Colossians is a tough call for me. Although a growing number of scholars believe that the letter is not authentic to Paul, I am not sure.
The central issue that the letter addresses is the development of mystical views within the church. There seems to be a group of people who worship angels and are deluded with visionary experiences (2: 18-19). The author of the letter points out that this love of higher experience is really a form of self-centeredness. It is based on human achievement, and has nothing to do with the unity of Christ which comes as a gift from God. This argument could certainly have come from Paul.
Within the letter, there is so much that sounds like Paul. Christians are reconciled to God by the death of Christ on the cross (1: 22). Christ overrides the Law (2: 14). Rules no longer play a role in religious life (2: 20-23). With regard to circumcision, one is circumcised not by a human hand, but the whole body is stripped of flesh through a relationship with Christ. (2: 11-12) Good behavior flows from a recreated self (3:10). Finally, church meetings take place in a house (4: 16). There is no hint of an established church organization which came after Paul, and is an important factor in declaring other letters to be not authentic.
Scholars who suggest that the letter was not written by Paul point out that the vocabulary and sentence structure are different from the original letters. They also suggest that there are hints of a realized eschatology, the idea that the kingdom has already arrived in some form. The author claims that Christian believers have both died and been raised with Christ (2: 12-13). In the authentic letters, Paul insists that Christians are not raised to heaven until the second coming of Christ.
Another hint that the author may not be Paul comes in 3:11. The author states the famous Pauline formula that all are one in Christ—Jew/Gentile, slave/free—but omits male/female. This omission may point to a different author or may be nothing more than an omission. When all the evidence is taken together, I think it is safe to conclude that the letter was written by Paul or by a close disciple shortly after Paul’s death.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
2 Thessalonians
In the ancient world, the designation of author did not always have a precise meaning. There are three possible relationships between the writer and the work written. The first possibility is that the writer is the author of the ideas expressed. Paul wrote Romans. The second possibility is that the writer comes from the author’s school. In this case, the writer may attribute the name of the school’s founder to the work to enhance its credibility. The author or school’s founder, however, remains the authority behind the work. The work contains the ideas of the school’s founder. The third possibility is deception or outright fraud. In this last case, the writer attributes the work to a famous person to enhance the writer’s ideas not the ideas of the famous person whose name is attributed to the work.
In the next three blogs, I will examine Second Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. These letters are attributed to Paul, and fit either category one or category two as described above. Following these three letters, we will look at the Pastoral Letters—First and Second Timothy and Titus. These last three letters are fraudulent. They fit into category three.
Scholars are evenly divided as to whether 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul. On the one hand, the author claims to be Paul. “Surely you remember me telling you about this when I was with you” (2:5). The author further states that the letter was hand written by Paul (3:8). The basic message is also Pauline: Jesus is coming for those who suffer and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who do not acknowledge God and refuse to accept the good news of the gospel will burn (1:7-8).
The letter addresses a specific problem. There were some members in the congregation who were so convinced that the end was here that they had stopped working (3:6-15). The author’s message was that though the end was coming soon, it may not be right away, and that those who had stopped working should return to work.
The issue regarding authorship centers around the subtle shift in eschatological expectation. In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he urges the congregation to remain on the alert because Jesus will return without warning like a thief in the night. This message is consistent with the theological views presented in the other authentic letters. In 2 Thessalonians, the author says that there will be plenty of warning. Jesus will return only after the Rebel, the antichrist, has established his throne in the temple of Jerusalem, and declared himself to be God (2:4-5). There is no mention of an antichrist in the authentic letters.
Paul is either writing toward the end of his ministry and responding to a different type of problem (the refusal of some to work) or a disciple of Paul’s school is using Paul’s name in order to provide greater credibility to the message in the letter. Because the message of the letter is in the main Pauline, we can rule out fraud as described in category three above.
I take the side of pseudonymity, that the letter was written by a disciple of Paul, because of the different approach to eschatology contained within the letter. The vast majority of conservative biblical scholars believe the letter to be authentic. Regardless of who is right, I don’t believe that this academic debate has much significance!
In the next three blogs, I will examine Second Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. These letters are attributed to Paul, and fit either category one or category two as described above. Following these three letters, we will look at the Pastoral Letters—First and Second Timothy and Titus. These last three letters are fraudulent. They fit into category three.
