PAUL AND JESUS[67]
[67] In the present chapter there are some coincidences of thought
and expression with the paper by the same author entitled "Jesus and
Paul" in _Biblical and Theological Studies_ by the Members of the
Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, 1912, pp. 547-578.
The review of Paul's life has prepared the way for the principal
subject of investigation. What was the origin of the religion of
Paul?
The most obvious answer to that question is that the religion of
Paul was based upon Jesus. That is the answer which has always been
given in the Church. The Church has always accepted the apostle
Paul, not at all as a religious philosopher, but simply and solely
as a witness to Jesus. If he was not a true disciple of Jesus, then
the authority which he has always possessed and the influence which
he has wielded have been based upon a misconception.
But exactly the same answer was given by Paul himself. Paul
regarded himself as a servant of Christ, and based his whole life
upon what Christ had done and what Christ was continuing to do.
"It is no longer I that live," he says, "but Christ liveth in me."
Unquestionably this Christ, upon whom Paul based his life, was
identified by Paul with Jesus of Nazareth, a person who had lived
in Palestine a few years before. A mighty change in the mode of
existence of Jesus had indeed, Paul believed, been wrought by the
resurrection; a life of humiliation had given place to a life of
glory. But it was the same person who lived throughout. There is in
the Pauline Epistles not a trace of any distinction between "Jesus"
and "Christ," as though the former were the name of the historic
personage who lived in Galilee and the latter the name of the risen
Lord. On the contrary, the name Jesus is applied freely to the risen
Lord, and the name Lord--the loftiest of all titles--is applied
to the Jesus who suffered and died. It was "the Lord of glory,"
according to Paul, who was crucified (1 Cor. ii. 8). The same
phenomenon appears everywhere in the Epistles: the Lord of glory
lived the life of a servant on earth; and Jesus, the man who had
recently lived in Palestine, was to be worshiped by all in heaven
and on earth (Phil. ii. 10, 11).
There is, therefore, in the Pauline Epistles not the slightest
trace of any gnosticizing separation between Jesus the historic
person, and Christ the divine Lord. There is, moreover, as W. Morgan
rightly observes,[68] not the slightest trace of any "adoptionist
Christology," by which a man Jesus could be conceived of either as
growing up gradually into divinity or as received into divinity by a
catastrophic event like the resurrection. On the contrary, Paul says
expressly that the Jesus who lived in Palestine existed, before His
appearance upon earth, in the form of God; and the entrance of that
person upon human life is represented as a voluntary act of love.
His higher nature, therefore, existed from the beginning; indeed He
was, according to Paul, the instrument in the creation of the world.
[68] W. Morgan, _The Religion and Theology of Paul_, 1917.
Finally, there is no trace in Paul of any doctrine of "kenosis,"
by which the higher nature of Christ might have been regarded as
so relinquished while He was on earth that the words and deeds of
the historic person would become matter of indifference. Such a
representation is refuted not only by what has just been said about
the application of the term "Lord" to the historic Jesus, but also
by the references of Paul to actual words and deeds of Jesus. These
references are few; their scantiness may require explanation. But
they are sufficient to show that Paul regarded the words of the
historic Jesus as possessing absolute authority and His example as
normative for the Christian life.
Thus the testimony of Paul is plain. He regarded Christ as Lord
and Master, and he identified that Christ fully with the Jesus who
had lived but a few years before. This testimony must be faced and
invalidated by those who would find the origin of Paul's religion
elsewhere than in Jesus of Nazareth.
Such is the testimony of Paul. But what was the testimony of his
contemporaries? In the environment of Paul were to be found some
men who had been intimate friends of Jesus; presumably they were
acquainted with Jesus' character and teaching. What was their
attitude toward Paul? Did they regard him as an innovator with
respect to Jesus, or did they admit him to the company of Jesus'
true disciples? Since they knew both Jesus and Paul, their testimony
as to the relationship between the two is obviously worth having. At
this point appears the importance of Baur's work. It is the merit
of Baur that however faulty his solution he placed at least in the
forefront of interest the problem of the relationship between Paul
and the intimate friends of Jesus. That relationship, Baur believed,
was fundamentally a relationship of conflict; Paul and Peter,
according to Baur, established at best only a _modus vivendi_, an
agreement to disagree; really they were separated by a deep-seated
difference of principle. But at this point a further problem arises.
If Paul and Peter were really in disharmony, how did they ever come
to be regarded as in harmony? If there was a deep-seated difference
of principle between Paul and Peter, how did it come about that the
Catholic Church was founded not upon Paul taken alone, or upon Peter
taken alone, but upon Paul and Peter taken together?
