1
A first obstacle to appreciating Paul: Paul and Jesus
Very many people, perhaps even millions, view Jesus of Nazareth with admiration and respect, but see Paul as the founder of a different system of doctrine and the inventor of established churches. They regard Jesus as a religious idealist, who taught a simple religion of love and tolerance; they regard Paul very differently, as one who imposed his ideas onto others, and who, unlike Jesus, undervalued women and the marginalized of society. This constitutes a first obstacle to understanding and appreciating Paul as he really was, and can be for us today. Three kinds of writers have driven a false divide between Paul and Jesus, and have exaggerated their differences.
Three kinds of problematic approaches
(1) One group emerged originally from the nineteenth-century liberalism of Albrecht Ritschl and his influential heir in the early twentieth century, Adolf von Harnack (1851â1930). Ritschl and Harnack found Christian doctrine unappealing. Harnack argued that Jesus taught only three âsimpleâ truths: the kingdom of God, the brotherhood of all, and the infinite value of the human soul. If this were true, a gap opens at once between Jesus and Paul. Harnack believed that Paul, more than anyone else, set about changing this simple religion and the teaching of Jesus into a complex system of doctrine. He drew on âHellenisticâ or Greek metaphysics to transform the teaching of Jesus into a complicated system of beliefs.
(2) A second group of scholars claimed to approach Jesus and Paul from a strictly value-neutral âhistoricalâ perspective. The most important often include Jewish scholars, although they also include some mainly American writers. A forceful recent representation of this view may be the Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby (1924â2004).1 Maccoby states that it was Paul who founded Christianity, not Jesus. Paul invented the âmythâ of Jesusâ divinity. A more careful Jewish writer, H. J. Schoeps, recognizes that Paul remains proud of his Judaism, and criticizes liberal approaches. He does not simply see Paul as heavily influenced by Greek ideas, and concedes that Paul was educated largely in Jerusalem under Rabbi Gamaliel, and followed the moderate theology of Rabbi Hillel. But he distinguishes between âHellenismâ and âHellenistic Judaismâ. The problem, he urges, is not that Paul was influenced by Greek culture, but that he was influenced by Greek-speaking Judaism. This conveyed a distorted understanding of the law, in which the law became isolated from the covenant. Here lies a crucial difference between Paul and Jesus, Schoeps argued, which vitiates Paulâs work.2 Finally, another well-known Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes, argued that Jesus is not to be identified with âthe Christ of the Churchâ.3 The Church worships the Christ of Paul, who believes primarily in the exalted Christ (Phil. 2.5â11), rather than in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth.
(3) Recently a group of American scholars have fallen partly into both of these two categories, but follow their own agenda. John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, and others, think of themselves as value-neutral âhistoricalâ scholars, and (like the second group) try to approach Jesus of Nazareth without any theological assumptions. In 1985 Funk founded the âJesus Seminarâ at the Society of Biblical Literature in America. They included such sources as the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. Jesus emerged, they claimed, as an itinerant sage, or a âGalilean deviantâ, and a teacher of aphorisms, influenced by Greek Cynic moral philosophy. This picture is sharply criticized by N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, and James D. G. Dunn. Dunn calls the resultant âJesusâ âthe Neo-Liberal Jesusâ, like that of the first group.4
A response to these approaches
In fact, however, it is false to claim that Paul knows only the exalted Christ, who is Son of God, but has no interest in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth. A purely âhistoricalâ knowledge alone failed to impress Paul as a Jew. Paul admits that he once knew Christ âfrom a human point of viewâ, but knows him no longer in this way (2 Cor. 5.16). He is referring here to a purely human way of belief, not of a human Jesus. One writer has said that a âfleshlyâ kind of knowledge differs from a âfleshlyâ kind of Christ. Eduard Schweizer rightly sees Jesus as âThe man who fits no formulaâ.5 One cannot begin with pre-conceived categories, or even âtitlesâ, and try to make Jesus fit them; rather, Jesus shapes the categories, titles, and expectations which he uses.
