Is Christianity More Pauline Than Jesus-Like?

The New Testament paints a vivid picture of the Jesus character, a Hebrew priest proclaiming only the Kingdom of God, and the Paul character, the self-appointed apostle whose mystical encounter with a Christ reshaped early Christianity. But what if Paul’s gospel, often seen as the cornerstone of modern Christianity, diverges from the message of the supposedly historical Jesus? It isn’t difficult to liken Paul to Balaam, the false prophet who blessed what he once cursed, yet remained an outsider, never fully trusted (Numbers 22–24). If Paul echoes Balaam (and he does), what does this say about the gospel he preached? Was it the same as Jesus’ message, or something else entirely?

In this post, I’ll explore the tension between Jesus and Paul in the New Testament, answering whether Christianity today is more Pauline than Jesus-like, and what that means for those seeking an authentic return to the message of that historical Hebrew priest we call “Jesus.”

Paul as Balaam: A Blessing with a Shadow of Doubt

The comparison of Paul to Balaam is interesting. Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet, was hired to curse Israel but was divinely compelled to bless them instead. Similarly, Paul, a zealous Pharisee, initially persecuted the Jesus Movement (Galatians 1:13,14). His dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) transformed him into a fervent advocate for including Gentiles in the movement he once opposed. Yet, as Wilson (2014) argues, this shift raises questions about Paul’s reliability. Was his gospel a divinely inspired continuation of Jesus’ mission, or did it introduce a new theology that diverged from the original?

Yet much like Balaam, who was compelled to speak blessings over Israel while inwardly remaining suspect and ultimately tragic, Paul enters the Jesus movement not as a disciple of the Nazarene, but as an outsider who rebranded the message for Gentile consumption. Maurice Goguel, writing in Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (1926), observed that “Christianity was born at the beginning of the second century from the meeting of the different currents of thought originating in Judea, Greece and Rome” and that “the person of Jesus was merely a literary fiction” for some early Christian thinkers, highlighting how quickly the focus shifted from the man to the myth (Goguel, 1926, p. 10). Though Goguel himself defends the historical Jesus, his analysis shows that the Jesus remembered by Paul is already a reconstructed figure—one whose teachings were submerged beneath theological reinterpretation.

Similarly, J. Gresham Machen in The Origin of Paul’s Religion (1925) acknowledges the radical divergence between Paul and Jesus. He frames Paul’s theology as something utterly unique, “not merely one manifestation of the progress of oriental religion,” but a wholly different system founded on a particular conception of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Machen, 1925, pp. 8,9). This mirrors the role of Balaam who, though speaking blessings, nonetheless aligned with Moabite interests and introduced elements foreign to Israel’s covenantal ethic. So too does Paul bring into the original Jesus movement an unprecedented fusion of Hellenistic religious forms and theological universalism.

Jesus’ Gospel: A Jewish Vision of the Kingdom

The Jesus character’s message, as depicted in the Gospels (written 20-60 years after Paul’s letters), was deeply rooted in the Jews’ religion (something Paul said he left behind in Galatians 1:13-15). He preached the imminent arrival of God’s Kingdom, urging repentance and a philosophical adherence to the Torah (Mark 1:15; Matthew 5:17). His teachings, like the Sermon on the Mount, emphasized ethical philosophical living, love for neighbor, and obedience to his Deity’s law (Matthew 22:37–40). As Wilson notes, Jesus’ followers, including James, continued these practices, functioning as a Jewish sect alongside Pharisees and Sadducees (Paul versus Jesus, p. 5). Salvation, for this Jesus, was about mindfully living accordingly within God’s covenant with Israel, not a cosmic transaction tied to his death.

Paul, however, rarely references Jesus’ life or teachings. In Paul versus Jesus (p. 19), Wilson points out that Paul mentions only sparse details about Jesus: he was born of a woman, was Jewish, had brothers, was crucified, and died (Romans 1:3; 1 Corinthians 9:5, 15:3). Paul’s focus is on a risen Christ, a cosmic figure whose death and resurrection offer salvation to all, independent of Torah observance (Galatians 3:28). This shift, Wilson argues, moves Christianity from a Jewish reform movement to a Gentile-centric religion resembling Roman mystery cults (p. 15).

Paul’s Gospel: A New Religion?

