For me the study of the Gospels comes first, as compared to study of Paul's epistles. If I am to learn of Jesus, I must go to the Gospels where his words and deeds are described, for reasons which have come up before in this blog as discussed briefly here. St. Paul's writings then become invaluable comments on what we have previously learned from the Gospels.
How do we know that St. Paul's Jesus is the same as Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Gospels? This question comes up because Paul makes few references to the words of Jesus in his letters. We also see Paul asserting his independence as a teacher of the gospel message in the Epistle to the Galatians - where he appealed to the Galatians to reject the claim that Gentile believers needed circumcision, stating that his teaching authority came directly from Jesus and did not depend on authority granted by the Jerusalem church leaders. Sceptics attempt to show from this that Paul's Jesus was not based on the Jesus whom we see in the Gospels.
In the last post, to defend the traditional views on this subject, to which I adhere, I briefly noted that Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the Jerusalem church. Yes, there was tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church on the specific issue of Gentile freedom from Jewish law, which was ultimately resolved at the Jerusalem council, but that dispute was over this one issue involving the law and never involved a questioning of Paul's presentation of the person of Jesus. If Paul had created something new as to his description of Jesus, the mother church in Jerusalem would have rejected Paul when he came to them.
In this post I'm looking further at the people whom Paul knew as he went about his work. Even before his conversion Paul knew of Jesus. After his conversion, Paul knew and worked with people from this Jerusalem church. From them he learned of the earthly Jesus of Nazareth.
Investigating this subject sends you into a huge pool of scholarly articles and books. My problem with this literature is that much of it quotes other articles and books rather than the evidence from the Bible itself, and it is the scriptural texts which interest me as a general reader. In this post I will quote from John Gresham Machen who deals with some of the NT texts, and from these the believer can see clearly that St. Paul's Lord Jesus Christ is the Jesus of the Gospels.
It's true that for Paul the person and work of Jesus are what Paul deals with, and in particular the cross and resurrection of Jesus, as pointed out here (citing 1 Cor 1:18; 2:2; 15:3-8). Professsor David B. Capes in this same piece properly notes here that "[o]nly a few references to the sayings and activities of Jesus prior to his crucifixion appear. In this regard the Pauline corpus is not unlike other NT letters, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse. These too contain few quotations of or allusions to Jesus’ teachings and deeds during his earthly ministry."
In the next post I will look at these quotations and allusions, and discuss the significance of them.
But for now, we start with the point that Paul's lack of attention to the words of Jesus does not mean that Paul did not know of Jesus and his sayings. Professor John Gresham Machen in The Origin of Paul's Religion (New York MacMillan 1921) (hereafter Machen) available here states that:
Paul was deeply interested in Jesus, since he was an active persecutor of Jesus' disciples. After the conversion, Paul was undoubtedly baptized, and undoubtedly came into some contact with Christians in Damascus. The presumption is strongly in favor of the presence there of some who had known Jesus in the days of His flesh; the independence of which Paul is speaking in Galatians is independence over against the Jerusalem apostles, not over against humble disciples in Damascus, and it does not relate to information about details. Three years after the conversion Paul visited Peter at Jerusalem, and also met James the brother of Jesus. [The Catholic church teaches that this "brother" was not the child of Mary. T.S.] It is quite inconceivable that the three men avoided the subject of Jesus' words and deeds. The fifteen days spent with Peter at Jerusalem brought Paul into contact with the most intimate possible source of information about Jesus. Machen at 137.
Paul was deeply interested in Jesus, since he was an active persecutor of Jesus' disciples. After the conversion, Paul was undoubtedly baptized, and undoubtedly came into some contact with Christians in Damascus. The presumption is strongly in favor of the presence there of some who had known Jesus in the days of His flesh; the independence of which Paul is speaking in Galatians is independence over against the Jerusalem apostles, not over against humble disciples in Damascus, and it does not relate to information about details. Three years after the conversion Paul visited Peter at Jerusalem, and also met James the brother of Jesus. [The Catholic church teaches that this "brother" was not the child of Mary. T.S.] It is quite inconceivable that the three men avoided the subject of Jesus' words and deeds. The fifteen days spent with Peter at Jerusalem brought Paul into contact with the most intimate possible source of information about Jesus. Machen at 137.
Also, according to the Book of Acts (Acts 9:27) Paul met his friend Barnabus during his first Jerusalem visit. Machen further states this about Paul and Barnabas:
Whatever may be thought of this detail, the later association of Barnabas with Paul, at Antioch and on the first missionary journey, is generally or universally recognized as historical. It is confirmed by the association of the two men at the time of the conference with the Jerusalem pillars (Gal. ii. 1). Thus Paul spent several years in the most intimate association with Barnabas. Who then was Barnabas? According to Acts iv. 36, 37, he was a man of Cyprus by descent, but he was also a member of the primitive Jerusalem Church.
