Last fall I gave a lecture to an adult confirmation class on the structure of the Bible commonly used by Protestants. Toward the end I made a comment that surprised a few of them: Paul was not Jesus. For those raised to believe the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God, what Paul wrote is the equal of what Jesus is recorded to have said, and to suggest otherwise is troubling.
Jesus is the living word of God made flesh. Paul, prior to becoming an apostle, was a persecutor of the faith. He had to learn by stages what it meant to help guide new congregations. Paul was learning as he grew in his faith; his letters show development, making corrections to his previously held assumptions.
What we have from Paul are copies of letters, or parts of letters, written over a span of thirty years that demonstrate two things. First, how difficult it was to counsel new Christians far removed from Palestine and and Judaism. Second, Paul’s teaching about the faith changed as he moved further into a deeper understanding of it. Paul made mistakes, got things wrong, but if he was exactly wrong in some cases, he was roughly right in the whole, and spot on in many things. He was a reliable guide who learned as he led others. There’s no doubt that in his letters he illuminated God’s word for Christians of every generation, but he was not inerrant.
Jesus, the Son part of One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, spoke. Not on behalf of God but as God. Everything in Paul’s letters is subordinate to Jesus.
The gospel records of Jesus’ life and teaching are a composite of eye witness accounts, oral teachings handed down from Jesus’ disciples, and sources unknown to us. Some details and elaborations in them cannot be harmonized, but the essential of who Jesus is and what he did and said are consistent. I am confident that the writers of the gospels accurately recorded God’s truth, and generations of translations have not deviated from it. He was and is the living Word of God made flesh, there is no higher authority; everything elsewhere in scripture, and everything taught in the centuries since, must be measured by that.
If Paul’s understanding of what it meant to be Christian changed and developed over the thirty years of his ministry, it should not be surprising that Israel’s understanding who God is and how to talk about God changed dramatically over the two thousand years covered by Hebrew Scriptures. It’s a difficult concept to grasp if God’s progressive self revelation is denied.
What is obvious to clergy and teachers reasonably grounded in biblical scholarship is not obvious to poorly taught but faithful Christians who want to know more. Moving from baby’s milk to solid food can be uncomfortable, but it leads to a deeper more profound understanding and trust in God’s abounding and steadfast love.
Didn’t Paul write in the 30s, 40s, and 50s? Didn’t the earliest gospels get written in the 80s?
Hi Stephen,
Very helpful in defining the difference between Paul’s teaching and that of Jesus. Beautifully written.
John
This can be the theme of a Preaching Series on the Letters of Paul:
“If Paul’s understanding of what it meant to be Christian changed and developed over the thirty years of his ministry, it should not be surprising that Israel’s understanding who God is and how to talk about God changed dramatically over the two thousand years covered by Hebrew Scriptures. It’s a difficult concept to grasp if God’s progressive self revelation is denied. ”
H+
Thank you, Steve. This is very helpful to my understanding of the idea of unfolding revelations of the words of God.
Bob F