Scholars are evenly divided as to whether 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul. On the one hand, the author claims to be Paul. “Surely you remember me telling you about this when I was with you” (2:5). The author further states that the letter was hand written by Paul (3:8). The basic message is also Pauline: Jesus is coming for those who suffer and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who do not acknowledge God and refuse to accept the good news of the gospel will burn (1:7-8).
The letter addresses a specific problem. There were some members in the congregation who were so convinced that the end was here that they had stopped working (3:6-15). The author’s message was that though the end was coming soon, it may not be right away, and that those who had stopped working should return to work.
The issue regarding authorship centers around the subtle shift in eschatological expectation. In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he urges the congregation to remain on the alert because Jesus will return without warning like a thief in the night. This message is consistent with the theological views presented in the other authentic letters. In 2 Thessalonians, the author says that there will be plenty of warning. Jesus will return only after the Rebel, the antichrist, has established his throne in the temple of Jerusalem, and declared himself to be God (2:4-5). There is no mention of an antichrist in the authentic letters.
Paul is either writing toward the end of his ministry and responding to a different type of problem (the refusal of some to work) or a disciple of Paul’s school is using Paul’s name in order to provide greater credibility to the message in the letter. Because the message of the letter is in the main Pauline, we can rule out fraud as described in category three above.
I take the side of pseudonymity, that the letter was written by a disciple of Paul, because of the different approach to eschatology contained within the letter. The vast majority of conservative biblical scholars believe the letter to be authentic. Regardless of who is right, I don’t believe that this academic debate has much significance!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Final Thoughts on Paul
Paul is the founder of the Christian religion. Jesus inspired Christianity and was the life force behind it, but Paul developed the ideas and successfully sold those ideas to the world. Much of what he created is a thing of beauty. The religion of Paul is all about love and living love. There are some underlying assumptions to Paul’s ideas that I find troubling, however.
The first problem is with the idea of Jesus dying for our sins, the concept of the atonement. It is a silly idea. Jesus dies to pay the penalty for the sins of all of humanity. In creating this idea, Paul links the death of Jesus to the original sin of Adam. Because of one man’s sin, humans are alienated from God. Because of one man’s obedience, humans become reconciled with God. (Romans 5:12-21)
If that was God’s purpose for Jesus, why doesn’t Jesus talk about it? You would think that the atonement idea would be a central theme of the gospels, but it is not. The idea is not even mentioned in Mark, Matthew, or Luke.
In addition, the idea of atonement does not explain Jesus’ death. Jesus was crucified, a Roman punishment. The Romans would not have been concerned with a man who came to pay the penalty for human sin. The Romans cared a lot about a perceived threat to the established order. Judas most likely informed the authorities that Jesus was bent on establishing a new kingdom. It is because of this perceived threat that Jesus was crucified.
The Adam part of the equation is equally silly. First of all, Adam and Eve were not historical people. Secondly, Adam’s act of disobedience, as described by Paul, has cosmic significance. It is the act that brought sin into the world. Because of its significance, you would think that Adam’s act would be discussed throughout the Old Testament. It is not. In fact, the story of Adam and Eve is not mentioned again in the Jewish scriptures. Finally, as I pointed out in my book on Evangelical Christianity, the Adam and Eve story is not really about sin, but rather the idea that God and humans are essentially different.
Finally, the atonement theory says something rather silly about God. A God who requires human sacrifice as a condition for restoring the divine/human relationship seems rather petty to me.
The second problem I have with the religion of Paul is that it is based on the need for a profound experience of love. This experience is life changing. It makes the recipient into a new creation. The problem is that few people have such experiences.
There is evidence in the psychological literature that people under great stress may have such experiences. Paul is probably a good example of this type of person. The literature on near death experiences presents many cases of people who have had profound experiences of love that are life changing. If you add together the cases of people under great stress and people who have had near death experiences, you come up with a tiny fraction of the general population.
You also read about profound experiences of love in the mystical literature. Again, the experience is transforming. The problem is that mystics are like extreme athletes. Their experience of love comes after many years of engaging in spiritual practices. Some of these extreme athletes never get there. I, for one, have failed in these efforts.
There are many Christians who claim to have had such experiences. They have been “born again.” The problem is that there is little evidence that the experience they describe leads to inner transformation. They feel good about themselves, but they do not seem to behave in new ways. In my book on Evangelical Christianity, I cite statistical studies that support this conclusion. People who have had born again experiences do not behave differently on ethical matters from the general population.
So Paul’s religion, while genuine, is misleading and not very helpful. As I confessed in my blog dealing with the Sermon on the Mount, I prayed for years asking Christ to come into my life and to make me into a new creation. Nothing happened. Maybe God has hardened my heart.
Third, as I indicated in discussing the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18), I do not understand how the final end of Paul’s religion works. To resummarize, at the trumpet of God, Jesus will come down from heaven. The elect who have died will rise first, and then those who are still alive will rise to join them. They will meet Jesus in the air. Where is this heaven? Where are the dead saints being stored? Most of them have been left in this storage facility for a long time. What happens to their bodies? Paul claims, again and again, that this final solution is imminent. Why has it been 2,000 years, and these events have yet to unfold?
Finally, despite Paul’s passionate arguments to the contrary, I find that the religion of Jesus works. As I argued in the blog dealing with the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was a Jew. He believed that humans could save themselves by obeying religious law. The point of Jewish law is summarized in the commandment to love your neighbor. If you are honest about it, such love does not come easily. To succeed, I have had to learn to reduce the control of ego over my awareness. As this happens, I create space for divine love to enter. My awareness becomes filled with love which in turn allows me to love my neighbor. It’s hard work, but it is possible. The message of Jesus encourages me to persist. When I succeed, my life is filled with purpose and meaning. I find that this spiritual end of meaning and purpose makes more sense than the rapture.
The first problem is with the idea of Jesus dying for our sins, the concept of the atonement. It is a silly idea. Jesus dies to pay the penalty for the sins of all of humanity. In creating this idea, Paul links the death of Jesus to the original sin of Adam. Because of one man’s sin, humans are alienated from God. Because of one man’s obedience, humans become reconciled with God. (Romans 5:12-21)
If that was God’s purpose for Jesus, why doesn’t Jesus talk about it? You would think that the atonement idea would be a central theme of the gospels, but it is not. The idea is not even mentioned in Mark, Matthew, or Luke.
In addition, the idea of atonement does not explain Jesus’ death. Jesus was crucified, a Roman punishment. The Romans would not have been concerned with a man who came to pay the penalty for human sin. The Romans cared a lot about a perceived threat to the established order. Judas most likely informed the authorities that Jesus was bent on establishing a new kingdom. It is because of this perceived threat that Jesus was crucified.
The Adam part of the equation is equally silly. First of all, Adam and Eve were not historical people. Secondly, Adam’s act of disobedience, as described by Paul, has cosmic significance. It is the act that brought sin into the world. Because of its significance, you would think that Adam’s act would be discussed throughout the Old Testament. It is not. In fact, the story of Adam and Eve is not mentioned again in the Jewish scriptures. Finally, as I pointed out in my book on Evangelical Christianity, the Adam and Eve story is not really about sin, but rather the idea that God and humans are essentially different.
Finally, the atonement theory says something rather silly about God. A God who requires human sacrifice as a condition for restoring the divine/human relationship seems rather petty to me.
The second problem I have with the religion of Paul is that it is based on the need for a profound experience of love. This experience is life changing. It makes the recipient into a new creation. The problem is that few people have such experiences.
There is evidence in the psychological literature that people under great stress may have such experiences. Paul is probably a good example of this type of person. The literature on near death experiences presents many cases of people who have had profound experiences of love that are life changing. If you add together the cases of people under great stress and people who have had near death experiences, you come up with a tiny fraction of the general population.
You also read about profound experiences of love in the mystical literature. Again, the experience is transforming. The problem is that mystics are like extreme athletes. Their experience of love comes after many years of engaging in spiritual practices. Some of these extreme athletes never get there. I, for one, have failed in these efforts.
There are many Christians who claim to have had such experiences. They have been “born again.” The problem is that there is little evidence that the experience they describe leads to inner transformation. They feel good about themselves, but they do not seem to behave in new ways. In my book on Evangelical Christianity, I cite statistical studies that support this conclusion. People who have had born again experiences do not behave differently on ethical matters from the general population.
So Paul’s religion, while genuine, is misleading and not very helpful. As I confessed in my blog dealing with the Sermon on the Mount, I prayed for years asking Christ to come into my life and to make me into a new creation. Nothing happened. Maybe God has hardened my heart.
Third, as I indicated in discussing the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18), I do not understand how the final end of Paul’s religion works. To resummarize, at the trumpet of God, Jesus will come down from heaven. The elect who have died will rise first, and then those who are still alive will rise to join them. They will meet Jesus in the air. Where is this heaven? Where are the dead saints being stored? Most of them have been left in this storage facility for a long time. What happens to their bodies? Paul claims, again and again, that this final solution is imminent. Why has it been 2,000 years, and these events have yet to unfold?
Finally, despite Paul’s passionate arguments to the contrary, I find that the religion of Jesus works. As I argued in the blog dealing with the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was a Jew. He believed that humans could save themselves by obeying religious law. The point of Jewish law is summarized in the commandment to love your neighbor. If you are honest about it, such love does not come easily. To succeed, I have had to learn to reduce the control of ego over my awareness. As this happens, I create space for divine love to enter. My awareness becomes filled with love which in turn allows me to love my neighbor. It’s hard work, but it is possible. The message of Jesus encourages me to persist. When I succeed, my life is filled with purpose and meaning. I find that this spiritual end of meaning and purpose makes more sense than the rapture.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Social Teachings of Paul
Paul’s positions on social issues are well known and continue to have consequences within the Christian community. Some conservative churches refuse to ordain women as pastors because of passages like 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35, which claims that women should remain silent in church meetings. In addition, some Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin because of statements such as Romans 1: 26-27 which condemns homosexuality along with other “degrading sexual passions.”
These issues provide for interesting debate topics. I for one believe that Paul has been misunderstood with regard to the role of women within the church, that he in fact had a high regard for woman for a first century man. All are one in Christ. There are no distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Galatians 3: 28-29). There is also plenty of evidence in Paul’s letters that women played prominent roles in the churches he established. Finally, as I pointed out in my blog entitled “Mark’s Resurrection Story”, many textual scholars have argued that the anti-women statements in Paul were placed there by scribes and not part of his original letters.
But this is not the tact I want to take here. I do not want to debate these issues. The more important question for me is whether Paul speaks in his letters as a first century man or as an especially appointed apostle of God with the authority of God.
He claims the latter, to speak for God (1Corinthians 1:1 and Galatians 1: 13-15), which suggests that his teachings are not time bound and deserve special consideration for Christians living today. I am not convinced. If Paul speaks for God, how can he be so wrong about the most important part of his message which proclaims that the kingdom of God is imminent, that the events relating to the end of the world and the raising of Christians to heaven will take place within his lifetime? We are still waiting for these events to unfold.
Case closed. It is absolutely true that Paul wrote some of the most beautiful statements about love that have ever been written. It is also true that he was not a fan of democratic government (see Romans 13: 1-7). Why is this passage from Romans not considered to be “the word of God” among most American Christians?
The real point is that there is no such thing as “the word of God.” If you are interested in this topic, read my book on Evangelical Christianity. That is the central point of the book. There are so many historical misstatements in both the Old and New Testaments regarding “the word of God” that the idea that such a word exists is without meaning.
Paul’s teaching concerning women, homosexuality, and authoritarian government reflect the opinions of a first century human being. As a result, though some may find them to be interesting, they have no special authority for Christians living in the twenty-first century.
These issues provide for interesting debate topics. I for one believe that Paul has been misunderstood with regard to the role of women within the church, that he in fact had a high regard for woman for a first century man. All are one in Christ. There are no distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Galatians 3: 28-29). There is also plenty of evidence in Paul’s letters that women played prominent roles in the churches he established. Finally, as I pointed out in my blog entitled “Mark’s Resurrection Story”, many textual scholars have argued that the anti-women statements in Paul were placed there by scribes and not part of his original letters.
But this is not the tact I want to take here. I do not want to debate these issues. The more important question for me is whether Paul speaks in his letters as a first century man or as an especially appointed apostle of God with the authority of God.
He claims the latter, to speak for God (1Corinthians 1:1 and Galatians 1: 13-15), which suggests that his teachings are not time bound and deserve special consideration for Christians living today. I am not convinced. If Paul speaks for God, how can he be so wrong about the most important part of his message which proclaims that the kingdom of God is imminent, that the events relating to the end of the world and the raising of Christians to heaven will take place within his lifetime? We are still waiting for these events to unfold.
Case closed. It is absolutely true that Paul wrote some of the most beautiful statements about love that have ever been written. It is also true that he was not a fan of democratic government (see Romans 13: 1-7). Why is this passage from Romans not considered to be “the word of God” among most American Christians?
