survival, the second made the survival worthwhile. The first pointed out the way to the final destination; the second enriched the stages along the way. Of course, Peter symbolises the first, Paul the second.

As we celebrate the martyrdom of these two apostolic princes, we can wrestle with what often appears to be factionalism and polarisation within the Church, between those who stand as guardians of Tradition and orthodoxy and those others who advocate for greater reform and progress. A clear example of this split can be seen in the manner of interpreting the significance of the Second Vatican Council and its implementation. The fifty years following the Council has been racked by differing theological opinions about the significance of this Council, but basically, whether this ecumenical Council had taken the path of St Paul to move beyond traditional confines symbolised by St Peter, or was the Council merely another stage in a continuous stream of renewal and reform over the centuries, articulating the eternal gospel in new ways without changing its content? Our last three pontiffs, Popes St John Paul II, Benedict XVI and recently Francis, teach that we must read the documents of the Second Vatican Council in the light a hermeneutics of continuity or renewal rather than one of rupture, in other words, that the teachings of Vatican II form a link and are in continuity with the teachings prior to the Council, rather than the latter having replaced and overridden the former. Pope Benedict XVI reminds us, “The Church both before and after the council is the same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church journeying through time.”

The lessons of history, however, show us that the Church, always firmly rooted in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, is reformed and always reforming. “Semper ecclesia reformanda” (“The Church is always reforming”), as Pope St. Gregory I the Great taught. Continuity and reform provide the correct map for the study and implementation of Vatican II.  Pope St John XXIII, who convened the Second Vatican Council, saw in the work of the Council a synthesis of faithfulness and dynamism in the spirit of Sts. Peter and Paul.

The essential complementariness of these two different apostolic personalities mirrors the two great Popes of our times, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Pope Francis. For the first time in a long time, there are two living Popes. Unfortunately, the secular media and certain quarters who advocate a hermeneutics of rupture often attempt to pit the style and focus of Pope Francis against his predecessor, Pope Benedict. Often, in heaping praises on the new pope, one tends to cast odium on his predecessors – Pope Francis, portrayed as a modern St Paul, is often depicted as undoing and correcting the regime of Pope Benedict, the more conservative St Peter. Ironically, most people who enjoy juxtaposing the popes fail to recognise that comparisons of their dress style or anything else for that matter is tripe & even unfair. What Francis does not intend, we may be sure, is that his actions and teachings are to be seen as contradicting his predecessors and their legacy. Francis himself has publicly paid tribute to the vast contributions of Pope Benedict and has also affirmed his support for the hermeneutics of continuity rather than discontinuity.

As we reflect on these issues, we can find a model in St Peter and St Paul for dealing with issues of continuity and renewal. Yes, Peter and Paul, two pillars of the Church, were different in personalities and had different vocations, yet they were united in one testimony: they gave their lives for the love of Jesus and the gospel. While Peter represents stability and continuity in the Christian community, Paul represents the missionary outlook of the Church. The Church at large, human society and each individual are a mixture of these two lines: one that cautiously seeks to be rooted, the other that acts excitedly across many barriers and/or boundaries; one that must ultimately take responsibility for all actions, the other that is always dreaming new visions. Rather than to see one in conflict the other, the examples of our two apostolic princes demonstrate that these paradigms can be and indeed are complementary. Thus reminding us that the Church is both universal and particular, ever ancient and ever new, unvaryingly pastoral and always missionary. Yes, the Church breathes not with a single lung but with two, one Peter, the other, Paul.

The appearance to us this day of both these luminaries together brightens the Church, for their meeting produces a wealth of light, not an eclipse. It is not the case that one has a higher orbit and is placed above, while the other is lower down and passes under his shadow: Nor does one rule the day, the other the night, such that one would overshadow the other if they appeared opposite each other. Rather, both share equally in Christ, the everlasting source of eternal light, and have attained to the same height, glory and radiance.