Pamela Eisenbaum, in Paul Was Not a Christian (2009), challenges the traditional view that Paul rejected Judaism for Christianity. She argues Paul remained a Jew, committed to monotheism, but saw Jesus’ death as God’s provision for Gentiles, not a replacement of the Torah for Jews (p. 9). Paul’s gospel was tailored for Gentiles, emphasizing Jesus’ faithfulness (not faith in Jesus) as the means of their inclusion in God’s plan (Romans 3:22). Eisenbaum suggests Paul’s mission was to extend Jewish monotheism to the nations, not to negate Jesus’ teachings but to reinterpret them for a broader audience (p. 10).

Yet, this reinterpretation created a divide. Wilson highlights that Paul’s letters, like Galatians, show him distancing himself from Jerusalem’s authority, insisting he received his gospel directly from Christ (Galatians 1:11,12). This independence, coupled with his dismissal of Torah practices for Gentiles, led to accusations of distortion. As Wilson (2014) notes, Paul’s opponents in the original Jesus Movement saw his teachings as a departure from Jesus’ Torah-based message (p. 8).

These thoughts are interesting because while Eisenbaum argues that Paul never left Judaism (Eisenbaum, 2009), Goguel’s historical investigation points to a theological re-centering. He writes that “the person of Jesus...is the product, not the creator, of Christianity” for many early communities (Goguel, 1926, p. 11). That statement reinforces the idea that Paul’s letters, with their sparse references to Jesus’ teachings and dense metaphysical framing of the crucifixion and resurrection (see Romans 6:3–11; 1 Corinthians 15), place the Jesus character into a mythic structure alien to the rabbinic ethic found in Matthew or the Didache. Goguel argues that the Gospels themselves are often "dominated by dogmatic and allegorical ideas" (p. 10), suggesting that Pauline theology had already started to shape even the narrative memory of Jesus before it was canonized.

Machen, though defending Paul’s orthodoxy, inadvertently reinforces this divide by admitting that Paul’s gospel required a radical break from Judaism’s national identity: “Gentile freedom, according to Paul, was not something permitted; it was something absolutely required” (Machen, 1925, p. 13). Yet this absolutism is absent from Jesus' teachings, which prioritize righteousness, Torah adherence, and Jewish communal life. The Balaam analogy here becomes sharper: just as Balaam did not curse Israel directly, neither did Paul overtly reject Jesus, but both altered the trajectory under a veil of blessing.

Christianity Today: Pauline or Jesus-Like?

The tension between Jesus and Paul has major implications for modern Christianity. Paul’s letters, written decades before the Gospels, shaped early Christian theology more than Jesus’ teachings. His emphasis on faith over works, universal salvation, and the cosmic Christ became central to Christian doctrine, especially after the Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius endorsed Paul’s vision in the 4th century (Paul versus Jesus, p. 3). The Gospels, while preserving Jesus’ Jewish (Hellenistic Jewish) teachings, were later interpreted through an already established Pauline lens, often downplaying their Torah-centric elements.

G.A. Wells, in The Jesus Myth, argues that Paul’s minimal reference to Jesus’ historical life suggests he was more concerned with a mythical Christ than the historical Jesus (p. 19). This aligns with Wilson’s view that Paul’s religion was “quite a different religion altogether” from Jesus’ (Paul versus Jesus, p. 16). Modern Christianity, with its focus on salvation through faith, sacraments, and the divinity of Christ, reflects Paul’s theology more than Jesus’ call for mental and spiritual living within Judaism.

Combining insights from Goguel and Machen clarifies that modern Christianity owes more to Paul’s reinterpretive genius than to the historical Jesus' teachings. Machen notes that Paul’s exclusivist theology; insisting that “there is no other name under heaven...by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); drew Gentiles away from syncretic religious expressions and into a dogmatic system (Machen, 1925, p. 9). But that dogma diverged from Jesus’ Torah-centric ethic, one which even Goguel insists was deeply embedded in a specific Jewish framework (Goguel, 1926, pp. 12–13).

In this light, Paul's gospel acts like Balaam’s oracle: impressive, far-reaching, and infused with “divine” imagery, but ultimately carrying within it a “doctrine of Baal” that introduces division. The Jesus character’s original message (should we incline ourselves to actually invoke the Hebrew Scriptures), rooted in covenantal justice, mental spiritual discipline, and community responsibility, becomes eclipsed by a mystical faith in a risen Christ who, as Machen admits, “possessed sovereign power over the forces of nature” (Machen, 1925, p. 5), a cosmic redeemer rather than a Galilean prophet.

What Does This Mean for Seekers of the Historical Jesus?