The real point is that there is no such thing as “the word of God.” If you are interested in this topic, read my book on Evangelical Christianity. That is the central point of the book. There are so many historical misstatements in both the Old and New Testaments regarding “the word of God” that the idea that such a word exists is without meaning.
Paul’s teaching concerning women, homosexuality, and authoritarian government reflect the opinions of a first century human being. As a result, though some may find them to be interesting, they have no special authority for Christians living in the twenty-first century.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Christian in the World
Christian Ethics for Paul is really a simple matter. If one is in Christ, that person becomes a new creation. The old person passes away, and a new one is born. This love from Christ leads to behavior changes (Romans 12: 2 and 2 Corinthians 15:18). Moral life is not the result of reason controlling passions or moral striving to obey religious rules, but the result of God’s transformation.
To love and to be loved is the essence of Christianity. Nothing is forbidden. By loving one’s neighbor, that person fulfills all the teachings of the law (Romans 13:10). This is a beautiful vision. The question we will examine in the concluding blog on Paul is whether this experience of love actually produces the changes that Paul suggests.
Paul’s vision of the Church is equally beautiful. The Church is the place where God’s love invades the world. It radiates love outward into the world. It is a community within the world and not separate from it. Paul encourages his followers to separate themselves from the values of the world, but not to withdraw from the world (1 Corinthians 5: 9-13).
Unfortunately, there were splits within some of the churches that Paul established (1 Corinthians 1: 10-16). He reminds his members in Corinth that the primary gift of the Holy Spirit is love. Members of the Christian community are urged to use that love to build up others within the community. Life in the Christian community is one of mutual service for the common good. (1 Corinthians 14: 26-27).
Finally, Paul teaches that the Church is one body unified in Christ. As a body, the Church has several parts. Members each have special gifts which they are to use for building up the community and not for their own aggrandizement. The individual member, like a body part, has no life on his own. An arm only has meaning if it is attached to a body. As a result, Church members should always use their gifts to work for the good of the whole community (Romans 2: 3-13 and 1 Corinthians 12: 21-30).
To love and to be loved is the essence of Christianity. Nothing is forbidden. By loving one’s neighbor, that person fulfills all the teachings of the law (Romans 13:10). This is a beautiful vision. The question we will examine in the concluding blog on Paul is whether this experience of love actually produces the changes that Paul suggests.
Paul’s vision of the Church is equally beautiful. The Church is the place where God’s love invades the world. It radiates love outward into the world. It is a community within the world and not separate from it. Paul encourages his followers to separate themselves from the values of the world, but not to withdraw from the world (1 Corinthians 5: 9-13).
Unfortunately, there were splits within some of the churches that Paul established (1 Corinthians 1: 10-16). He reminds his members in Corinth that the primary gift of the Holy Spirit is love. Members of the Christian community are urged to use that love to build up others within the community. Life in the Christian community is one of mutual service for the common good. (1 Corinthians 14: 26-27).
Finally, Paul teaches that the Church is one body unified in Christ. As a body, the Church has several parts. Members each have special gifts which they are to use for building up the community and not for their own aggrandizement. The individual member, like a body part, has no life on his own. An arm only has meaning if it is attached to a body. As a result, Church members should always use their gifts to work for the good of the whole community (Romans 2: 3-13 and 1 Corinthians 12: 21-30).
Monday, June 8, 2009
Paul's Encounter with the Resurrected Jesus
In a previous blog ( The Resurrection in Matthew), I described Paul’s encounter with the resurrected Jesus. To resummarize, Paul met the resurrected Jesus in a vision experience. He saw the glorified body of Jesus in heaven, not as a physical presence on earth. This encounter takes place on the Damascus Road where Paul is suddenly engulfed by a light from heaven. Jesus then speaks to him from heaven (Acts 9: 1-9). In Second Corinthians 12: 1-12, Paul makes clear that his experience of the resurrected Jesus came as a vision, and that his experience was the same as the experiences of the other disciples.
This encounter with Jesus in heaven was a profound and life changing experience for Paul. He came to believe that Jesus had died for him. The deep experience of love redefined how he saw the world. God had chosen him. His salvation was a gift. It had nothing to do with obedience to religious law. He was saved by the experience.
The experience led him to redefine religion. Salvation was no longer seen as the establishment of a kingdom of God for a renewed Israel. Instead, salvation was for individual believers in heaven. The specific path for achieving salvation is the subject of next week’s blog.