St Paul - Jew or Hellenist? Part 6

Paul, the Hellenist

Although, Paul was in every sense a ‘Jew,’ he was undeniably also a Hellenistic Jew who wrote in Greek, used the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and was certainly influenced by Hellenism. According to Grant, his Judaism (although he was zealously devoted to it) was not the orthodox variety current in Palestine. “Instead it was the Judaism of the Western Diaspora, already tinged with Hellenism through the use of the Greek language and the consequent adoption of certain Greek modes of thought.”(1) From his own account and as was noted earlier, Paul was born in Tarsus and would have lived in this cosmopolitan city during various intervals of his life. If the latter was true, then Paul would have grown up in an atmosphere in which he was as familiar with Greek and Roman thought as he was with the Jewish thought of his own race and nation. To what extent or in what way was Paul influenced by the prevailing Hellenistic culture? The tendency in the past was to say that a Hellenistic milieu explained the emergence of Paulinism. This view is not generally held at present. Still the thought world of Paul and that of contemporary Hellenistic culture had much in common. In his writings and speeches as recorded in Acts, Paul’s theology did contain certain elements of Greek culture as is seen in his use of concepts and ideas like freedom, reason, nature, conscience, sobriety, virtue and duty.

An example of Paul’s familiarity with Greek philosophy and rhetorical methods can be seen in his address at the Athens (Acts 17). The main arguments of the speech (17:24-29) building on the common ground of Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic sources, make a case for the nature of the one true God and a case against idolatry. Hansen argues that Paul’s connection with early Greek philosophers is strengthened by the way that Luke weaves several allusions to Socrates into his narrative.(2) Like Socrates, Paul engaged in dialogues – “… in the market place he debated every day with anyone whom he met” (Acts 17:17). Also like Socrates, he was charged with proclaiming ‘foreign gods’ (17:18). So like Socrates, Paul was put on trial to give account of his ‘new teaching’ (17:19). Luke, according to Hansen, is trying to indicate the favourable reception which the Aeropagus address should receive from his readers in the Greek world by this association of Paul with Socrates.

We also see hints of Paul’s contact with Greek philosophy in some of his writings. For example, Paul, like the Platonists before him, wrote to the Romans that human reason is a way of coming into contact with the absolute Good, but of course he gave that ‘good’ the name of God: “For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse” (Rom 1:19-20). But Paul had also to temper the thought of the Platonists. They were too pessimistic about the body and the material world. He wrote to the Corinthians: “But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? … What (the body) is sown is contemptible but what is raised is glorious; what is sown is weak, but what is raised is powerful” (1 Cor 15:12, 43). The Platonists were also too optimistic about self-knowledge. Paul wrote likewise to the Corinthians: “Any one of you who thinks he is wise by worldly standards must learn to be a fool in order to be really wise. For the wisdom of the world is folly to God” (1 Cor 3:18-19). Against Stoicism, Paul offered Christian insights into a personal God, into an eternal afterlife, and into an active love of others rather than passive self-interest. But like Stoicism, Paul also affirmed the mystery of Divine Providence and provided glimpses into the unity of the human race and of all of creation. In Corinthians, we see that he especially liked the Stoic concern for self-discipline in ethics: “Do you not realise that, though all the runners in the stadium take part in the race, only one of them gets the prize? Run like that -- to win. Every athlete concentrates completely on training, and this is to win a wreath that will wither, whereas ours will never wither” (1 Cor 9:24-25). In Thessalonica Paul found something to affirm the philosophy of the Epicureans, though, he had other purposes in mind: “… we do urge you, brothers, to go on making even greater progress and to make a point of living quietly, attending to your own business and earning your living, just as we told you to, so that you may earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependent on anyone” (1 Th 4:10-12). Still, Paul warned the Corinthians about Epicurean hedonism: “If the dead are not going to be raised, then Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall be dead. So do not let anyone lead you astray, 'Bad company corrupts good ways” (1 Cor 15:33-34). Verse 33 of 1 Corinthian 15 may actually be a quotation from Menander.(3)