Here, again, Baur displayed his true intellectual greatness by
detecting and facing the problem. He saw clearly what has seldom
been seen with equal clearness since his day, that the historian
must explain the transition not only from the historical Jesus to
apostolic Christianity, but from apostolic Christianity to the Old
Catholic Church. And for this latter problem he proposed a solution
which was not wanting in grandeur. But his solution, despite its
grandeur, has succumbed. Baur's reconstruction of the second
century, with the supposed gradual compromise between Pauline and
Petrine Christianity, resulting finally in the Christianity of the
Old Catholic Church, was one of the first elements in his system
which had to be abandoned; it was destroyed, in the first place,
by the criticism of A. Ritschl, and, in the second place, by the
painstaking labors of Lightfoot, Zahn, Von Harnack and others,
by which, through a study of second-century documents and their
literary relationships, it was shown that the New Testament books
cannot be scattered at will anywhere throughout the second century
in the interests of a theory of development. Ritschl showed that the
importance of specifically Jewish Christianity had been enormously
exaggerated by Baur; and the study of patristics tended to place
the New Testament books much earlier than the late dating which the
theory of Baur required.
Thus Baur did not succeed in overcoming the fundamental objection
raised against him by the very existence of a Church that appealed
both to Peter and to Paul. If Peter and Paul were really in
fundamental disharmony, how did the Church come to bring them
together so confidently and at such an early time? This question
has never been answered. The very existence of the Church is a
refutation of Baur; the Church never could have existed unless the
apostles had been in fundamental agreement.
But Baur may also be refuted directly, in a purely exegetical way,
by an examination of the sources to which he himself appealed. Baur
established his hypothesis of a conflict between Paul and Peter on
the basis of the Pauline Epistles. Subsidiary evidence, thought to
be found in other books of the New Testament, was soon shown to
be illusory. Thus Baur and the early Tübingen scholars detected
an anti-Pauline polemic in the Book of Revelation, which they
attributed to John the son of Zebedee. This use of the Apocalypse
was soon abandoned even by Baur's own disciples. The theory of Baur,
therefore, stands or falls with his interpretation of the Pauline
Epistles, especially 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
The Corinthian Epistles, as has been observed in the last chapter,
afford no real support to the hypothesis of an inter-apostolic
conflict. There is not the slightest reason to connect the
troublemakers at Corinth with the original apostles or with James;
and the whole subject of the "Christ-party" in 1 Cor. i. 12 is now
felt to be very obscure. The evidence of an apostolic conflict
narrows down, therefore, to the second chapter of Galatians.
Undoubtedly there are expressions in that chapter which if taken
alone might indicate ill-will between Paul and the Jerusalem
leaders. In Gal. ii. 2, 6, for example, James and Peter and John
are called "those who seemed,"[69] and in the latter verse the
phrase is explained by the fuller designation, "those who seemed
to be something." In Gal. ii. 9, the same persons are designated
as "those who seemed to be pillars." In themselves these words
are capable of an interpretation which would be derogatory to the
persons so designated. The meaning might conceivably be that the
Jerusalem leaders only "seemed" or "were thought" to be something,
or only thought themselves to be something (compare Gal. vi. 3),
whereas they really were nothing. But this interpretation is, of
course, quite impossible, since Paul certainly recognized Peter and
John as genuine apostles and James the brother of the Lord as a man
of real authority in the Church. The most that may be maintained,
therefore, is that the choice of the peculiar phrases indicates a
certain irritation of Paul against the Jerusalem leaders; instead of
calling them pillars (which certainly he recognized them as being)
he shows his irritation, it is said, by calling them "those who were
thought to be pillars."
[69] ὁι δοκοῦντες.
The presence of indignant feeling in the passage must clearly be
admitted; but the question is whether the indignation is directed
against the Jerusalem leaders themselves or only against the
Judaizers who falsely appealed to them. The latter view is correct.
It must be remembered that what Paul in Gal. ii. 1-10 desires most
of all to prevent is the impression that he is appealing to the
Jerusalem apostles as to a higher instance. He is not basing the
authority of his preaching upon any authorization that the apostles
gave him; he is not saying that he has a right to be heard because
those who were the pillars of the Church endorsed his message. Such
a representation of the conference would have cast despite upon all
the work which he had done before, and would have made it necessary
for him in the future to prove constantly against all Judaizers and
other opponents his agreement with the Jerusalem authorities. The
profound consciousness which he had of his apostolic authority did
not permit any such course of action; and such restrictions would
have hindered his work wherever he went. It was absolutely essential
in the economy of God that the leader of the Gentile work should
have independent authority and should not be obliged to appeal again
and again to authorities who were far away, at Jerusalem. Hence what
Paul desires to make clear above all in Gal. ii. 1-10 is that though
he appealed to the Jerusalem authorities it was not necessary for
his own sake for him to appeal to them. They were great, but their
greatness had absolutely nothing to do with his authority; for they
added nothing to him. It was therefore not the real greatness of the
original apostles which caused him to appeal to them (for he needed
no authorization from any man no matter how great), but only the
greatness which was attributed to them by the Judaizers. They really
were great, but it was only the false use which had been made of
their greatness by the Judaizers which caused him to lay his gospel
before them. The Judaizers were to be refuted from the lips of the
very authorities to whom they appealed.
