The more we inquire into Paul's conduct and teaching, the more will we be guided to a right conclusion in this matter. Let us begin by asking
(a) Was Paul marked by great heat of temper?
If he were, it might lead to an overheated imagination. The answer to our question is found in the fact that in the record of Paul's life as given in the Acts of the Apostles, you will find nothing but sanity marking the apostle; no bursts of ebullition, -no wild exhibitions of temper are in evidence, and he had plenty to try his patience.
It is true that he could be vehement when the occasion called for it, for instance when he denounced in no unmeasured terms the Judaizing work of men, who sought, to corrupt the pure Gospel of the grace of God, but there was no unbalanced heat of temper exhibited, but solemn denunciation in the severest terms, which the occasion demanded.
(b) Was it melancholy that marked Paul, which might have led to self-deception?
Melancholia is described as a form of insanity, producing great depression of mind. How often has the writer met such cases, men and women, who imagined all kinds of depressing things that never happened, but were the fruits of a morbid imagination. But there is no trace of this in Paul's career, no trace of it in his numerous writings.
When cast unjustly into the inner prison at Philippi, with his feet fast in the stocks, his back sore and bleeding with the cruel beating he had received at the hands of the brutal jailor, what was he doing at the midnight hour? Was he wringing his hands, bemoaning his sad fate, imagining all sorts of things? No, he and his companion were occupied in praying to God, and singing His praises, the prisoners hearing them. No signs of melancholia there!
At the end of his career, when he would, if ever, have been disillusioned, how do we find him? As a prisoner at Rome, chained to a soldier, with the prospect of martyrdom just ahead, in what strain did he write to the church at Philippi? Was there any mark of melancholia observable? Nay, he wrote, " Finally my brethren, rejoice in the Lord." (Phil. 3:1).
=============================
" Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice." (Phil. 4:4).
And between these two points in his career we find no trace of melancholia marking him, but rather the characteristics of a sane sober man, gladly yielding all that he had, even to life itself, for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.
The prospect of death left him unmoved and serene, even rejoicing. He wrote, " My earnest expectation and my hope [is], that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:20, 21).
Does this sound like melancholy? Are these words those of an impostor, or of the victim of self-deception?
(c) Was it ignorance that led Paul to deception?
Ignorance could not have been successfully charged against Paul. He was brought up in Tarsus, Cilicia, in good circumstances apparently, for his father being a Roman citizen was able to pass on this distinction to his son. When the chief captain, mentioned in Acts 22:28, exclaimed that with a great price he had bought this honor, Paul replied that he was free born.
As he grew up to manhood, for the purpose of his rabbinical training he was sent to Jerusalem to be educated under the teaching of the celebrated Gamaliel. There is a saying in the Jewish Talmud, "Since Rabbin Gamaliel has died, the glory of the law has ceased."
That Paul was thus educated, strengthens the belief that his father was a man of some affluence, something like a family now-a-days, who can afford to give their son a university training.
Paul's education stands in great contrast to that of the Jewish apostles, who were described as " unlearned and ignorant men." (Acts 4:13). He was the complete master of two languages, and had received the best education the Jewish nation could furnish. His writings in their clearness and reasoning powers are sufficient to prove that it was not ignorance that led Paul to deception.
(d) Was it credulity that led Paul into believing what was not true?
Credulity is described as a readiness to believe on improbable grounds. This is ever a mark of opponents to the Bible that they are ready to believe anything that can set aside the Scriptures, such as the swoon theory, the hallucination theory. It has been put forward that Paul's conversion was due to an epileptic fit, as if any person so affected would profess to have seen what Paul saw. It has been said that if Paul's conversion was due to an epileptic fit, it is a great pity that tens of thousands more were not subject to fits of that kind.
What was Paul's condition before conversion? He must have been well aware of our Lord's claims to Deity, His entrance to Manhood's estate. He must have been familiar with stories of the miraculous healings that followed our Lord wherever He went. He must have heard something of His teaching. He knew about the crucifixion. But he was incredulous as to all these things. He believed Christ to be an impostor. He thought that he was actually doing God's service in persecuting with ardor the saints of God. This was his condition of mind when he set forth that morning on his journey of persecuting zeal to Damascus.
When his conversion took place he had no opportunity of speaking to Christians, nor would they have spoken to him, even if he had wished them to do so, for they were sore afraid of his persecuting rage. It was the amazing discovery, that the One he saw, and who spoke to him from heaven, was Jesus, the Son of God. In a moment of time the great change took place, and his faith rested not on credulity, but on indisputable grounds. Credulity could not be laid to his charge.
(e) Was vanity or self-conceit the cause of Paul's sudden change over?
There have been many instances where overweening vanity and self-conceit have marked religious leaders, but they have always been to their undoing. A man or a woman with self-conceit very prominent is probably on the way to a mental asylum. Instead of looking at things in due proportion, inordinate ideas of themselves throw everything out of right prospective. There is no trace of this in the Apostle Paul. When the church at Corinth was questioning his authority as Apostle of the Gentiles, he was forced to speak, of himself in self-defense. Was it like vanity or self-conceit when he wrote to the church at Corinth, " I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles though I be nothing. (2 Cor. 12:11).
You can discern in these words what pain it gave the Apostle to have to speak thus of himself. In another place he said he was less than the least of all saints (Eph. 3:8), as he thought of the days of his persecuting frenzy.