There is no scriptural evidence that indicates that Paul was dead. The Bible does not say that Paul was dead-it conveys that he was left for dead. In addition, it does indicate that any of the apostles that stood around Paul prayed or- laid hands on Paul for him to be resurrected from the dead. The scripture states" as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and he departed with Barnabas to Derbe" (Acts 14:19, 20 King James Version). Luke does not explicitly say that Paul was dead. The mob apparently jumped to conclusions once Paul felled under the hail of stones. According to Luke the people drew him out of the city supposing he had been dead. Furthermore, biblical history gives light to the fact that when someone was raised from the dead the following actions were taken, words were spoken, bodies were engaged or hands were laid on the decease-with the exception of Jesus. Case in point- according to scriptures there was a young man who felled out of the window broke his neck and died. The Apostle Paul went down and felled on him and embraced him and the young man's life re-enter his body (Acts 20:9, 10).
2 Corinthians 12 does not validate that Paul had died in Acts 19, went to heaven and had an encounter with Jesus. It merely gives attention to the fact that Paul had a vision of paradise and was not sure at the time of the vision if he was in or out of his body at the time.
2. Fresh on the heels of the Jerusalem Council, Paul insists on circumcising Timothy. Why would he consider this necessary? Was Paul being hypocritical, since the Council had just determined Gentiles need not be circumcised for salvation?
" Luke's note that Timothy's mother was Jewish and his father Greek is essential to understanding why Paul had asked Timothy to be circumcised, since he objected so strenuously to that rite in Galatians. According to later rabbinic law, a child born of a Jewish mother and a Greek father was considered to be Jewish. Therefore, Timothy would have been considered a Jew. Paul always worked through the Jewish synagogues when possible. To have had a member of his entourage be of Jewish lineage and yet uncircumcised would have hampered his effectiveness among the Jews".[1] Based on the provided information Paul was not being hypocritical.
The account of Paul's stoning in Acts 14:19-20 often raises the question whether or not the apostle died. Looking at the passage itself would see there are several reasons for one to believe he did in fact die. The first would be the word "stoned" itself. Early in Luke's account he uses the same term to describe the Stephan's death. (Acts 7:59) Another would be that the people "...dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead." (Acts 14:19 ESV) It would seem that by an initial glance, Paul did die.
However, some people claim this verse does not mean Paul died. John Polhill notes. "Luke's reference to their ‘thinking he was dead' (v. 19) would indicate that this was not the case."[1] David Peterson makes the same conclusion by saying, "Luke is careful to point out that the crowd left thinking he was dead, when he was actually only unconscious or semi-conscious."[2] So, upon further study, it would appear Paul did not die.
Paul though, gives an account in 1 Corinthians 12 where he describes being taken to the "...third heaven...". (2 Corinthians 12:2 ESV) Some would argue this occurred during the stoning event. But this is not widely agreed upon by scholars, Matthew Henry for examples says, "When this was we cannot say, whether it was during those three days that he lay without sight at his conversion or at some other time afterwards..."[3] This account cannot be used by Paul to prove he died at his stoning because he does not explicitly say so.
In Acts 16, Paul parts ways with Barnabus after having a dispute over Mark. Paul meets Timothy who is half Jew and half Greek. Paul then circumcises Timothy. This seems odd considering the recent ruling from the council in Jerusalem regarding regulations for the Gentiles. This brings into question of whether or not Paul was being hypocritical in his actions. Timothy however, is in a slightly different situation because of his parents.
Polhill notes, "According to later rabbinic law, a child of born of a Jewish mother and a Greek father was considered to be Jewish."[4] This is Timothy's case, but Matthew Henry points out that because his father was a Greek, Timothy "...was not obliged to circumcision, nor entitled to it, unless when he grew up he did himself desire it."[5] Paul was not being hypocritical, rather it was necessary because Timothy was a Jew. Polhill reminds his readers, "Gentiles would not be required to become Jews in order to be Christians. The converse was also true; Jews would not be required to abandon their Jewishness in order to become Christians."[6] Paul is being considerate of both groups and is only trying to encourage them in the faith.