It should be observed that the terms which are now under discussion
are incapable of real translation into English. The equivalent
English words might seem to imply that the reputed greatness of the
Jerusalem leaders was not also a real greatness. There is no such
implication in the Greek. The shortest of the phrases, which may
be paraphrased "those of repute," was used in Greek sometimes in a
way thoroughly honorable to the persons designated. Possibly the
repetition of the phrases, which seems somewhat strange, was due to
the employment of the same phrases by the Judaizing opponents. The
peculiarities of the passage may perhaps be due partly to the fact
that Paul is here using catchwords of his adversaries.
At any rate, if the reader refuses to interpret these expressions
in a way derogatory to the original apostles, such refusal is
not due merely to a pious desire to preserve harmony in the
apostolic college; it is due rather to the way in which Paul
himself everywhere speaks of the apostles, and to the "right hand
of fellowship" which according to this very passage they extended
to him. It is good exegetical method to interpret things that are
obscure by things that are plain; but what is plainest of all in
this passage is that the very authorities to whom the Judaizers
appealed against Paul recognized the hand of God in his work and
bade him Godspeed.
If Gal. ii. 1-10 affords no support to the theory of Baur, the
latter part of the same chapter (Gal. ii. 11-21) is not really any
more favorable. This passage does indeed attest a rebuke which
Paul administered to Peter at Antioch. Peter is even accused of
"hypocrisy." The Greek word[70] is indeed not quite so harsh as
the English word derived from it; it means the "playing of a part"
and so here the concealment of true convictions. Nevertheless, the
incident remains regrettable enough; evidently real moral blame was
attached by Paul to Peter's conduct. But what is really significant
is that in the very act of condemning Peter's practice Paul commends
his principles; he appeals to a great fund of Christian conviction
which he and Peter had in common (Gal. ii. 14-21). It will not do to
say that in this passage Paul is giving no report of what he said to
Peter, but is expounding his own views to the Galatians. For in Gal.
ii. 14 he begins to tell what he said to Peter "before them all";
and there is not the slightest indication of a break before the end
of the chapter. Certainly the break cannot come after verse 14; for
the thought of that verse is quite incomplete in itself and becomes
intelligible only when explained by what follows. The passage
is best explained, therefore, if it be taken as embodying the
substance of what Paul said to Peter at Antioch, though doubtless
there is no attempt at verbal reproduction of the language. At
any rate, however much of Gal. ii. 14-21 be a report of what was
said at Antioch, and however much be what Paul now wishes to say
to the Galatians, one thing is clear--when Paul begins in verse
14 to report what he said to Peter, he means to call attention to
something in which he and Peter were agreed; he means to say: "You
and I, though we had all the advantages of the Law, relinquished
such advantages, in order to be justified by faith in Christ. How
then can we force the Gentiles to seek salvation by a way which
even in our own case was futile?" Whatever else Paul said to Peter,
this much he certainly said. The context makes the matter perfectly
clear. It must always be remembered that Paul blames Peter not
for false opinions, but for "hypocrisy"--that is, for concealment
of true opinions. In verse 14, moreover, he says expressly that
Peter was living after a Gentile manner. The verb is in the present
tense--"if thou being a Jew livest as do the Gentiles and not as do
the Jews." Paul means to say that a principle essentially similar
to that of the Gentile Christians, according to which in their
case the keeping of the Mosaic Law was relinquished, was the fixed
basis of Peter's life. Peter's present withdrawal from the Gentiles
was a mere temporary aberration. Before the coming of the men from
James, he had seen clearly that the great new principle of faith
in Christ took precedence of the Law, even for Jewish Christians;
and after the departure of the men he would presumably revert to
his old freedom. Indeed even now, even while he was withdrawing
himself from his Gentile brethren, the real principle of his life
had not been changed; he was still "living as do the Gentiles." But
he was concealing his real life for fear of men. The very nature
of the charge which Paul brought against Peter, therefore, attests
a fundamental unity of principle between the two apostles. Paul
condemned Peter for "hypocrisy"; not for false principles, but for
concealment of true principles. In principle, therefore, Paul and
Peter were agreed.