As important as philosophy was to culture of Paul’s cities, it was centered on the individual and gave little sense of community. To those alienated in the society – especially the freed persons and salves, but even others who were uprooted from their native lands – philosophy brought no sense of belonging or of salvation. Since the state religions were in decline, some people turned toward magic, many others toward ‘mystery religions.’ These were a way of getting control over life or to influence the powers who did have control. The Galatians and Colossians were both tempted to such practices and Paul warns them: “whereas now that you have come to recognise God -- or rather, be recognised by God -- how can you now turn back again to those powerless and bankrupt elements whose slaves you now want to be all over again?” (Gal 4:9). The people who were entering mystery religions or cults also yearned for a saviour God, for acceptance by an intimate community. Here too, Paul met their needs, preaching Jesus as the true saviour, stressing Christian life as a community in Christ with its initiation by baptism and its sacred meal of the Eucharist. Still, Paul also had to encourage them to ethical concerns beyond a feeling of salvation and to an open community without secrets. In fact, this Hellenistic influence is detected more in Paul’s ethical teaching than in his theology proper.

What of Paul’s style of writing? Certainly he was completely at home in the Greek language, which would only support the presupposition of his Hellenistic background and education. Although he does not write literary ‘koine’, his style betrays a good Greek education. In fact, Greek was the language of commerce and government in the eastern parts of the Roman empire. But although Paul’s style is individual, recent studies prove beyond doubt that Paul knew and used the methods of the Greek orators of his time. Even if Paul had not been trained as a professional rhetorician, his mode of composition and expression often reveals the influence of Greek rhetoric. Again and again the structure of his letters conforms to models set forth by Quintilian and other ancient rhetoricians. In dealings with his opponents in Second Corinthians he resorts to the types of arguments and emotional appeals that we find in Socrates and in the whole Socratic tradition. The apparent digressions that have puzzled commentators in such a letter as First Corinthians had a definite and recognized rhetorical function. In defending his policy not to accept financial support he argued like a Cynic philosopher. His writing sometimes reflects the Cynic-Stoic diatribe (Rom 2:1-20; 3:1-9; 9:19; 1 Cor 9). His catalogues are similar to the catalogues of vices and virtues put forth especially by Stoic philosophers (Gal 5:19-23). The content of his ethical teaching may be Jewish, true-and-true, and the theological basis and motivation of it are certainly Christian, but in persuading his hearers Paul often uses ‘commonplaces,’ i.e. standard topics and examples to be found in Hellenistic philosophy, such as the athletic metaphors (Phil 2:16).

The influence of a Hellenistic culture is also seen in his use of images and terms derived from a city-culture (note that Jesus uses images drawn from the rural countryside): ‘commonwealth’ (Phil 3:20) and ‘fellow citizens’ (Eph 2:19) are Greek political terms; ‘account’ (Philemon 18) is a Greek commercial term; ‘will’ (Gal 3:15) is a legal designation and ‘slave-free’ (1 Cor 7:22) is an expression drawn from the slave-trade found different parts of the Roman Empire. He employs the Hellenistic ideas of ‘freedom’ (Gal 5:1, 13) and ‘conscience’ (1 Cor 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25-29; 2 Cor 5:11; Rom 2:15), and the Stoic ideas of ‘sufficiency’ or ‘contentment’ (2 Cor 9:8), and ‘nature’ (Rom 2:14).

Though it is easy enough to underestimate the influence of the Hellenistic culture on Paul’s life and thought, it is not easy at all to define its extent. Indeed, the phenomenon of ‘Hellenisation’ was so extensive in Hellenistic Judaism (and even in the Judaism as practiced in Palestine) that it is often difficult to segregate and label concepts as either Jewish or Hellenistic. Whatever may have been the actual influence of Hellenism over his theological thinking, we cannot deny the fact that he was born and sojourned in a Hellenistic city, a crossroad of the Empire, a center of Greek learning, and that he was a citizen of Rome. These factors would certainly have contributed to a universal vision, to his becoming par excellence apostle to the Gentiles. In many ways, then Paul addressed the world of his times. He moved Christianity from its Jewish roots to the Gentiles. This would lead to great struggle between Christians of Jewish background and the Christians of Gentile background, an issue that we will see recurring in his letters and recorded in Acts.

1. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962) , 146.
2. G. Walter Hansen, “The Preaching and Defence of Paul” in Marshall (ed), Witness to the Gospel, 310.
3. Menander, Thais, frg. 218, Joseph Fitzmyer, “Pauline Theology” in Raymond E. Brown et al (ed), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1990) 1382-1416, cf. 1385 n. 82:12.