For those seeking an authentic return to Jesus’ message, the Pauline influence poses a challenge. Jesus’ gospel was not about himself at the center of a message, but about transforming human lives through ethical conduct and Torah observance, anticipating only God’s Kingdom within and the Son of Man (who he is not) destroying those preventing the reign of that Kingdom within doers. Paul’s gospel, while rooted in Jewish monotheism, shifted the focus to a spiritual salvation through his Christ’s death, appealing to a Gentile audience. As Eisenbaum notes, Paul didn’t abandon Judaism but adapted it for a new context (Paul Was Not a Christian, p. 10). However, this adaptation, as Wilson argues, created a rift with the Jesus Movement, leading to a Christianity that often overshadows Jesus’ original vision.

If Paul is a literary echo of Balaam, his gospel carries both a blessing and a shadow. He blessed the inclusion of Gentiles, expanding the reach of his God’s message, but his divergence from Jesus’ teachings left him distrusted by the Jerusalem community. For modern seekers, returning to the original message of Jesus means prioritizing his call to discipline the mind, to educate the belief, to remember love, justice, and covenantal living with the Hebrew Deity over Paul’s theological framework. This involves separating Hellenism from the Jesus character to embracing the covered up Hebrew philosophy within his teachings, which align more closely with the original Jesus Movement (Paul versus Jesus, p. 27).

Reclaiming the Historical Jesus

The question of whether Christianity is more Pauline than Jesus-like invites us to reexamine the New Testament’s competing voices. Paul’s gospel, while transformative, reshaped Jesus’ possibly original message into a universal religion that gained traction in the Roman world but drifted from its Hebrew roots.  Paul, like Balaam, spoke words that appeared to honor the people of God, but his doctrine redirected their path. It isn’t difficult to see how Paul's gospel, though influential and theologically sophisticated, transformed the original Jesus movement into a religion barely recognizable to its origin. For modern seekers of the historical Jesus, disentangling his message from Pauline overlay is not only a matter of academic curiosity, it is a necessary task of devotional restoration. Christianity may be Pauline in shape, but our devotional conversation need not rest on what ultimately departs from the intended growth and development promised from Genesis to Malachi.

References:

Eisenbaum, Pamela. (2009) Paul Was Not a Christian. HarperCollins.

Goguel, M. (1926). Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (F. Stephens, Trans.). D. Appleton & Company.

Machen, J. G. (1925). The Origin of Paul’s Religion. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Wells, G.A. (1999) The Jesus Myth. Open Court.

Wilson, Barrie. (2014) Paul versus Jesus. York University, Toronto

Was the Apostle Paul the Balaam of Early Christianity?

The Apostle Paul is widely revered in Christian tradition as a key voice in spreading a gospel beyond Jewish boundaries. His dramatic encounter on the road to Damascus has been told and retold as a story of radical transformation and prophetic commissioning. However, a closer and more mindful literary reading of the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts raises a provocative question: Was Paul subtly cast in the narrative mold of Balaam—the prophet who was hired to curse Israel, but ended up entangled in a tale of irony and moral ambiguity?

This question invites us to rethink not just the role of Paul, but the rhetorical and intertextual strategy of the author crafting Paul’s introductory narrative. By examining narrative parallels, theological tensions, and symbolic motifs, we may discover that Paul’s conversion story contains layers of meaning that go beyond surface interpretation. Instead, it may reflect a deep, possibly ironic reworking of an older prophetic tradition, offering clues that complicate, rather than simplify, Paul’s legacy.

In the Book of Numbers, Balaam is summoned by King Balak to curse the people of Israel as they camp on the borders of Moab. On the way, Balaam is confronted by an angel of the LORD who stands in his path, invisible to the prophet but visible to his donkey. After repeated resistance, Balaam is struck by the angel’s presence and is temporarily blinded to his own purpose. He then delivers blessings over Israel instead of the intended curses, though later texts such as Revelation 2:14 condemn him for his role in leading Israel into moral compromise. Balaam becomes a paradoxical figure, in that he is both mouthpiece of God and agent of destruction, a prophet whose lips were inspired, yet whose heart was accused of betrayal.

