Saul - Apostle Paul had a devil?

[Ferd]

Since we are talking about Paul... the following is my personal opinion. It should not be treated as doctrinal. however for me it has been very instructive and provides a great deal of HOPE for me.

When Paul spoke of his "thorn in the flesh" and God's reply was that his Grace was sufficient. I believe that thorn was Paul's unbending nature.


When you consider the fact that he broke with Barnabas over Barnabas's commitment to John Mark and Pauls exacerbation over Marks whining, and Paul breaking with Peter of demands that the gentiles act like Jews...

It seems to me that Paul rubbed people the wrong way and it affected him.

I also believe that the Grace of God did not simply leave Paul alone but as he said in Titus, it TAUGHT Him.

we find Paul at the end of his life making the request "bring John Mark to me for he is profitable to me".

I believe Paul became a different person over the course of his life.

jmo

[ApostolicKitty]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This point was so wrong, I was shocked he said it. I think his exact wording was that "Paul was full of the devil." I see Paul as he described himself in Philippians 3:5-6. That is a man trained up strong in the Law of Moses. He was very confident in what he believed.

How interesting, the very moment that Jesus revealed Himself, Paul asks Him what He would have Him do? IOW, whatever you want from me, I will do it. No questions asked. Man, that is just so awesome!

This is what was on my mind when he said Paul was full of the devil. I was trying to point out what the scripture shows to be Paul's mind or at least his actions, but another person was agreeing with him and I didn't respond any further.

I believe I see it exactly as you do. Paul was an educated and dedicated man. He believed he was doing God's will the good, old fashioned way...and reasonably so since it was not the first time the Hebrews had gone after their "godless enemies".

But Paul realized he was dealing with the true authority when he was knocked off his high horse... and was VERY quick to repent of his wrongdoing. A man full of the devil is not like that.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This was pretty much the conversation. So, my point of view was and is that you can feel incredibly wrong and bad about what you did. You can even feel embarrassed and sick at your stomach, yet, God doesn't give the impression of anger about it. At least, He has never made me feel that way. So, really, it's hard for me to imagine it.

When my father would correct us, He never made you feel like he didn't love you. Now, my mother is another story. LOL! My mother's discipline is what the young man was trying to convey to me about God. Just can't see it. I told him I think his feelings about his wrong is what made him feel that God had dealt with him so harshly. He said, "Maybe so."

God has never corrected me in a way that came across as mean to me. He's be straight-forward, even a bit strong, but never mean. Even when he corrected Jonah he was merciful. Of course, I honestly expect God to be a bit harder on his prophets than on those that are not... because the things He shows them.

[ApostolicKitty]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

However, he that sinneth is of the devil, as 1 John 3 reads, and so, since Saul was definitely in sin, I suppose an argument could be made...though not enough to convince anyone that Saul was possessed; rather, that Saul, in the flesh, was subject to the wiles of the devil, just like anyone else who isn't regenerated from above.

Great points!

[ApostolicKitty]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Oh, and you will love this one. "Godly sorrow has nothing to do with repentance." I said, "But, the Bible says that it does. II Cor 7:10 says, 'For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation'. Worketh in the Greek means 'accomplishes'. So, you would be saying, 'Godly sorrow accomplishes repentance."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ApostolicKitty

I believe I see it exactly as you do. Paul was an educated and dedicated man. He believed he was doing God's will the good, old fashioned way...and reasonably so since it was not the first time the Hebrews had gone after their "godless enemies".

But Paul realized he was dealing with the true authority when he was knocked off his high horse... and was VERY quick to repent of his wrongdoing. A man full of the devil is not like that.

Amen!!! He didn't stop to ponder the voice and the bright light, did he?

God has never corrected me in a way that came across as mean to me. He's be straight-forward, even a bit strong, but never mean. Even when he corrected Jonah he was merciful. Of course, I honestly expect God to be a bit harder on his prophets than on those that are not... because the things He shows them.