...
It will probably be admitted to-day by the majority of scholars that Barnabas really had a place in the primitive Jerusalem Church. But if so, his close connection with Paul is of the utmost importance. How could Paul possibly have been for years intimately associated with Barnabas in the proclamation of the gospel without becoming acquainted with the facts about Jesus? Is it to be supposed that Barnabas, who had lived at Jerusalem, proclaimed Jesus as Saviour without telling in detail what sort of person Jesus had been, and what He had said and done?
Machen at 137-138.
Paul also had another friend, John Mark (Col 4:10 and Philem. 24), who was from the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:25), as was Silas (Acts 15:22, 27). John Mark was Mark who according to a strong tradition authored the Gospel of Mark, which was a Gospel heavily based on information from Peter. Machen at 139. Mark may have gathered some of this information about Jesus from Peter after he stopped working with Paul, but even that happened Paul's contact with John Mark early in Paul's ministry put Paul into contact with someone who would have been aware of Peter's descriptions of Jesus. See Acts 12:12 (Peter at the home of John Mark's mother). Also, Paul's experience at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) would have been for him "an enrichment in Paul's knowledge of Jesus' earthly ministry." Machen at 139. Machen states:
It is hardly to be supposed that at the conference any more than at the first visit of Paul to Jerusalem the subject of the words and deeds of Jesus was carefully avoided. Such avoidance would have been possible only if the Jerusalem Church itself had been indifferent to its own reminiscences of Jesus' earthly ministry. But that the Jerusalem Church was not indifferent to its own reminiscences is proved by the preservation (evidently at Jerusalem) of the tradition contained in the Gospels. The existence of the Gospels shows that the memory of Jesus' words and deeds was carefully treasured up in the Jerusalem Church from the earliest times. Paul could hardly have come into contact with such a church without obtaining information about Jesus. He could not have failed to obtain information even if he had been anxious to avoid it.
Machen at 139.
Next post I will discuss places in the NT where we see Paul alluding to the words of Jesus, and to his earthly character. Thanks to Machen, I have a renewed enthusiasm for the writings of St. Paul, whose life and teaching inspire the believer to follow Jesus.
Whatever may be thought of this detail, the later association of Barnabas with Paul, at Antioch and on the first missionary journey, is generally or universally recognized as historical. It is confirmed by the association of the two men at the time of the conference with the Jerusalem pillars (Gal. ii. 1). Thus Paul spent several years in the most intimate association with Barnabas. Who then was Barnabas? According to Acts iv. 36, 37, he was a man of Cyprus by descent, but he was also a member of the primitive Jerusalem Church.
...
It will probably be admitted to-day by the majority of scholars that Barnabas really had a place in the primitive Jerusalem Church. But if so, his close connection with Paul is of the utmost importance. How could Paul possibly have been for years intimately associated with Barnabas in the proclamation of the gospel without becoming acquainted with the facts about Jesus? Is it to be supposed that Barnabas, who had lived at Jerusalem, proclaimed Jesus as Saviour without telling in detail what sort of person Jesus had been, and what He had said and done?
Machen at 137-138.
Paul also had another friend, John Mark (Col 4:10 and Philem. 24), who was from the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:25), as was Silas (Acts 15:22, 27). John Mark was Mark who according to a strong tradition authored the Gospel of Mark, which was a Gospel heavily based on information from Peter. Machen at 139. Mark may have gathered some of this information about Jesus from Peter after he stopped working with Paul, but even that happened Paul's contact with John Mark early in Paul's ministry put Paul into contact with someone who would have been aware of Peter's descriptions of Jesus. See Acts 12:12 (Peter at the home of John Mark's mother). Also, Paul's experience at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) would have been for him "an enrichment in Paul's knowledge of Jesus' earthly ministry." Machen at 139. Machen states:
It is hardly to be supposed that at the conference any more than at the first visit of Paul to Jerusalem the subject of the words and deeds of Jesus was carefully avoided. Such avoidance would have been possible only if the Jerusalem Church itself had been indifferent to its own reminiscences of Jesus' earthly ministry. But that the Jerusalem Church was not indifferent to its own reminiscences is proved by the preservation (evidently at Jerusalem) of the tradition contained in the Gospels. The existence of the Gospels shows that the memory of Jesus' words and deeds was carefully treasured up in the Jerusalem Church from the earliest times. Paul could hardly have come into contact with such a church without obtaining information about Jesus. He could not have failed to obtain information even if he had been anxious to avoid it.
Machen at 139.
Next post I will discuss places in the NT where we see Paul alluding to the words of Jesus, and to his earthly character. Thanks to Machen, I have a renewed enthusiasm for the writings of St. Paul, whose life and teaching inspire the believer to follow Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment