After reading the current discussions on predestination and charismata on this blog, I’ve been reminded of a troublesome question that raises its head in my mind from time to time:
Are Paul’s letters and epistles to be considered primary scripture revealed to Paul by God/Christ, e.g. Torah, or are they of the same vein as the Talmud, e.g. opinions and discussion pertaining to Christian life, behavior, ethics, history, etc.?
In contrast to the Twelve disciples/apostles, Paul’s authority was to the Gentiles, which meant that he often had to interpret historical Judaic customs into contemporary foreign cultures and find ways of communicating that would open the eyes and hearts of his audience to the message of the gospel. Those interpretations and methods of discourse may not always be relevant to us today and/or we struggle to find the appropriate way to reapply them to our cultures.
It seems like almost all of our doctrinal battles are rooted in Pauline writing. Let’s face it, it’s pretty hard to split theological hairs over “Love your neighbor as yourself” and Christ Himself dealt with the “who is my neighbor?” question. I read the gospels with a sense of clarity and awareness about Kingdom living; Paul, in contrast, is a difficult writer and we struggle to understand nuances in his work, if such nuances were intended. I read Paul and writings about Paul and come away confused about what is the right way to be a Christian. Worse are the passages where Paul writes that (and I summarize) “This is what I understand Christ to say … and now this is what my opinion is” (cf. 1 Corinthians 7, for one example). Why is Paul’s opinion held to the same level of authority as Christ’s teaching?
What do you think? Should Paul be read as a primary author of Christianity, alongside the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, or as its original interpreter? Should those roles be held to the same level? Do some people tend to be more “Paulite” than “Christian”?
25 Comments
It seemed to me that the 1 cor. 7 passage could be Paul referring to something Jesus actually said (cf. Matthew 5, 19, Mark 10) on divorce, and then Paul teaching something that was not addressed (marriage to unbelievers).
It seems Peter considered Paul’s writings to be Scripture, on par with the Torah and primary scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16)
I would suggest that we take Paul’s teaching as equal in value to that of the other New Testament writers, including those who report Jesus’ words. But we should not take it as more important, as seems to be the tendency in certain evangelical circles.
That’s a great comment by Peter, Bryan — thanks for pointing that out.
I agree with your take of 1 Cor. 7… I was curious to see whether people thought that type of teaching is/was considered primary authority or an extrapolation of a primary (Jesus) teaching.
The root question, I suppose, is whether the New Testament is the teaching of Jesus Christ, accompanied by first-generation interpretation, or whether the NT is the collected/edited authority of Jesus, the apostles and Paul (if one may differentiate the last from the apostles), all on equal footing.
And, is the combined teaching of the New Testament the same as the Gospel of the Great Commission?
When the genuineness of his apostleship was questioned, Paul reminded the Galatians of the following: “Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not based on a human point of view. For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:11, 12, CSB).
Either Paul was telling the truth about the source of his writings or he was misleading everyone else, including us.
Now, now, tc! Paul obviously wasn’t referring here to everything written in the epistles. 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 tells us clearly what “the gospel preached by [him]” was, and it is that he is talking about in Galatians 1.
@ElShaddai – How does this happen? I was just starting a new blog series on the nature of Scripture when you came out with this one. I posted the first last night. I think your questions are excellent ones, and I respect your ability to ask them.
“Should Paul be read as a primary author of Christianity, alongside the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, or as its original interpreter? Should those roles be held to the same level?”
The truth of Christianity is the gospel, which was authored not in a book using words but in the events of history using the Word of God. Because Jesus Himself is the Word of God, I do tend to place a higher premium on the “red letters” but without the person and work of Christ, those words would be meaningless. The New Testament tells us of the events that comprise the gospel, and for that reason, if no other, should be highly prized. How do we live this life given to us by the Son? I think that’s what Paul was for. But the Torah itself is written on our hearts.
“I agree with your take of 1 Cor. 7… I was curious to see whether people thought that type of teaching is/was considered primary authority or an extrapolation of a primary (Jesus) teaching.”
I would say it is primary authority. If Paul says something of His own (re: 1 Cor. 7), and then says that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3), and Peter then asserts that Paul’s writing is Scripture, I think we can infer that Paul is indeed writing Scripture that is of primary authority, i.e. from/inspired by/breathed out by God. This is, of course, circular since I’m going to Paul as an authority in the second step.
This all to say that the ultimate authority then is not Paul and the Gospel writers, but God who inspired both Paul and the Gospel writers. Therefore, I agree with Peter Kirk that it should be considered equal, and certainly not greater.
Now, now, steve! Are we to limit the gospel to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? According to Paul, the gospel includes things like the Day of Judgment (Rom 2:16).
Yes, Paul was used by God to unpack the meaning of Christ and the historical events surrounding His life, but let’s not get carried away.
