Behind the partings with Barnabas and Peter, traced in the previous part, lay two approaches to the teaching of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam ʿalayhi al-salām, peace be upon him. Barnabas held to the law of the Torah and the original teaching of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, with its stress on tawḥīd (توحيد, “the oneness of God”). Paul introduced a new teaching that adapted the doctrine to Graeco-Roman culture, including the rejection of the Torah.
The test of a false prophet #
ʿĪsā ibn Maryam gave a clear criterion for identifying a false prophet: “by their fruits ye shall know them.”1 The criterion demands that a prophet’s teaching lead to truth and loyalty to God, and away from adaptations that blur the concept of tawḥīd. He also warned:
24ἐγερθήσονται γὰρ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται, καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα ὥστε πλανῆσαι εἰ δυνατὸν καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς·
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.2
Miracles are therefore no sine qua non of prophethood and no proof of it, since such signs can also be used to lead people astray. Paul often made miracles the proof of his “apostleship”:
11Δυνάμεις τε οὐ τὰς τυχούσας ὁ θεὸς ἐποίει διὰ τῶν χειρῶν Παύλου, 12ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἀποφέρεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ σουδάρια ἢ σιμικίνθια καὶ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι ἀπʼ αὐτῶν τὰς νόσους, τά τε πνεύματα τὰ πονηρὰ ἐκπορεύεσθαι.
11And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: 12So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.3
Those miracles justify nothing in a doctrine that plainly contradicts the law of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam. He also said:
12ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα πορεύομαι·
12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.4
Miracles should be a sign of faith and obedience to God, and never a tool for reinforcing a deviant teaching. The miracles attributed to Paul read as an effort to justify his own teaching, a teaching that contradicts the foundation of tawḥīd that ʿĪsā ibn Maryam brought.
When Paul’s teaching and conduct are tested by the criterion ʿĪsā ibn Maryam set, the “fruits” produced, Paul shows no obedience to God. His actions reflect a deviation that caused division among the early followers of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam.
Paul against the disciples #
Paul began to level accusations at the disciples, calling them hypocrites.5 He claimed they needed constant guidance out of their ignorance by the truth of God through the “guidance” he had supposedly received from ʿĪsā ibn Maryam. Openly, Paul stated that the disciples had taught him nothing, and that every truth he delivered came solely from the “guidance” he received directly from Jesus Christ.6
There is, further, no explicit record in the New Testament that Paul ever received the Holy Spirit as the ḥawāriyyūn (الحواريون, “the disciples”) did. In the Gospel of John, ʿĪsā ibn Maryam is said to have breathed the Holy Spirit directly onto the disciples,7 and in Acts 2 the Holy Spirit descends openly upon them at Pentecost as a sign of appointment and divine authority.
Paul was absent from that event, and none of his letters says he received the Holy Spirit in any comparable form. His confession in Galatians speaks only of “the revelation of Jesus Christ,” with no revelation through the Holy Spirit8 as in the existing apostolic tradition.
That difference raises a serious question: how can a man who never openly received the Holy Spirit claim to be the equal, and more than the equal, of the disciples who had been confirmed directly by divine gift? Is it plausible that the disciples, who received the teaching directly from ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, would “stay silent” while witnessing the hypocrisy and falsehood Paul brought?
Certainly not.
For that reason Peter and Barnabas, followed later by figures such as Arius in the third century, rose against Paul’s attempt to bring bidʿah (بدعة, “innovation”), khurāfah (خرافة, “superstition”), shirk (شرك, “associating partners with God”) and riddah (ردة, “apostasy”) into the mission of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam. Many of his followers, beyond Peter and Barnabas alone, rose against Paul’s greed and cunning.
Why the East rejected Paul #
Why was there such marked resistance to Paul’s teaching from the peoples of Asia, above all in the East?
One main reason is that the East, including Palestine, which belongs geographically to Asia and has traditionally been counted part of the Eastern world, had long been the birthplace and the center for the spread of the message of the prophets sent to humanity. The region had a deep religious tradition built on tawḥīd as the core of revelation. Any attempt to divert that teaching, as Paul did, was bound to meet firm rejection from a people long educated in the prophets’ legacy of monotheism.
Because of that wide exposure to the teaching of tawḥīd, the people of the East had a firm grasp of the principles of monotheism. That made it easy for them to detect and reject any deviation from the tawḥīd at the core of their belief. Paul’s doctrine was seen as a plain deviation from the foundation of tawḥīd built and upheld by the earlier prophets of the East, and as a threat to the integrity and continuity of a teaching inherited across generations.
