In a recent dialog on this blog it was suggested, perhaps indirectly, that Paul and Jesus might have disagreed on something that is part of our Bible. The topic (not relevant to this discussion -- just for clarification) was whether or not it was possible to be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. The post cited Paul (among others). A commenter cited Jesus. Ergo, it would appear that Jesus and Paul disagreed on the topic of capital punishment, with Paul falling on the "pro" side and Jesus clearly standing opposed.
What to do when Jesus and Paul (or any other Scripture) disagree? How do we decide which was right? Well, that's easy, isn't it? The Son of God would be right and anyone who disagrees with Him would be wrong. Problem solved. Or is it?
Have you heard of "red letter Christians"? That's a cute way of indicating those people who classify themselves as Christians by taking those red-letter texts -- you know, the ones that Jesus said -- as absolutely true and setting the rest aside as questionable at best. Those who think like that are fine with my decision-making process above.
So who would not be fine with it? Well, Paul, for starters. He's the one who wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). So if Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1:1-3), then all Scripture is, technically, the words of Jesus. (Remember, John refers to Him as "the Logos", the Word, the actual expression of God.) Even Paul's. Peter held that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So if all Scripture is God-breathed, then what Paul wrote is just as much Jesus's words as what the red letter versions put up as Jesus's words. And, of course, Jesus held the Old Testament as Scripture, so that would be just as much Jesus's words as anything in the New Testament.
What do I do when Jesus and Paul disagree? Nothing, really. Because, well, they don't. So the problem isn't them. The problem is me. That's when I back up and figure out where I made the wrong turn. And, as it turns out, I usually find it pretty easily. But pitting Scripture against Scripture -- even Jesus against Paul or Peter or anyone else -- is a bad option if you're going to take Scripture seriously. Countering a Scripture with a Scripture is all well and good as long as you plan to make them agree. Proving that Scripture contradicts someone's point of view is just fine. Arguing that Scripture contradicts Scripture -- that Jesus contradicts Paul -- proves something that won't help you at all.
14 comments:
The "red letter Christians" really tip their hands by implying that those words are inspired and that others are not. But why would they trust one Apostle's account of Jesus (any Gospel) and another Apostle's account (from Paul)? They implicitly deny the inspiration of scripture, and, not surprisingly, a lot of mischief follows.
While I agree with your sentiment about "red letters" v. rest of Scripture, all scripture is not "equal", as evidenced by Jesus words in Matthew 22 -- Weighing Scripture is what Jesus taught when he was asked, “What is the greatest commandment in the law?” If Jesus had believed that all Scriptures were of equal worth, he would have answered, “All the commandments are equally important.” Instead, he replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself” (verses 37–39). Then Jesus added a pivotal footnote. He said, “All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). In other words, these two verses exalting love are as heavy as the rest of the Bible. Jesus tipped the scales irrevocably in favor of love.
On this, Paul did not dissent -- (Galatians 5:14): "The entire law is summed up in a single command; 'Love your neighbor as yourself'”
A footnote here on 2 Timothy 3 on Scripture -- this is a misconstrued notion given that (a) the OT/NT canon wouldn't be worked out until several centuries later, (b) epistle writers (scholar consensus is that 2 Timothy not written by Paul, though certainly it is in the vein of "What Would Paul Say", as notions of authorship differ from what we perceive in modern times, a truth both liberals and conservatives eschew) were referencing LXX (Greek OT), (c) God-breathed tells us, not about an abstract property of the words, but about a wind that blows in a certain direction. It tells us that there is profit, that there is instruction–if we will walk in the way of wisdom.
It's interesting that the "red letter Christians" actually call themselves that. It's not a pejorative added by detractors. They embrace the term. Go figure.
1 Cor,. 15:3, Paul talks about teaching he "received," and in Gal. 1:11-12 he talks about getting his teachings directly from Christ. Additionally, be said in 1 Cor. 14:37 that what he writes is the Lord's command.
So with Paul saying these things, it seems to me that Paul learned from Christ himself.
@Naum, "different Scripture has different weight" is fine. Equally, understanding Scripture "as written" rather then merely woodenly literal is important. However, when Scripture contradicts Scripture as would be suggested by "Jesus said x but Paul said y, so Jesus was right and Paul was wrong", then weight is not a factor; a contradiction is a contradiction. So, using the example of the previous discussion, if Jesus said, "There must be no capital punishment" and Paul said, "Capital punishment done correctly is right" (as is suggested by many), then we have a genuine contradiction and it is not a case of one outweighing the other. It is one contradicting the other.
In your view, I suspect, it is not possible to punish and love, to chastise and love, to inflict pain and love. In my view (which, by the way, comes out of Scripture), it is not possible to love and not punish, chastise, etc. So while you would see "love" as the end-all of the discussion, I don't see "love" as answering the question. (And if "love" doesn't inflict the death penalty, then the God of the Old Testament was not love.) Just referencing the example.
One other comment. Biblical references to "Scripture" are often references to the Old Testament -- the "Scripture" that was recognized by Jesus and Paul and the rest. So when Peter said that Paul's writing was ranked with "the rest of Scripture", he was saying "Just like the currently-available Scripture that we have right now from Genesis to Malachi, Paul's writing is equally Scripture", using "Scripture" to mean "that which was God-breathed", words from God to Man.