While Christ is Himself the Word, we cannot minimize the written word. Peter certainly had high regards for Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).
I do agree, however, that we should use the OT to help us understand the language of much of the New. But let’s not forget the influence of Hellenic thought.
All in all, it is the Spirit who must break the code!
Steve wrote:
Hope you don’t mind that I edited your comment to include a link to your new post – some good thoughts there and a very useful examination of 2 Tim 3:16-17!
tcgreek quoted:
Sorry about another tangent on my own blog, but has anyone done a useful study on Paul’s comments about being “caught up as far as the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2)?
tcgreek asked:
So… is “the gospel” the explanation of the entire NT or is it the fact of Jesus Christ risen from the dead and Lord of all Creation, of which the NT texts unpack?
If the question is about the relative authority of Paul’s writings in the NT, then I would assert that Paul’s writings have just as much authority as Matthew’s or Peter’s or John’s, etc., even when those other writers quote Jesus. The “red letter edition” Bibles don’t mean that Jesus’ words are more authoritative.
On the other hand, if the question is about the distinction between the events (history) and the recording and commenting on the events (recorded history), then we have a completely different discussion. In that discussion I would cautiously assert that it is the recorded history that is of primary importance, though it means nothing without the actual events themselves. In other words, Paul’s interpretation of the resurrection means nothing without the actual reality of the event. However, Paul’s interpretation of the event is exactly what God has sovereignly left us to teach us about the significance of the event. It would be unwise to abandon the written Word in order to seek the “true meaning” of the events, since it is the written Word that God has chosen to give us the meaning of those events. In the same way, it would be just as unwise to treat Paul’s writings as inferior to Matthew’s records of Jesus’ words. This leads us down the “Jesus Seminar” path.
I think to answer your question, ElShaddai, it would seem that God designed it to be that all of the NT writings, even those that record his own words, would be sovereignly guided literary interpretations and applications of the gospel. Can I be really annoying and say that it is, therefore, both Torah and Talmud? It is Torah in that all Scripture is God-breathed, therefore, authoritative. It is Talmud in that it is all meant to explain and apply the glory of God in redeeming his people. I do not, however, say that it is Talmud in the same sense that non-Scripture interpretation is Talmud. Perhaps it would be more helpful to discuss it as authoritative rather than interpretative. In that sense, Paul’s writings are as equally authoritative as Matthew’s or John’s record of Jesus’ statements.
tc said, “While Christ is Himself the Word, we cannot minimize the written word. Peter certainly had high regards for Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).”
@tc: Scripture is useful for all the things Paul said it was (2 Tim. 3:15-17). We should not make anything too small (minimize); however, we should make every effort to view it at its actual size.
Will said, “The ‘red letter edition’ Bibles don’t mean that Jesus’ words are more authoritative.”
…
“Can I be really annoying and say that it is, therefore, both Torah and Talmud? It is Torah in that all Scripture is God-breathed, therefore, authoritative. It is Talmud in that it is all meant to explain and apply the glory of God in redeeming his people.”
@Will: But it is not, nor ever claims to be, the Word of God: claiming this for it exalts the words of Scripture to the place of Christ, whose appearance and words (red letters!) must surely be given precedence. Our Christology must supercede our bibliology, or we’ve missed the point of the Bible. The Scripture is God-breathed and useful for our doctrine: but it’s not authoritative in the same sense that Christ is. Even most of the more conservative scholars will agree that the Scriptures’ perfection recedes as we move away from the original manuscripts — so how can we, not possessing the originals, claim that the Bible as we have it is equal to the authority of Christ?
I think that the writings of Paul most timelessly relates the importance of the work of Christ to us. For this reason, I agree with Peter, therefore, that it is absolutely as “profitable” as the OT Scripture Paul talked about in 2 Tim. 3:15-17. But don’t forget that the New Covenant is distinctive from the Old with its written code (Torah); in this “better covenant”, God writes the Law (Torah) not on stone but on our hearts in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33 (2 Cor 3:3; Heb 8:10, 10:16). It’s hard to see how we can equate the Bible with the Torah.
Steve, I have four questions I need you to help me out with so I can understand your point a little better.
First, where do you find the words of Christ apart from Scripture? If Christ’s words are to be separated from the written word, how do you make that distinction?
Additionally, are the words of Christ as recorded in Scripture actually the words he spoke, or are they the author’s editing and theological “spin” of Christ’s spoken words?
Third, what biblical warrant is there for making this dichotomy between the words of Christ (which we can not know apart from the written word) and the rest of the written word?
Finally, when you say, “It is not, nor ever claims to be, the Word of God,” are you trying to make a distinction between Christ’s words and the Scripture? If so, I ask the same questions: why the distinction, how do you determine Christ’s words apart form the Scripture, etc.?
