christian history

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.

From Vision to Victory: How Gods Become Kings of Empires

In October 312 AD, Constantine stood before the Milvian Bridge and gazed into the noonday sun. He claimed to see a fiery cross superimposed upon it, bearing the words, “In hoc signo vinces” —“By this sign, conquer.” That night, he was said to have received a dream instructing him to mark his soldiers’ shields with the Chi-Rho, the emblem of Christ, and march on Rome (Odahl, 2010). He did so, transforming a minority faith’s symbol into an imperial standard and securing victory. Later coinage even depicted an angel placing a crown on his head as he clutched that same standard, proclaiming divine legitimacy for his rule.

This moment marked more than a military triumph; it signaled a radical reimagining of sovereignty. Jesus, once supposedly thought of as a Galilean preacher who refused earthly crowns, but more recently classed as a demigod within the Greco-Roman religious world, had now entered the command structure of the Roman army, and not just metaphorically, but structurally. In doing so, Constantine followed a pattern deeply embedded in the ancient world: the transformation of supposedly divine figures into cosmic sovereigns whose will shaped the laws of empire.

This phenomenon finds a striking parallel in the earlier reign of Ptolemy I Soter, ruler of Hellenistic Egypt. Ptolemy sought to unify Greek and Egyptian populations under a single imperial cult, introducing Serapis (a syncretic deity merging Greek and Egyptian traditions) as the divine patron of the Ptolemaic state (Pfeiffer, 2008). Serapis was not merely a god of healing or the underworld; he became the celestial counterpart to the ruling royal pair, Isis being his mythological consort. By aligning the king with this newly crafted divine figure, Ptolemy ensured that the monarchy could be worshipped as a living embodiment of cosmic order—a model later echoed by Constantine.

Like Constantine, Ptolemy understood that the fusion of religion and statecraft was not simply a matter of political convenience; it was a philosophical necessity. Just as Constantine saw in Christianity a unifying force capable of binding together a fractured empire, Ptolemy saw in Serapis a symbolic bridge between cultures. Both leaders recognized that gods must become kings, and kings must become gods, if they were to hold together the vast, diverse populations under their rule.

The establishment of the ruler cult under Ptolemy I was not just an extension of Pharaonic tradition, where the office of the king was divine, but the individual was not. Rather, it was a deliberate Hellenistic innovation that deified the living monarch, aligning him with the pantheon itself.

Similarly, Constantine positioned himself not just as a Christian emperor, but as a new kind of ruler, one who mediated between the divine and the temporal. His alliance with Licinius in 313 AD produced what we now call the Edict of Milan, granting legal recognition to Christian worship across the empire. Yet Constantine’s deeper strategy was theological as much as political. By convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, he sought to forge a creedal unity that would serve both as spiritual doctrine and civic glue. Heresy was no longer just doctrinal error – it became a form of sedition against the cosmic order.

Just as Ptolemy I elevated Serapis above local deities to create a universal divine figure for a multicultural empire, Constantine elevated the Jesus character above all other gods. He did not “invent” orthodoxy, but he nationalized it. Through basilicas built at imperial expense, judicial privileges granted to bishops, and tax exemptions codified into law, Constantine wove the Church into the very fabric of imperial governance. The crucified Lord, once a symbol of suffering and humility, was now enthroned on the emperor’s seal, flanked by angels.

Yet both emperors understood that such transformations required careful calibration. Ptolemy’s integration of Egyptian gods like Isis and Anubis into the broader framework of Serapis-worship allowed him to maintain cultural legitimacy without erasing indigenous belief systems (Pfeiffer, 2008). Likewise, Constantine refrained from immediate theocratic dominance. Though urged by some Christian advisors to outlaw animal sacrifice outright, he instead chose selective pressure; closing temples linked to immorality, stripping others of wealth, but allowing pagan shrines to remain so long as public order was preserved (Errington, 1988). He honored his title of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of traditional Roman religion, while posing as “God’s” chosen friend, a balancing act between majority pagan constituencies and an ascendant Christian (pagan Hellenistic Jews) elite.

The result was a new ontology of power. For Constantine, as for Ptolemy, victory and order no longer came from the capricious gods of old, but from a singular divine source whose will was interpreted through imperial decree. Just as Ptolemaic propaganda portrayed the monarch as a “god-king” embodying both Greek ideals and Egyptian symbolism, Constantine recast himself as the earthly executor of the Jesus character’s cosmic kingship.

This transformation was irreversible. Even later emperors who flirted with reviving paganism found the machinery of the state already speaking the language of the Nicene Creed. As Pfeiffer notes, once a divine figure is enshrined within the imperial apparatus, it becomes nearly impossible to disentangle theology from politics. The god has become king, not only in heaven, but on earth.

Thus, Constantine did not merely adopt a religion, he crowned its Jesus (or its Serapis) as king of an empire. And in doing so, he fulfilled ancient imperial logic: the fusion of professed divine sovereignty and worldly dominion, a vision as old as Ptolemy’s Serapis and as enduring as the pagan cross on the imperial banner.