Yes, good points. I have some things rolling around my brain. I'll post more later.

I just tested a new Brownie recipe with Espresso powder. YUMMY! I may not get to post later because now I have to go and kill myself after eating two brownies!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've been thinking about this verse in I John 3. I am not certain it is saying, "subject to the wiles of the devil", but rather, if you do these things you are "imitating" or "resembling" the devil.

Like you said above, it startles us to suddenly find that our flesh is horrible WITHOUT the devil.

I believe that Saul/Paul was acting as he thought he should - defending the Law of Moses against heresy, and I don't believe that had anything to do with the devil.

I'd like to discuss this more.

I am happy to discuss.

Let's take a look at the verse from 1 John 3 in context:

New International Version

1See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

Paul, misled and in the flesh, thinking "The Way" of Christ was a heretical sect, was persecuting the Lord Jesus by attacking His people (i.e. making havoc of the Church). He was, as Christ said, kicking against the pricks.

I think we can say that Paul, as Saul, was in sin, in that, he was persecuting his own people, the Jews. And the Torah clearly indicates that Israel was not to begrudge each other; see here:

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (NIV)

The church at the time was completely Jewish, except for some Grecian widows (possibly Hellenized Jews, not actual Greeks).

So, if we read 1 John 3:1-10 in light of these facts, we may say that Saul was "of the devil". He was breaking the law, namely Leviticus 19:18, by persecuting fellow Jews who believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

But, being "of the devil" does not mean devil possession, as in the way we see possessed people in the Gospels. Saul didn't cry out, foam at the mouth, wail or mourn or ask Jesus to not "torment him before the time".

So, he wasn't possessed in the Gospel sense of the idea. But he was of the devil, in the 1 John 3:8 sense of the idea, by continuing in sin as a law breaker/transgressor of the Torah commandment in Leviticus 19:18. This was his "kicking against".

So what does it mean to be "of the devil"?

The Greek phrase is ek tou diabolou. Ek is a preposition denoting source of origin or emanantion, meaning "from" or "out of". Tou is one of 24 definite articles in Greek. In this case, it's the Genitive Masculine Singular. Masculine simply means it agrees with the noun diabolou, which has been assigned a masculine gender (as many languages so assign). Singular also refers to diabolou in that the noun is in the singular form, as opposed to there being a plurality, i.e. if plural, it would read something like "The one who does what is sinful is of the [devils]" implying multiple devils in question as opposed the one, true Devil.

Apart from that, what concerns us most is the fact that tou is in the Genitive case. Genitive is another way of saying the possessive case. It expresses ownership or derivation. So, to say one who does what is sinful is "of the devil" might literally indicate the following:

The one who does what is sinful does so from or out of the fact that they are owned or derive their motivation to sin from the Devil.

This doesn't mean that a person is Hollywood The Exorcist possessed, or even that they are demonized as the Gospel accounts demonstrate.

Rather, it indicates and confirms the following Scripture:

Ephesians 2:2 (NIV)

2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Saul of Tarsus, like all un-regenerated people, are subject to being taken by the Devil according to his will (2 Timothy 2:26).

In this way, what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews in John 8:44 applies to Saul, pre-conversion:

Ye are of your father the devil...

The Greek text for "of you" is ek tou, an identical construction to the one in 1 John 3:8. Jesus went on to accuse them of not being "of God", as seen here:

John 8:47 (KJV),

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Again, a parallel to 1 John 3 (indicating same authorship). There are only two choices. Either one is "of God", i.e. ek tou Theou, or one is ek tou diabolou. There is no Biblical middleground.

Saul, pre-conversion, was "of the devil". But again, this doesn't mean "full of the devil". His conversion doesn't feature any of the Gospel hallmarks associated with demonization, any more than a heathen who comes to Christ is possessed in the Gospel sense of the word, even if they are owned or motivated to sin, by the Devil.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, not from Wm. Price. LOL! But, thanks for the input. I don't believe I have ever heard that Paul was a usurper either.