[70] ὑπόκρισις.
Accordingly, even the very passage which at first sight lends most
color to the hypothesis of Baur, really, when it is correctly
interpreted, provides the most striking refutation of that
hypothesis. The very chapter which attests the appeal of Paul's
bitter opponents to the original apostles, and records a sharp
rebuke which Paul administered to Peter, really furnishes the
best evidence of apostolic unity. It is the second chapter of
Galatians which mentions the right hand of fellowship extended to
Paul by James and Peter and John, and it is the second chapter of
Galatians which represents the divergence between Paul and Peter as
divergence of practice, not of principle. Even if the Epistle to the
Galatians stood alone, it would establish the fundamental unity of
the apostles. But as a matter of fact, the Epistle to the Galatians
does not stand alone; it must be interpreted in the light of other
sources. The one-sided interpretation of Galatians, with neglect of
other epistles of Paul and of the Book of Acts, has been one of the
most fruitful causes of error in the study of the apostolic age.
For example, Gal. ii should never be read except in the light of 1
Cor. xv. 1-11. The two passages emphasize two different aspects of
Paul's relation to those who had been apostles before him; and only
when both the two aspects are considered is the full truth attained.
Gal. ii emphasizes the independence of Paul's gospel; Paul had not
received it through the instrumentality of men. 1 Cor. xv. 1-11
emphasizes the harmony of Paul's gospel with that of the original
apostles, whom Christ had commissioned as directly and as truly as
He had commissioned Paul. Both passages are contained in sources
admitted by all to be sources of primary importance; yet either
passage might be misunderstood if it were taken alone.
Thus the danger of interpreting Gal. ii entirely without reference
to anything else is signally manifested by a comparison with 1 Cor.
xv. 1-11. The First Epistle to the Corinthians must be allowed to
cast light upon Galatians. But if so, may not the same privilege be
granted to the Book of Acts? As a matter of fact, the privilege is
being granted to the Book of Acts by a larger and larger number of
modern scholars. Baur demanded that the Pauline Epistles should be
interpreted by themselves, entirely without reference to Acts. But
as J. Weiss[71] pertinently remarks, such interpretation is quite
impossible; the Epistles taken by themselves are unintelligible;
they can be interpreted only when placed in the biographical
outline provided by the historian. Of course, that outline might be
discredited by a comparison with the Epistles; the divergences might
really be contradictions. Comparison of Acts with the Epistles is
therefore a matter of fundamental importance. But that comparison,
as it has been undertaken at some length in the two preceding
chapters of the present discussion, has resulted favorably to the
Book of Acts. The divergences between Acts and Pauline Epistles are
no more to be regarded as contradictions than are the divergences
between various passages in the Epistles themselves; and at many
points the historical work casts a flood of light upon the words of
Paul.
[71] See p. 40, footnote 1.
Thus the imposing construction of Baur was erected by neglecting
all sources except Galatians and Corinthians, and then by
misinterpreting these. When all the available sources are used,
and estimated at their true value, the hypothesis of a fundamental
conflict between Paul and the original apostles disappears. There
was indeed a bitter conflict in the apostolic age, but, as Ritschl
observed against Baur, it was a conflict not between Paul and the
original apostles, but between all the apostles, including both
Paul and Peter, on the one side, and an extreme Judaizing party on
the other. The extreme Judaizing party, not having the support of
the original disciples of Jesus, soon ceased to be influential. The
various sects of schismatic Jewish Christians which appear in the
second century--"Ebionites" and the like--if they had any roots at
all the apostolic age (which is more than doubtful), could trace
their spiritual descent not from the original apostles, but from the
Judaizers. It is no wonder then that they were left behind in the
march of the Church. They were left behind not because Peter was
left behind--for Peter appears as at least one of the foundations
upon which the Old Catholic Church was built--but because Peter had
left them behind, or rather because Peter had never given them his
support at all. They were left behind because from the beginning
their spiritual ancestors in the apostolic age had not really
belonged with apostolic Christianity, but had been "false brethren
privily brought in."
One fact, indeed, still requires explanation. If Paul and the
original apostles were in such perfect agreement, how is it that the
Judaizers in the apostolic age could appeal to the original apostles
against Paul? The existence of that appeal cannot altogether be
denied. The exact nature of the appeal is not indeed altogether
clear. It is by no means clear that the Judaizers appealed to
the original apostles in support of the content of the Judaizing
message; it is by no means clear that they made Peter or James teach
the necessity of the Mosaic Law for salvation. What is clear is only
that they appealed to the original apostles in their personal attack
against Paul; they contrasted Paul, who had become a disciple only
after the crucifixion, with those who had been intimate with Jesus.