 

References

Errington, R. M. (1988). "Constantine as Pontifex Maximus." Greece & Rome , 35(2), 165–180.

Humphries, M. (forthcoming). Constantine and the Conversion of Europe . Oxford University Press.

Odahl, C. M. (2010). Constantine and the Christian Empire . Routledge.

Pfeiffer, S. (2008). The God Serapis, His Cult and the Beginnings of Ruler Worship in Ptolemaic Egypt . Unpublished manuscript.

Jesus Vs. Christ: Did the Historical Jesus Even Matter?

When reviewing Paul’s overall mythology, one begins to question whether the historical Jesus even mattered, and particularly when comparing the Christ of Paul’s theology with the Jesus of the Gospel narratives. This debate touches on the very foundation of Christianity, raising concerns about whether its movement is rooted in a real historical figure or a theological construct that evolved independently of any specific individual.

Paul’s Christ Without a Historical Jesus

Paul’s letters, the earliest Christian writings, present a Jesus who is overwhelmingly mythological and theological; a cosmic Christ, whose death and resurrection define Christian theory. Unlike the Gospel narratives, Paul rarely references the life and teachings of Jesus. Instead, his Christ is the sacrificial atonement, a divine mediator between God and humanity. The implications are significant: if Paul’s Jesus was primarily theological and not based on an earthly figure, does Christianity even need a historical Jesus?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul states:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."

This passage, one of the few instances where Paul presents an early Christian creed, does not focus on Jesus’ earthly life or teachings but on his death and resurrection. This emphasis suggests that for Paul, the significance of the Jesus character lay not in his historical actions, but in his theological function. Paul’s Jesus is universal, transcendent, and salvific—not a rabbi or social revolutionary, but a divine intermediary.

The Gospel Jesus: A Narrative Counterbalance?

In contrast, the Gospels somewhat anchor Jesus firmly in Jewish tradition. They depict him as a prophet, a teacher of ethics, and a proclaimer of the philosophy of the Kingdom of God. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John interacts with his disciples, debates with religious authorities, and preaches about justice and the inward work of God the Father. His teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, emphasize morality and social ethics in ways that Paul does not.

Given that the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters, were they attempting to correct his vision of the Jesus character? Some within the field argue that the Gospel writers sought to ground the theological Christ in history, providing a biographical framework that Paul had ignored. Others suggest that Paul’s vision was the original, and the Gospel narratives were a later mythologization, an effort to make a cosmic savior more relatable to a broader audience.

Paul’s Theology: A Jewish Evolution or a Radical Departure?

Pamela Eisenbaum, in Paul Was Not a Christian, argues that Paul remained fundamentally Jewish and was not “converting” to a new religion, but rather reinterpreting Jewish messianic expectations in light of his revelations. Paul’s Jesus was not a moral teacher but, according to Paul’s perception, a fulfillment of divine prophecy, a necessary sacrifice for the redemption of humanity.

This perspective further complicates the issue of the historical Jesus. If Paul’s vision was the earliest and most influential, then the Gospel Jesus might be a theological innovation rather than a corrective. That is, Jesus the rabbi and ethical teacher may have been a later narrative construct to appeal to Jewish and Greco-Roman audiences.

Christianity Without a Historical Jesus?

If Paul’s Jesus was primarily a theological concept, can Christianity function without a historical Jesus? Some in the field argue that it already does. Christian faith, as articulated by Paul, depends not on the deeds or words of an earthly Jesus but on belief in his death and resurrection. Paul himself claims that his Gospel was received “through revelation” rather than human tradition, suggesting that historical veracity was secondary to theological truth.

Yet, the absence of a historical Jesus would create existential challenges for Christianity. Without a tangible figure to ground its beliefs, Christianity risks being seen as a philosophical or mythical system rather than a historical faith. The tension between Paul’s cosmic Christ and the Gospel’s Jewish teacher reflects an ongoing struggle within Christian thought: is faith rooted in theological necessity or historical reality?

The Question

The question of whether the historical Jesus even mattered ultimately hinges on what one considers essential to Christian theory. If Christianity is about faith in a figure of salvation, then Paul’s theological Jesus is sufficient. If Christianity seeks historical legitimacy, then the imagined narrative of the Gospel Jesus becomes indispensable for a mythological historical framework (I realize that a “mythological historical framework might sound odd, but Greek epic writers, this was literary culture, namely, to make epic appear historical). The divergence between Paul’s letters and the Gospel narratives suggests that early Christianity was simply a lively and evolving belief system—one that continues to have a losing battle with the balance between history and theology.

 

 References:

Bedard, S. J., J. (n.d.). Paul And The Historical Jesus: A Case Study in First Corinthians. In McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry (Vol. 7, pp. 9–22).

Matthew, D. & Pamela Eisenbaum. (2009). PAUL WAS NOT a CHRISTIAN: the original message of a misunderstood apostle. In HarperCollins.

Taylor, N. (2003). Paul and the historical Jesus quest. Neotestamentica37(1), 105-126.