I was corrected in front of a group of people saying I was wrong by not agreeing he was of the devil. Because the man is about 15 years older than me (I think), I didn't want to exacerbate the conversation by asking where in the Bible did it say that and simply let the statement stand.

I've always been pretty proud of Paul, so inside I was feeling and thinking - NO WAY, JOSIE. LOL!

15 years older & he is still breathing???

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ron

15 years older & he is still breathing???

Dude, You better watch yourself!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I am happy to discuss.

Let's take a look at the verse from 1 John 3 in context:

New International Version



Paul, misled and in the flesh, thinking "The Way" of Christ was a heretical sect, was persecuting the Lord Jesus by attacking His people (i.e. making havoc of the Church). He was, as Christ said, kicking against the pricks.

I think we can say that Paul, as Saul, was in sin, in that, he was persecuting his own people, the Jews. And the Torah clearly indicates that Israel was not to begrudge each other; see here:



The church at the time was completely Jewish, except for some Grecian widows (possibly Hellenized Jews, not actual Greeks).

So, if we read 1 John 3:1-10 in light of these facts, we may say that Saul was "of the devil". He was breaking the law, namely Leviticus 19:18, by persecuting fellow Jews who believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

But, being "of the devil" does not mean devil possession, as in the way we see possessed people in the Gospels. Saul didn't cry out, foam at the mouth, wail or mourn or ask Jesus to not "torment him before the time".

So, he wasn't possessed in the Gospel sense of the idea. But he was of the devil, in the 1 John 3:8 sense of the idea, by continuing in sin as a law breaker/transgressor of the Torah commandment in Leviticus 19:18. This was his "kicking against".

So what does it mean to be "of the devil"?

The Greek phrase is ek tou diabolou. Ek is a preposition denoting source of origin or emanantion, meaning "from" or "out of". Tou is one of 24 definite articles in Greek. In this case, it's the Genitive Masculine Singular. Masculine simply means it agrees with the noun diabolou, which has been assigned a masculine gender (as many languages so assign). Singular also refers to diabolou in that the noun is in the singular form, as opposed to there being a plurality, i.e. if plural, it would read something like "The one who does what is sinful is of the [devils]" implying multiple devils in question as opposed the one, true Devil.

Apart from that, what concerns us most is the fact that tou is in the Genitive case. Genitive is another way of saying the possessive case. It expresses ownership or derivation. So, to say one who does what is sinful is "of the devil" might literally indicate the following:

The one who does what is sinful does so from or out of the fact that they are owned or derive their motivation to sin from the Devil.

This doesn't mean that a person is Hollywood The Exorcist possessed, or even that they are demonized as the Gospel accounts demonstrate.

Rather, it indicates and confirms the following Scripture:

Ephesians 2:2 (NIV)



Saul of Tarsus, like all un-regenerated people, are subject to being taken by the Devil according to his will (2 Timothy 2:26).

In this way, what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews in John 8:44 applies to Saul, pre-conversion:



The Greek text for "of you" is ek tou, an identical construction to the one in 1 John 3:8. Jesus went on to accuse them of not being "of God", as seen here:

John 8:47 (KJV),



Again, a parallel to 1 John 3 (indicating same authorship). There are only two choices. Either one is "of God", i.e. ek tou Theou, or one is ek tou diabolou. There is no Biblical middleground.

Saul, pre-conversion, was "of the devil". But again, this doesn't mean "full of the devil". His conversion doesn't feature any of the Gospel hallmarks associated with demonization, any more than a heathen who comes to Christ is possessed in the Gospel sense of the word, even if they are owned or motivated to sin, by the Devil.

Thanks for taking the time on this. It's a great conversation. I agree that Saul was not "full of the devil". I haven't had the time to adequately respond to your well thought out post, because I want to think about it some more.

Thanks again!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Dude, You better watch yourself!!!

He is looking to go back into the hospital.