Was The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) The Rich Young Ruler? (4)

Read all posts on this idea here.

"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, just as you all are today." Acts 22:3

I have written several posts on the idea whether Paul was the rich young ruler from Matthew 19.  Here in this passage, Paul gives his story to the Jews in Jerusalem, and mentions that he was brought up in Jerusalem.  I had not noticed this before.  So, my original question about where Saul could have been during the life and ministry of Jesus has been answered.

Saul was brought up in Jerusalem, and was a Pharisee, so he certainly would have been aware of Jesus.  I cannot imagine that he would have not had direct contact with Jesus given Jesus' record of talking with religious leaders and going to all the feasts and being the center of attention so many times.  Check out all of my posts on this topic here.

Was The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) The Rich Young Ruler? (3)

Read all posts on this idea here.

After posting part 2 of this series last night, and reviewing comments left by a reader named Chadwick, many new angles to this idea popped into my head and I had a hard time sleeping. After church today I hit up my pastor with a theological question. I occasionally broadside him with something theological out of the blue, so he humorously braced himself. "Is there a reason you know of off the top of your head that prohibits the rich young ruler from being Saul of Tarsus?" His reply floored me. He was just discussing this very thing with his wife last night!

So, here I'm going to outline what I suspect so far as briefly as I can, and I will include my new thoughts. I may save detailed explanations until later. So, here goes...

A few years ago I started wondering about the Apostle Paul's past. Where did he come from and why did he persecute the church so much? Specifically, since he is first mentioned in the bible as Saul of Tarsus who was standing by during the stoning of Stephen, could he have been both alive and in Jerusalem during Christ's ministry? The early happenings in the book of Acts occurred just weeks or months after Christ's death, and revolved around the temple in Jerusalem. If so, would he ever have had occasion to meet Christ? He was after all a Pharisee, and the Pharisees spent much time in Jesus' face as He ministered. Specifically, I wondered (I don't know why) if he could have been the rich young ruler that asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. People just don't wake up one morning and decide to persecute followers of a religion, so Paul would have had a good understanding of Christianity and a fairly large chip on his shoulder to persecute it the way he did.

The rich young ruler encounters Jesus in the passage of Matthew 19, asking him how to inherit eternal life. When Jesus replies that he needed to keep the commandments, he asked which ones. Jesus read the second table and its summary, to love one's neighbor. But he purposely left out the tenth commandment against coveting, which was the rich young ruler's problem. Rather than picking up on this, he used his own keeping of Jesus' list to justify himself. Jesus told him to sell all and give to the poor and follow Him. He left disappointed because he owned much. But after the rich young ruler leaves, Jesus and His disciples continue to talk about him. He is the context for the subsequent conversation.

Jesus said to His disciples that it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The context here was... the rich young ruler. In fact, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter. The context here was... the rich young ruler. The disciples asked then who could be saved, if a rich young ruler couldn't. Jesus' reply was "With men this is impossible..." This is in reference to the man who just claimed to have kept all the commandments, the context here being... the rich young ruler. By now you might be noticing a pattern here. Each statement has as its context Jesus' interaction with the rich young ruler. I believe this pattern continues throughout the discussion. Jesus continued with, "...but with God, all things are possible." Now, contrary to many commentaries I've read about the rich young ruler leaving Christ for good, and God never desiring to save him because of his attempt at salvation by law, I'm now convinced that Jesus might be secretly prophesying to His disciples that this young man who they just heard would in fact enter the kingdom. There is grace even for him. So when Jesus said that all things are possible with God, the context was... the rich young ruler.

The reason I believe this is because the very next statement by Peter has, again, as its context... the rich young ruler. He said, "Behold, we have left everything and followed you. What then will there be for us?" Jesus just said the same thing to the rich young ruler, selling everything and following Him; he is still the context. Now for the exciting part. In answering Peter, Jesus told them about the kingdom, "...you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Okay, there's a minor glitch here that the disciples didn't know about yet. Only eleven of them would sit upon the thrones. Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus and commit suicide. A substitute apostle would need to be selected (personally by Christ, like the others, and not by men casting lots - sorry, Matthias). Since the context hasn't changed yet, why should we expect it to change right now in the middle of Jesus' discussion? The context would still be... the rich young ruler. Yes, the rich young ruler, whom the disciples just met a few minutes ago, would be the twelfth apostle to sit on the thrones. This apostle would later be recognized as Paul. Jesus then concludes this section of His discussion with something very interesting. "But many who are first will be last; and the last, first." Interesting indeed, if just like throughout the entire discussion so far the context is still... the rich young ruler. This rich young ruler would be the last apostle appointed by Christ, yet in some way would be first. It is necessary to point out that Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles, and wrote the majority of epistles in the New Testament. He is the poster child for persecution and the major player in hashing out major doctrines. He is the key instigator of church planting, and writes extensively about church life and his relationship to the churches in the New Testament. He has become an apostle of first importance.

Now I'd like to back up and discuss how the rich young ruler encountered Christ. Matthew 19:16 says, "And behold, one came to Him and said, 'Teacher...' " But just before this (the first half of Matthew 19), Jesus had an encounter with the Pharisees that ended with, "And after laying His hands on them, He departed from there." It seems most likely to me that the rich young ruler wouldn't have come out of nowhere to meet Christ just after He left the place where He talked to the Pharisees. The rich young ruler would most likely have been one of the Pharisees interacting with Jesus, who then followed Jesus when He left and asked his question shortly thereafter. It is human nature for the most inquisitive among us to follow an authority figure out after his speech to engage in a smaller Q and A session. Saul was a Pharisee, so if he were the rich young ruler, he would fit this account.