Now, of course, as indicated, I believe that the Bible is the God-breathed Word, directly inspired to those authors that He inspired to write it. He superintended it and maintained it. It is not merely "inspired writing", but the genuine Word of God. And the canonization of Scripture did not make it Scripture; it recognized it as Scripture. The Church historically has recognized it as such. Like so many other issues today, the suggestion is that modern scholars have figured out what the Church never knew before. They now know that Paul didn't write 2 Timothy. They now know that much of the existing "Scripture" is a lie, a myth, a fabrication. (It's not possible to consider it something else when, for instance, Jesus attributes the Pentateuch to Moses and modern scholars are sure that's wrong and when 2 Timothy starts with "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus" and modern scholars are sure that's wrong, etc.) They now know that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years on the topic of homosexual behavior and wrong forever on the topic of what marriage is ... and so on and so on. You're happy with those modern scholars who have proven to be much better informed than anyone prior. I'm not impressed. You can have your "modern scholars" and even "scholar consensus", but making the Bible out to be unreliable and deceitful doesn't work for me. As a reflex action, I suppose, any argument beginning with "Modern scholars agree ..." and ending with an explanation about how the Church and Scripture have always been wrong simply goes out the window for me. You'll probably want to use a different line in the future.
"God-breathed tells us, not about an abstract property of the words, but about a wind that blows in a certain direction. It tells us that there is profit, that there is instruction–if we will walk in the way of wisdom."
That has to be the most watered down definition of "God-breathed" I have ever heard. Apparently God isn't capable of getting His creatures to do what He wants them to do, and merely blows on them, hoping they'll catch the drift. It conveniently removes the absolute authority of Scripture and makes it a nice book to follow.
Has anyone told the "red letter Christians" that it wasn't written that way originally? Personally, I often see mistakes in the red letter attributions. Someone 1800-some-odd years later added those in to aid in clarity, or maybe just to make some extra money with the "cool, new" red letters.
I've read some interesting articles that suggest that John 3:16, in red in every red-letter Bible I've seen, may have been said by John, not by Jesus. Now, if the suggestion doesn't stir some instant emotional objections, you likely haven't been paying attention. On the other hand, if you think it through (understanding that all Scripture is God's Word -- Jesus's Word), then it makes no difference. Interesting how a non-original additional ink color can cause such a stir.
Regarding this statement:
"Countering a Scripture with a Scripture is all well and good as long as you plan to make them agree."
...a mutual "friend" has cited this post in order to, as he says, "correct someone on the internets who was wrong." (Your blog has provoked two recent posts on his) He seems to have understood this statement to mean that when a contradiction in Scripture seems to arise, one should force agreement. He states your position this way:
..."IF there is a rule in the OT, THEN Jesus' teachings can NOT contradict it, we must make Jesus' teachings mesh with OT teachings."
I argued that this is not an accurate representation of your position. Instead, that further study will expose a resolution between what is seen as a contradiction, rather than forcing or making them mesh or agree. Would this be a better way to present your opinion? I ask because re-reading your post just now, the highlighted quote at the beginning of this comment is sure to be used as back-up support.
Oh, no, I'm sure you're wrong, Marshall Art. What "friend" would so seriously malign and misrepresent me like that? Especially "friends" who loudly complain when they are maligned and misrepresented? Couldn't happen ... could it?[end sarcasm]
This is Invalid: So who would not be fine with it? Well, Paul, for starters. He's the one who wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). So if Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1:1-3), then all Scripture is, technically, the words of Jesus. (Remember, John refers to Him as "the Logos", the Word, the actual expression of God.) Even Paul's. Peter held that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So if all Scripture is God-breathed, then what Paul wrote is just as much Jesus's words as what the red letter versions put up as Jesus's words. And, of course, Jesus held the Old Testament as Scripture, so that would be just as much Jesus's words as anything in the New Testament- WHY?
Because PAUL is the One who said the scripture is God Breathed. Not Jesus. Jesus held the OLD TESTAMENT as Scripture but Paul wrote the New Testament which was canonized by the Counsel of Nicea which was appointed by Constantine who was a Pagan King who only converted to Christianity due to public pressure in order to hold onto the power of the throne. The fact that you attack red letter Christians is a contradiction of what Jesus taught in an of itself. I will take the Sermon on the Mount over Paul's teachings any day.
Anonymous,
Your fundamental position, then, must either be that it is not true that all Scripture is God-breathed as Paul stated or that only the Old Testament (which was Scripture in Jesus's day) is God-breathed Scripture. Since none of the New Testament was written when Jesus spoke, by your logic, it is not "Scripture" or, by inference, "God-breathed".
The problem for you, of course, is that you can't rely on Paul, but, more importantly, you can't rely on Jesus. No, not quite accurate. You can't rely on what people wrote that Jesus said. I mean, if the New Testament is not God-breathed, then it's merely opinion and there are lots of scholarly voices out there who will assure you that Jesus never actually said those things. Since you don't have a God-breathed Bible, you have nothing on which to stand to refute that.
Yes, Paul wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed. Jesus didn't. (Jesus didn't write anything.) But it was Peter who wrote that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16). And, interestingly enough, if you're going to take Jesus's writings over Paul's any day, you're going to have to do away with the Gospel of Grace (you know, "saved by grace") because Paul said it, not Jesus. Jesus never mentioned grace one time. In other words, you're going to have to reject Christianity in its entirety. Good luck with that.
Anonymous also has a fundamental misunderstanding as to the origin of the Christian canon. The CHURCH (i.e. the Christians) had already determined what was or was not to be accepted as canon long before Constantine appeared on the scene. All the organized church did in the 4th century was recognize what was already accepted.
Also, how would it make any sense to say that Paul's writings weren't Scripture because they weren't Old Testament, and that Jesus' "words" are Scripture...even though they aren't the Old Testament. You can't call one statement invalid and replace it with another invalid statement.
Post a Comment