The death and resurrection of Jesus was a cosmic event. It marked the end of history as we know it. Jesus was seen by Paul as the first fruits of a general resurrection in which others chosen by God would soon follow (1 Corinthians 15: 19-20). Once the elect were taken to heaven, the world would be judged, punished, and the end of history would follow. Paul expected these events to unfold within his lifetime. He makes this point again and again, and again. See Romans 13:12, 1 Corinthians 7: 29-31 and 10:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5: 1-11.
The most vivid description of these events comes in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18. At the trumpet of God, Jesus will come down from heaven. The elect who have died will rise first, and then those still alive will be taken up in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air. Amazing! Where is heaven? It’s a place where Jesus lives in a transformed body—flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. I’m still looking for the place. I continue to wonder why the events that Paul expected to take place in the first century have yet to unfold. Finally, I am puzzled why Christians stubbornly cling to the idea of a physical resurrection when Paul, the first one to describe the event, so clearly believed it to be a vision experience.
This encounter with Jesus in heaven was a profound and life changing experience for Paul. He came to believe that Jesus had died for him. The deep experience of love redefined how he saw the world. God had chosen him. His salvation was a gift. It had nothing to do with obedience to religious law. He was saved by the experience.
The experience led him to redefine religion. Salvation was no longer seen as the establishment of a kingdom of God for a renewed Israel. Instead, salvation was for individual believers in heaven. The specific path for achieving salvation is the subject of next week’s blog.
The death and resurrection of Jesus was a cosmic event. It marked the end of history as we know it. Jesus was seen by Paul as the first fruits of a general resurrection in which others chosen by God would soon follow (1 Corinthians 15: 19-20). Once the elect were taken to heaven, the world would be judged, punished, and the end of history would follow. Paul expected these events to unfold within his lifetime. He makes this point again and again, and again. See Romans 13:12, 1 Corinthians 7: 29-31 and 10:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5: 1-11.
The most vivid description of these events comes in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18. At the trumpet of God, Jesus will come down from heaven. The elect who have died will rise first, and then those still alive will be taken up in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air. Amazing! Where is heaven? It’s a place where Jesus lives in a transformed body—flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. I’m still looking for the place. I continue to wonder why the events that Paul expected to take place in the first century have yet to unfold. Finally, I am puzzled why Christians stubbornly cling to the idea of a physical resurrection when Paul, the first one to describe the event, so clearly believed it to be a vision experience.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Religion of Paul
According to Paul, Jesus does two things for us. His first gift is to die on the cross. Paul received a powerful experience on the Damascus Road. Despite the fact that he had been persecuting Christians and may have had a role in Jesus’ death, God chose to save him. His experience reconciled him with God. Because of it, he came to believe that Jesus had died for him.
Paul takes his experience of the death of Jesus on the cross and gives it cosmic significance. In doing so, he invents the idea of the atonement. Sin, for a Jew, was a crime, and thus it must be paid for. Jesus dies to pay the penalty of sin for all of us (Romans 3:23-25).
In creating this doctrine, Paul links the death of Jesus to the original sin of Adam. Because of Adam’s sin, humans became alienated from God. Because of Jesus’ obedience on the cross, humans are reconciled (Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:23). Adam becomes the symbol of man’s rebellion against God. Jesus’ act of obedience on the cross becomes the symbol of self emptying love that leads to reconciliation with God.
The second gift that Jesus gives us is deep love. In addition to seeing sin as a crime that must be paid for, Paul views it as a moral disposition. Sin is a turning away from God, a disposition to see the world through self, through ego. It is life of the flesh, and it has power, a power that humans are unable to defeat on their own (Romans 7: 14-25). The deep love that Paul encounters on the Damascus Road is what saves him. He literally felt that he had been taken over by Jesus. It is no longer I that lives, but Christ that lives in me (Galatians 2:20).
Only God can make humans righteous. The death and resurrection of Jesus brings this deep experience of love into the world (11 Corinthians 5: 14-16). All that matters is the love experienced in Christ. This love recreates humans (Romans 6:5-7). Faith, by which humans are saved, is not belief in doctrine, but a response to this profound experience (Galatians 5:6).