More evidence for me that this is true comes from very striking parallels between topics in Matthew 19 and in Paul's writings in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. When we encounter several things together in important events in life, we have a tendency to repeat those things together when we tell other stories or make certain points later on in life. First, Jesus pointed out to the rich young ruler that coveting was his problem. Paul mentions in Romans 7 that coveting was his problem. It is the only commandment of the Law that he says that about. Now, if Saul were present at Jesus' discussion in the first part of Matthew 19, he would also have heard Jesus discuss God's Law with respect to marriage and divorce. A discussion of marriage laws followed by a discussion of the law against coveting. How coincidental, then, that in Romans 7 Paul discusses God's law concerning marriage followed by his own struggle with the law against coveting. Paul personalizes coveting, which is what Jesus was pointing out to him. Coincidence? Or is the rich young ruler the one and same as the Apostle Paul? He would be recalling his encounter with Jesus - a life changing one at that - in his writings to others.

Another parallel occurs between Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. After Jesus discusses marriage according to God's Law, noting that Moses' inclusion of a divorce clause in the Law was only for the purpose of showing grace to those who were burdened with a marriage to heard hearted people, His disciples question whether it would be good to never marry. Jesus' response is mystical and personal. "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given...there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Paul was unmarried. Hmmm. In Matthew 19, Jesus combines talk of marriage with talk of remaining single for the sake of the kingdom. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul combines talk of God's law regarding marriage with talk of remaining single for the sake of the kingdom. Jesus' reply to His disciples would also have been a personal message to a listening Saul that Saul would use years later in writing to a church. Additionally, when Paul writes, "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord..." and, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever...", I believe he has his personal encounter with Christ in mind. Jesus gave instructions that divorce shouldn't happen. Paul would have been there to hear this command directly from Jesus. This is why he could say, "...I give instructions, not I, but the Lord" because he was there that day to hear it directly from the Lord's mouth. But, when he says, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord...", he means that Jesus didn't teach that day on what to do in case you are married to an unbeliever. Jesus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and not to the Gentiles. Marriages that Jesus would have come in contact with would have been between two members of the covenant. He ministered in Judea. Paul now had to deal with Gentile marriages where one became a Christian. He was now proclaiming his authority as an apostle to state that there should still be no divorce if the other party desired to remain.

One last thing. Matthew 20, a continuation of the discussion in Matthew 19, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. Jesus pointed out that the first laborers who were paid last shouldn't be envious because the late comers were paid first. They were simply getting what was agreed to earlier. This could have been a lesson to the eleven to not be envious of Paul who arrived last, thus working fewer hours.

Okay, I'm pretty certain given all this that the rich young ruler was Saul of Tarsus who would later become the Apostle Paul. The coincidences are simply too freaky to me to suggest otherwise. All comments are welcome and especially solicited. More later?

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.

Was the Apostle Paul the Rich Young Ruler?

Last January, I wrote a brief post wondering where Saul of Tarsus (later the apostle Paul) was during Jesus' earthly ministry and crucifixion. He was present at Stephen's stoning which means, in the historical timeline of the book of Acts, that he was almost surely alive during His ministry. He was schooled by Gamaliel, and he was a Pharisee, so he would have been familiar with the happenings in Jerusalem. I wondered if he could have been the rich young ruler spoken of in the gospels.

Well tonight at our bible study, we looked at Matthew 19's account (read Matthew 19:16-30 here) in the context of God's seemingly "unfair" system of rewards with the first being last and the last first. It struck me that he would have been the last of the apostles, but first in fame and writer of more NT material than the rest. He was known as the apostle to the Gentiles. When He told His disciples that it was hard for a rich man to enter heaven, they wondered who could enter. Jesus said that with God, all things are possible.

He could have been prophesying about this man right on the spot without any of them knowing it. If this were Paul, the rest of them would have come to know him later on. Paul would fit the rest of this passage, too. He would be one of the twelve who sat on a throne, he was rich, a young ruler. His rejection by Christ because of his covetous heart toward material things could have triggered a resentment toward Him. He went away grieving, but that could have turned to malice and persecution of those who were followers. Of course, all this is speculative reading between the lines. Maybe some archaeologist will dig something up on this someday. Until then...

Read Part 2 and Part 3

Where Was Saul of Tarsus?

About a year ago something struck me that I've never heard addressed by anybody. Where was Saul of Tarsus during Jesus' ministry and eventual crucifixion? The apostle-to-be was first introduced in Scripture as an affirming witness to Stephen's stoning at the end of Acts 7. I'm almost sure that this event occurred within only a few months of Christ's death, maybe a year.

Saul was a violent persecutor of the church, so he must have known much about Christ, and he had done great persecution to the saints in Jerusalem, yet he is not mentioned in the gospels or by Paul himself in the epistles. If he were in Jerusalem at the time of Christ and if he were a pharisee, would he have ever met Christ? He certainly would have been old enough.

This is pure speculation (and please don't start a cult with this), but I've wondered if he could have been the rich young ruler spoken of in the gospels. I wonder if we'll ever know about Saul's earlier days.

[Update: This topic is continued further here.]