Paul and Jesus, in fact, never contradict one another. Now if you take selected verses out of context and place them stand-alone (i.e., quote-mine) you can demonstrate a superficial contradiction, but the Jesus-Paul superficial contradictions are no greater than the Jesus-Jesus or the Paul-Paul apparent self-contradictions. They are the trivial (as in not substantive) conflicts that arise when a quote speaking to the free-will side of the readily acknowledged free-will/sovereignty of God tension is pitted against a quote speaking to the sovereignty side. All who believe are saved will always be in tension (and superficially contradictory) with the doctrine of election.
And the fact that Paul doesn’t quote Jesus is readily understood by the obvious fact that Paul, unlike the other apostles, didn’t walk the streets listening to Jesus speak during Jesus’ public ministry. He was not a companion of the incarnate Christ. Paul’s introduction to Jesus was from a singular supernatural encounter in which no theological discussion or instruction is recorded. Paul’s hit-the-ground-running accurate knowledge of Christian theology appears to come primarily from the expertise he developed as a persecutor of the faith. 2 We know, for example, that both before and after his conversion he knew that hanging on a tree was a curse. It’s just that in the before stage he viewed it as an obvious mock-worthy bug of “the Way”, while afterwards he recognized it as an all-important feature. 3
Still, it is fair to ask: what does Paul say about Jesus? For help on this question I turn to one of my favorite sources, the invaluable F. F. Bruce. In this case, his small book The New Testament Documents. Are they Reliable?
Bruce writes:
Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the information we can derive from his Epistles. These were not written to record the facts of the life and ministry of Jesus; they were addressed to Christians, who already knew the gospel story. Yet in them we can find sufficient material to construct an outline of the early apostolic preaching about Jesus. While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus (e.g. Col 1:15ff), yet he knows that He was none the less a real human being (Gal 4:4), a descendent of Abraham (Rom. 9:5) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law; (Gal. 4:4) who was betrayed, and on the night of His betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine; (1 For, 11:23ff) who, endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion, (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:13; 6:14; etc.) although the responsibility for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the Jewish nation; (1 Thes. 2:15) who was buried, rose the third day, and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-five years later. (1 Cor. 15:4ff) In this summary of the evidence for the reality of Christ’s resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of what might well appear an incredible assertion.
Paul knows of the Lord’s apostles, (Gal. 1:17ff) of whom Peter and John are mentioned by names as “pillars” of the Jerusalem community, (Gal. 2:9) and of His brothers, of whom James is similarly mentioned. (Gal. 1:19; 2:9) He knows that the Lord’s brothers and apostles, including Peter, were married (1 Cor. 9:5) – an incidental agreement with the Gospel story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. (Mk. 1:30) He quotes sayings of Jesus on occasion – e.g. His teaching on marriage and divorce, (1 Cor, 7:10-11) and on the right of gospel preachers to have their material needs supplied; (1 Cor, 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Lk. 10:7) and the words He used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23)
Even where he does not quote the actual sayings of Jesus, he shows throughout his works how well acquainted he was with them. In particular, we ought to compare the ethical section of the Epistle to the Romans (12.1 to 15.7), where Paul summarizes the practical implications of the gospel for the lives of believers, with the Sermon on the Mount, to see how thoroughly imbued the apostle was with the teaching of his Master. Besides, there and elsewhere Paul’s chief argument in his ethical instruction is the example of Christ Himself. And the character of Christ as understood by Paul is in perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the Gospels. When Paul speaks of “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor 10.1), we remember our Lord’s own words, “I am meek and lowly in heart” (Mt 11.29). The self-denying Christ of the Gospels is the one of whom Paul says, “Even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom 15.3); and just as the Christ of the Gospels called on His followers to deny themselves (Mk 8.34), so the apostle insists that, after the example of Christ Himself, it is our Christian duty “to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Rom 15.1). He who said: “I am among you as the servant” (Lk 22.27), and performced the menial task of washing His disciples’ feet (Jn 13.4+), is He who, according to Paul, “took the form of a slave” (Phil 2.7). In a word, when Paul wishes to commend to his readers all those moral graces which adorn the Christ of the Gospels he does so in language like this: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13.14).If you haven't read F. F. Bruce--well you need to give him a try.
Paul is not inconsistent with any of the gospels, in which the words of Jesus are recorded, nor with the other canonical epistles outside of his own corpus of biblical writings. Sorry critics--better luck next time.
1 This is codified as Axiom #20, The Super-duper Paul of Tarsus View, in the Internet Atheist Facts O' Fun.
2 Editorial: Learning about something you disagree with, and learning about it thoroughly and accurately, is always better than learning a caricature. Those involved in Christian education should consider this when it comes to science education.
3 To Saul the Pharisee's surprise, those who had seen the resurrected Lord had been proven correct. On the road to make more arrests, Saul/Paul himself had seen him. He had been so very wrong about the tree. It is not clear how quickly he arrived at a true understanding, but he did: The Messiah was accursed, Deut. 21:23, was not contradicted. The radical insight was that the Messiah had to become a curse in order to redeem those who couldn’t keep the law from suffering their just curse (Gal 3:13).
Like much of what you bring up, I'd never thought of that. Thanks.
ReplyDelete