Paul’s encounter on the Damascus road bears uncanny similarities. He is traveling with authority from the high priest, not unlike Balaam who carried a king’s commission. He is stopped by a seemingly heavenly being and is rendered blind for three days. The symbolism of blindness as “divine interruption” is deeply resonant here, mirroring not only Balaam’s physical delay but also his spiritual confusion. Paul, like Balaam, is on a journey to do God’s will—arresting followers of Jesus whom he considers heretical. Yet he is stopped, reversed, and redirected by “divine force.” This is not merely a miraculous conversion; it is a narrative reversal charged with symbolic meaning.

Where things become particularly intriguing is in Paul’s repeated defensiveness around money and motive. In Acts 20:33 and 34, Paul states, “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.” In 2 Corinthians 11:8, he insists that he “robbed other churches” to serve the Corinthians without charge. And in Acts 24:26, the Roman governor Felix keeps Paul in custody, hoping that “money should have been given him.” These passages, on the surface, depict a man attempting to distinguish himself from religious profiteers. Yet from a literary and rhetorical standpoint, the very frequency of these denials does raise suspicion. After all, those who are innocent rarely feel the need to so frequently protest.

Balaam too refuses payment; at least initially. He tells Balak’s messengers, “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God” (Num. 22:18). Yet subsequent biblical traditions condemn Balaam as one who “loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15). The pattern is striking: both figures deny financial motive, both are accused of manipulation, and both operate in liminal spaces between blessing and curse, vision and violence, prophecy and peril.

If we interpret these parallels not as coincidences but as deliberate literary strategy, the Book of Acts emerges not merely as an apologetic for Paul, but as a deeply textured, multivocal text. One possible reading, especially when informed by intertextual and deconstructionist methodologies, is that Acts encodes within its Paul narrative a principle of Balaam’s story. In doing so, it subtly invites readers and critical thinkers to hold Paul’s authority in tension. Perhaps Paul’s vision is real (that realism only being literary), but that does not automatically render him above critique. Perhaps, like Balaam, Paul becomes an instrument of “divine mystery,” yet one whose impact on Israel is as disruptive as it is redemptive.

This perspective is particularly relevant when we consider Paul’s theological innovations and their consequences. His reinterpretation of Torah, his assertion of direct revelation apart from the Jerusalem apostles, and his emphasis on salvation apart from the Law would have been deeply controversial within the early Jewish Jesus movement, and even for Jesus himself. For many of Jesus’ earliest followers, Paul’s doctrine may have felt like a betrayal, or like as a curse disguised as gospel. If the author of Acts is aware of this tension (and they are), then casting Paul in a narrative frame that evokes Balaam could be a subtle but powerful literary device: a way of acknowledging Paul's profound role in shaping Christian identity, while also hinting at the costs and contradictions of that role.

In the end, whether Paul is seen as a second Balaam or a redeemed prophet depends on how we read the personality within the text. But what this inquiry reveals is that the author of Acts wasn’t really recording history; they were crafting literary and theological meaning with precision and purpose. To read Paul’s story mindfully is to enter into that complexity, to recognize that the scriptures often contain ambiguity, tension, and even critique beneath their surface. In a time of growing interest in deconstruction theology and the reevaluation of Christian origins, these questions are not merely academic, but ultimately vital to how we understand the root of our belief.

Paul’s Celestial Christ: Myth or Visionary Revelation?

Was Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus a genuine encounter or a clever reworking of Hebrew narrative to forge religious authority? I ask this question because beneath the surface of Paul’s dramatic conversion lies a subtle mimicry of the Hebrew Scriptures, most strikingly the story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22. This blog post will look at the symbolic layers beneath Paul’s celestial Christ to explore whether Paul’s visionary religion is rooted in authentic revelation or constructed myth.

The Damascus Drama and Balaam’s Vision: A Curious Parallel

In Acts 9, Saul (later Paul) is dramatically halted while traveling to persecute followers of the Jesus character. He is thrown from his mount, blinded by a celestial light, and hears the voice of a risen Christ (Acts 9:3–5). This foundational story of Paul’s apostleship is eerily reminiscent of Numbers 22, in which Balaam, also journeying on a seemingly divine errand, is stopped by a vision of an angel, unseen by him but visible to his donkey. After being rebuked by both the ass and the angel, Balaam's eyes are opened to the heavenly warning.

What ties these two stories together is not only the structure; a prophetic figure traveling with malicious intent, confronted supernaturally on the road; but also the theological implications. Balaam, though given words from God, is remembered as a false prophet (2 Peter 2:15; Revelation 2:14). If Paul's experience is shaped after Balaam’s (and the author writing the book of Acts does do this), could this be an intentional literary signal suggesting Paul’s revelation is similarly spurious?