The testimony of Scripture throughout both testaments is that when God speaks, whether immediately or mediately, verbally or in written form, it is equally authoritative.
I don’t find the words of Christ apart from Scripture. Thank heavens for Scripture! But the words of Christ were not written first, but spoken first. I don’t have much interest in separating the two: I’m not a Jesus Seminar type. I am interested in making a distinction between the actions/words of Christ and the words of Scripture. They happened with or without the Bible, as I hope you would agree. The actions of Christ are the bedrock of the faith, and not the recording of those actions in the words of Scripture. If the Bible is misread, misinterpreted, mistranslated, etc., the truth behind the Bible remains. That’s my point.
The church existed and thrived long before the availability of the New Testament. Testimony to truth is necessary, but is not itself the message. Isn’t this profound to the point of being tautology? That’s the only distinction I wanted to make. Most modern Protestants view the Bible as though it was itself the message. Practically speaking, there’s not usually much wrong with viewing things that way, since the NT especially is a clear window to the Truth, but there are dangers.
One notable problem with focusing on the messenger instead of the message by making the Bible the Word of God is that the Bible does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted: this means that the Word of God in practical terms becomes not so much the Truth behind the Bible or even the Bible itself, but our interpretation of it. I hope it’s obvious why it’s dangerous to exalt our interpretation of the Truth over Christ Who is the truth.
El Shaddai wrote:
“So… is “the gospel” the explanation of the entire NT or is it the fact of Jesus Christ risen from the dead and Lord of all Creation, of which the NT texts unpack?”
I believe your second question captures what is the gospel—the NT documents take on significance because of the Word, His life, death and resurrection, which is the gospel.
So yes, the NT documents unpack the Word.
Steve said:
“Scripture is useful for all the things Paul said it was (2 Tim. 3:15-17). We should not make anything too small (minimize); however, we should make every effort to view it at its actual size.”
While not accusing you of Barthian theology, all of Scripture points to the Word, yes. But we must keep such a view of Scripture that none is actually minimize.
El Shaddai wrote:
“Sorry about another tangent on my own blog, but has anyone done a useful study on Paul’s comments about being “caught up as far as the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2)?”
Paul would have revealed what he was allowed to reveal. To venture beyond what Paul revealed is only speculative. I’m sure you would agree.
As I have have studied Paul’s writings, I found that the builds up his arguments based on concepts that almost universally go back to Jesus and/or to Moses. For example, the idea that “only one can win the race, but run so as to win” is an echo of the manna in the desert, where no one gathered the right amount, but everyone who brought their’s to the priest found it measured exactly right. There are so many other distinctly Pauline concepts that were writtin by Moses first, that where Paul does introduce new doctrine (such as spiritual gifts, and practicing them in turn; loving your wife as Christ loves the church), I have no trouble accepting them as such
@tcgreek: yes, I’m sure that Paul was deliberate in the language he chose to use about his revelation. However, the phrase “third heaven” just sticks out like a sore thumb in a NT that rarely discusses the order of the heavenly realm. I was just curious whether that language was connected to any other contemporary Jewish or Greek idea of heaven.
@Steve: I think, for now, that we’re of a common mind in that the NT texts, probably with equal authority as Peter originally noted, provide insight into the eternal truth of Christ’s message, which is separate and unstained by human interpretation. The question is whether the NT texts, as we have them, are the inerrant revelation of God or the errant works of men, based on inerrant Truth. Barth, whom you’ve been subtly linked to, argued the latter, yes?
I had written earlier about whether the Bible could be considered an onion or a hologram. In the former model, a core Truth has been layered over with centuries of interpretation, divine or human, but is still capable of being revealed if we peel back those layers. In the latter, the whole of the Truth is reflected in every part of the canon without the need to discard layers of interpretation.
El shaddai,
Regarding the “third heaven” there are two leading ideas: 1. Some think that Paul was caught to some level of heaven but not the hightest heavens (because there are 7 heavens); and 2. there are three levels and Paul was caught up to the hightest heavens.
The latter is what I believe.
I do have some things in common with Neo-Orthodoxy, but my view is probably closer to that of C.S. Lewis. Not trying to be coy, but my blog series is going to detail my thoughts on inerrancy. I’m for it and against it. I guess you could say that I view the Chicago statement on inerrancy to be notably errant
The onion vs. hologram question is quite interesting. Allow me to contribute the art gallery view, in which the Bible contains pictures of various sorts: paintings on canvas, molded sculptures, photographs of varying quality of different subjects, each seen through the lens of its artist. This is closer to my view.
Well, speaking of Mr. Lewis… I just discovered this quote that Peter had posted on his site:
Looking forward to the rest of your new series!
Steve wrote:
Hopefully that doesn’t lend itself to a version of “I know art when I see it…” with respect to coming closer to the word of God.
Great quote (which I don’t think I’ve read before) from Lewis.