David Wenham provides a comprehensive account of this issue in his book Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?6 He begins by showing that Paul used many of the stories and sayings of Jesus. Even the payment of ministerial stipends offers one of many examples (Matt. 10.10, par. Luke 10.7; cf. 1 Cor. 9.14). Jesusâ sayings on divorce offer another (Matt. 5.27â28; 19.3â9; Mark 10.2â12; Luke 16.18; cf. 1 Cor. 7.10). The institution of the Lordâs Supper is found in Mark 14.22â25; Matt. 26.26â29; and Luke 22.14â20; and set out in 1 Cor. 11.23â26. Wenham recognizes that parallels do not necessarily imply conscious dependence. But in this case there are so many, beginning with Jesusâ announcement of the kingdom (or reign) of God and the time of fulfilment. Herman Ridderbos makes the same point. He exclaims, âThe general character of Paulâs preaching is materially altogether in harmony with the great theme of Jesusâ preaching the coming of the kingdom of heaven. What Jesus proclaims as the âfulfilment of the timeâ (Mark 1.15) is almost word for word identical with what Paul terms âthe fullness of the timeâ (Gal. 4.4).â7
The fulfilment of Jewish expectation becomes a central theme in Jesus, Paul, New Testament eschatology (about the end-times) and âapocalypticâ. It loomed large in the thought of the Qumran community, who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus fulfilled the hopes and expectations of the many who looked to Godâs promises, declared in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. âThat the Scriptures might be fulfilledâ (Mark 14.49) becomes a common theme in the first three Gospels. Matthew regularly sees the ministry of Jesus in this way (Matt. 1.22; 2.15, 17, 23; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 25.54; 27.9 and 35). Paul also agrees that with the coming of Christ the law is fulfilled (Gal. 5.14); that now is the time of Godâs favour (2 Cor. 6.2); and that this is the dispensation of the fulfilment of the time (Eph. 1.10, assuming it is Pauline or perhaps by the Pauline disciple).
In spite of his focus on the exalted Lord, Paul includes a number of details about the earthly life of Jesus. He knows that Jesus was human (Rom. 5.15; 1 Cor. 15.21), and this becomes part of an Adam parallel or typology. Jesus was a Jew (Rom. 9.5), âborn of a woman under the lawâ (Gal. 4.4), and was descended from Abraham (Gal. 3.16), of the lineage of David (Rom. 1.3). Jesus had brothers (1 Cor. 9.5), one of whom was James (Gal. 1.19). His ministry was especially among the Jews (Rom. 15.8). In terms of earthly character, Paul refers to âthe meekness and gentleness of Christâ (2 Cor. 10.1), and recalls his self-description as âmeek and lowly in heartâ (Matt. 11.29). He refers to his âenduranceâ and âobedienceâ (2 Thess. 3.5; Rom. 5.19), which are clearly references to his earthly state, and difficult to apply only to Christ as exalted Lord. In addition to the institution of the Lordâs Supper (or Holy Communion), Paul speaks of Jesus as the Passover Lamb, who was really crucified (1 Cor. 5.7; 1 Cor. 2.8; Gal. 3.13). Paul asserts, âGod sent his Son in the likeness of sinful fleshâ (Rom. 8.3). Further, âHe has reconciled you in the body of his flesh through deathâ (Col. 1.22). Both statements refer to the earthly Jesus.
Transforming grace in Jesus and in Paul
When we read of Paulâs proclamation of justification by grace through faith, we may ask: Is this in any way different from the central message of Jesus? This proclamation remains central in Rom. 1.17 and Romans 1â8, as well as in Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and elsewhere in the Pauline writings. Jesusâ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the parable of the Good Employer and Day Labourer make precisely the same point as Paul. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18.9â14), the story was addressed to those who trusted in themselves instead of God. The presence of Semiticizing tendencies in the language (vv. 11, 12, 13) and the use of an Aramaic idiom (behind the Greek) further assure us that the parable was not a later addition to the words of Jesus.
The Pharisee was a devout Jew, who understandably recalls his works of supererogation as he comes into the presence of God to worship (âI fast twice a weekâ; âI give tithes of all that I possessâ). People regarded the tax collector badly, and marginalized him from society, for he had various devices for defrauding the public. He smote his chest or heart as the perceived seat of sin, to express deepest contrition. The Pharisee stands in a prominent position, and recites his âgood worksâ; the tax collector stands at a distance, and implores Godâs mercy. The latter, to the amazement of the audience, is declared âjustifiedâ (Greek, dedikaiomenos), rather than the devout and dutiful Pharisee.8 We cannot know that the Pharisee was hypocritical. Indeed it would undermine the point of the story if he was. The tax collector was overwhelmed by a sense of his distance from God and his overwhelming need for mercy.
The three parables of the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son (Luke 15) convey a similar point. The elder son (Luke 15.11â32) appears like the Pharisaic critics of Jesus. It does not seem to the elder son to be fair that the younger son, who has been selfish, defiant, estranged, and alienated, should receive a welcome back and his fatherâs extravagant welcome. The parable is a vindication of Godâs mercy and grace to the undeserving. But we need not depend only on Luke. Matthew 20...