Was The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) The Rich Young Ruler? (2)

Over the last few years I have compiled a small number of fascinating pieces of circumstantial evidence that suggest that the Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was the rich young ruler spoken to by Jesus in Matthew 19. I've already written short posts about a few pieces of evidence here and here. Take a minute to read them before proceeding.

With Paul alive at the time of Christ's ministry, and asking Him what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus' reply to keep the commandments wouldn't have needed to include the first table of the law. Paul, being a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee, blameless in the keeping of the law (or at least the letter of the law) wouldn't need to be told to love God as a summary of the first table. When Saul asked which commandments to keep, Jesus replied with the list of commandments in the second table - all except one - and the summary of the table, to love one's neighbor as himself. Jesus left out the tenth commandment against coveting. Saul, being a ruler, would have known the law well. He surely would have noticed that Jesus left one commandment out. At this point, Jesus was helping him out by leaving that commandment out. Saul should have replied, "Hey, you left one commandment out, thou shalt not cov... Oh, I see. Coveting is my problem!"

But coveting was the rich young ruler's problem. It seems that he sought to justify himself by refusing to acknowledge the missing commandment, and instead confirming that he kept all the others that Jesus mentioned. It became obvious that coveting was Jesus' point, since He asked him to sell all his possessions and follow Him. The interesting tie-in with the Apostle Paul is that Paul singles out this very commandment in Romans 7 about coveting. "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'Thou shalt not covet.' ...and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me..." Romans 7:7, 10. [emphasis mine]

If Paul were the rich young ruler, his encounter with Jesus would have driven him away in sorrow, because he owned much property. He would have then used this tragic encounter to persecute Christ's followers. His coveting would have been too important to him to follow Jesus. But the Law would have convicted him of the magnitude of his problem, the pinnacle of conviction taking place on the Damascus road. That he would have allowed himself to persecute Christ Himself because of his coveting is why he could refer to himself as the chief of sinners. More circumstantial evidence to come in future posts. Read all posts on this topic here.