Literary Fabrication or Prophetic Fulfillment?

As Maurice Goguel outlines in Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?, the early Christian narrative was not formed in a vacuum. Rather, it was steeped in a milieu of prophetic exegesis and creative reworking of Hebrew traditions. The Gospels and Paul’s epistles repeatedly claim that Jesus’ life and death fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, but Goguel cautions that these “fulfillments” may have been discovered after the fact or created to match existing prophetic patterns.

This methodology helps explain the similarities between Paul and Balaam. The author of Acts, likely aiming to authenticate Paul’s apostleship (and to subtly reveal the character of his ministry), mirrors the Balaam narrative, perhaps knowingly. But if Balaam, a non-Israelite seer who sought to curse Israel but was overruled by “divine intervention,” is ultimately judged false, then what does that imply for Paul, whose own vision also contradicts the established leadership of the Jerusalem apostles?

The Celestial Christ: Vision or Invention?

J. Gresham Machen, in The Origin of Paul’s Religion, defends Paul as a genuine recipient of divine revelation. He argues that Paul’s religion was not shaped by paganism or borrowed myth, but by a real encounter with the risen Christ and continuity with the historical Jesus. Yet, Machen concedes that Paul's writings do not focus heavily on Jesus' earthly life, suggesting that Paul's Christ is primarily a celestial being—not a rabbi of Galilee but a divine redeemer whose drama unfolds in the heavens more than on earth.

This celestial emphasis is precisely what gives rise to mythic interpretation. Paul's Christ appears to many as a revealed being, introduced through apocalyptic visions rather than historical witness. There is nothing historical about Paul’s Jesus. Unlike the other apostles who are scripted to have known Jesus in the flesh, Paul boasts, “I did not receive [the gospel] from any man… but by revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12). This bold claim sidesteps the earthly ministry of Jesus and lays apostolic authority on visionary ground alone.

Mythic Constructs and Prophetic Mimicry

There are good reasons to suspect Paul’s Christ is a theological construct more than a historical memory. As Goguel explains, Pauline thought was deeply influenced by mystical concepts of sin, redemption, and divine intermediaries, concepts common not only in Jewish apocalyptic literature but also in surrounding Hellenistic religious thought. His Christ is not merely a messiah; he is a cosmic savior operating beyond time and space.

Goguel identifies the tendency of early Christian authors to create stories that match prophecy, transforming figures like Jesus, and possibly Paul, into eschatological templates. This meshes well with the idea that Paul’s Damascus experience, echoing Balaam’s confrontation, is less about spontaneous revelation and more about literary and theological construction.

Theological Implications: The Mark of a False Prophet?

In Numbers 22, Balaam claims to speak for God, even prophesying truly at times, but his ultimate legacy is one of deceit and seduction. He leads Israel into compromise (Numbers 31:16) and is repeatedly condemned in the New Testament as an archetype of the false teacher.

Why would the author writing the book of Acts have Paul’s conversion echo such a controversial figure?

Some may argue this is coincidental or merely typological. But for those attuned to the literary crafting of biblical narratives, this parallel is troubling. Could Acts be subtly critiquing Paul’s role by embedding him in a Balaam-like framework? Or did later editors overlook the irony, unintentionally exposing the fragility of Paul’s claims?

The Mask Behind the Vision

Paul's celestial Christ, proclaimed through a private vision and divorced from any known “historical Jesus,” bears all the signs of mythic fabrication. When compared to the Old Testament story of Balaam, the similarities are more than poetic; they are prophetic inversions. Balaam was rebuked for claiming divine vision while leading people astray. Paul, claiming his own isolated revelation, introduces a radically new understanding that sidelines the supposed teachings of Jesus and the leadership of those believed to have walked with him.

Whether one sees Paul as a visionary apostle or a reinvented Balaam may depend on one’s theological commitments. But the flow of Numbers 22 within Paul’s narrative should not be ignored. We should be asking whether Paul’s fall from his beast is an act of “divine commissioning,” or a literary confession that, like Balaam, he is a prophet whose mouth may have been opened, but whose message was not rightly “inspired.”

Watch on Youtube

PowerPoint Presentation on the conspiracy behind Paul’s vision (click)

What did Paul actually teach? (click)

Is Paul’s Argument Biblically Legitimate? (click)

References

Goguel, M. (1926). Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? New York: D. Appleton & Company.

Machen, J. G. (1925). The Origin of Paul’s Religion. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.