The love unleashed on the world by the death and resurrection of Jesus is available to all on an equal basis. God has no favorites. All are one in Christ—Jew/Greek, male/female, slave/free (Galatians 3:28-29). Gentiles, Paul’s main concern, need only confess their love of the God of Israel, and accept Jesus as their savior. This acceptance releases God’s transforming love (1 Thessalonians 2: 13-14). It also rescues one from the wrath that is coming. The future for Christians is a glorious existence in heaven in a transformed body (1 Corinthians 15: 35-50).
As mentioned above, only God can heal the divine/human divide. Obedience to religious law cannot. Humans cannot save themselves by their own devices. Paul argues that religious law was given to Israel as a temporary custodian of righteousness until Christ came. It is fine as a guide for human behavior, but it has no power to recreate human life and thus defeat sin. Law provides the knowledge of human sin, but not the solution (Romans 3: 20 and 7: 7-13, Galatians 3:22). The only solution is the deep love experienced in Christ.
As I pointed out in my blog entitled “The Sermon on the Mount,” the religion of Paul and Jesus are different. Jesus has a much higher view of human nature. Humans have the ability to obey religious law. The kingdom of God is given to those who bear good fruit. Jesus urges his followers to obey religious law, to be perfect as God is perfect. The best summary of Jesus’ position on these issues comes in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7: 29). The gospel of Matthew is consistent throughout in espousing this position.
Christians must choose whether to be followers of Jesus or followers of Paul. The vast majority have chosen to follow Paul. I think this is a mistake which I will address in my concluding blog on Paul.
Paul takes his experience of the death of Jesus on the cross and gives it cosmic significance. In doing so, he invents the idea of the atonement. Sin, for a Jew, was a crime, and thus it must be paid for. Jesus dies to pay the penalty of sin for all of us (Romans 3:23-25).
In creating this doctrine, Paul links the death of Jesus to the original sin of Adam. Because of Adam’s sin, humans became alienated from God. Because of Jesus’ obedience on the cross, humans are reconciled (Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:23). Adam becomes the symbol of man’s rebellion against God. Jesus’ act of obedience on the cross becomes the symbol of self emptying love that leads to reconciliation with God.
The second gift that Jesus gives us is deep love. In addition to seeing sin as a crime that must be paid for, Paul views it as a moral disposition. Sin is a turning away from God, a disposition to see the world through self, through ego. It is life of the flesh, and it has power, a power that humans are unable to defeat on their own (Romans 7: 14-25). The deep love that Paul encounters on the Damascus Road is what saves him. He literally felt that he had been taken over by Jesus. It is no longer I that lives, but Christ that lives in me (Galatians 2:20).
Only God can make humans righteous. The death and resurrection of Jesus brings this deep experience of love into the world (11 Corinthians 5: 14-16). All that matters is the love experienced in Christ. This love recreates humans (Romans 6:5-7). Faith, by which humans are saved, is not belief in doctrine, but a response to this profound experience (Galatians 5:6).
The love unleashed on the world by the death and resurrection of Jesus is available to all on an equal basis. God has no favorites. All are one in Christ—Jew/Greek, male/female, slave/free (Galatians 3:28-29). Gentiles, Paul’s main concern, need only confess their love of the God of Israel, and accept Jesus as their savior. This acceptance releases God’s transforming love (1 Thessalonians 2: 13-14). It also rescues one from the wrath that is coming. The future for Christians is a glorious existence in heaven in a transformed body (1 Corinthians 15: 35-50).
As mentioned above, only God can heal the divine/human divide. Obedience to religious law cannot. Humans cannot save themselves by their own devices. Paul argues that religious law was given to Israel as a temporary custodian of righteousness until Christ came. It is fine as a guide for human behavior, but it has no power to recreate human life and thus defeat sin. Law provides the knowledge of human sin, but not the solution (Romans 3: 20 and 7: 7-13, Galatians 3:22). The only solution is the deep love experienced in Christ.
As I pointed out in my blog entitled “The Sermon on the Mount,” the religion of Paul and Jesus are different. Jesus has a much higher view of human nature. Humans have the ability to obey religious law. The kingdom of God is given to those who bear good fruit. Jesus urges his followers to obey religious law, to be perfect as God is perfect. The best summary of Jesus’ position on these issues comes in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7: 29). The gospel of Matthew is consistent throughout in espousing this position.
Christians must choose whether to be followers of Jesus or followers of Paul. The vast majority have chosen to follow Paul. I think this is a mistake which I will address in my concluding blog on Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