They used Peter to discredit the apostolic authority of Paul, but
it is not so clear that they used Peter to discredit the content of
Paul's message.
If, however, they did appeal to Peter in this latter way, if they
did appeal to Peter in support of their legalistic contentions, such
an appeal does not overthrow the conclusions which have just been
reached about the harmony of Peter and Paul; it does not really make
Peter an advocate of legalism. For even if Peter was not an advocate
of legalism the appeal of the Judaizers to him can be explained.
It can be explained not by the principles of Peter, but by his
practice. The early disciples in Jerusalem continued to observe the
Jewish fasts and feasts; they continued in diligent attendance upon
the Temple services. Outwardly, they were simply devout Jews; and
the manner of their life might therefore have given some color to
the Judaizing contentions.
Inwardly, it is true, the early disciples were not simply devout
Jews; they were really trusting for their salvation no longer to
their observance of the Law but to Jesus their Saviour. The whole
spirit of their lives, moreover, was quite different from that which
prevailed in legalistic Judaism; anxious thought for the morrow,
gloomy contemplation of the triumphs of the oppressor, had given
place to exultant joy. The early disciples, indeed, like the Jews,
were still waiting for the establishment of the kingdom of God. But
their waiting was no longer full of sorrow. The Messiah was taken
from them for a time; but He had already appeared and had brought
salvation.
Thus the early Jerusalem Church was really quite distinct from
contemporary Judaism; the real principle of its life was fresh and
new. But to a superficial observer, on account of the continuance of
old customs, the new principle might not appear; to a superficial
observer, the observance of Jewish customs on the part of the early
disciples might seem to be legalism. And certainly the Judaizers
were superficial. Apparently they had come into the Church in the
period of quiet that followed the persecution of Stephen; they had
come in from the sect of the Pharisees, and they continued to be
Pharisees at heart. As Pharisees they welcomed the coming of the
Messiah, but they did not understand the teaching of this Messiah.
They looked for a continuance of the prerogatives of Israel. Jesus
was the Messiah, but was He not the Jewish Messiah, would He not
bring about the triumph of the chosen people? Would not all the
peoples of the earth come to do obeisance to Israel by submitting to
Israel's Law? To such observers, the Jewish practice of the original
apostles would furnish welcome support; these observers would not
care to look beneath the surface; they would say simply to the
Gentile Christians of Galatia: "The original disciples of Jesus obey
the Mosaic Law; must not you do likewise?"
At a later time such an appeal could not have been made; at a later
time even the practice of the original apostles ceased to conform to
Jewish custom. The tradition according to which the apostle Peter
finally went to Rome is emerging triumphant[72] from the fires of
criticism; and if Peter went to Rome, it is inconceivable that
he separated himself from Gentile Christians. Even in the early
days, in Antioch, he had begun to abandon his Jewish manner of
life; surely he must have abandoned it more fully when he went to
the capital of the Gentile world. The tradition as to the Ephesian
residence of the apostle John also points to the abandonment of the
Law on the part of the original apostles, and to their definite
entrance upon the Gentile mission. That tradition has been rejected
only by attending to late and dubious evidence to the neglect of
what is plain. But it is not necessary to appeal to details. All
that has been said above about the position of Peter in the mind of
the Church shows that even the practice of the original apostles
finally adapted itself to the needs of the expanding Gentile work.
[72] See, for example, Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_, 1915.
But in the early period, in Jerusalem, before it had become evident
that the Jewish people as such was to reject the gospel message,
the apostles continued to observe the Law. And by doing so, they
gave the Judaizers some color of support. Thus if the Judaizers
did appeal to the original apostles in support of their legalistic
claims, the appeal does not establish any real unity of principle
between them and the original apostles, or any divergence of
principle between the original apostles and Paul. But as a matter
of fact it is by no means perfectly clear that the appeal was made;
it is by no means clear that the Judaizers appealed to the original
apostles for the content of their legalistic message rather than
merely for their attack upon the independent apostleship of Paul. It
is possible that they said no more than this: "Paul was not one of
the original disciples of Jesus; his authority is merely a derived
authority; he is, therefore, no more worthy to be heard than we; and
we can tell you something new--the followers of the Messiah must
unite themselves with the chosen people and obey the Law of God."
At any rate, even if the Judaizers did appeal to the original
apostles for the content of their message, the appeal was a false
appeal; the original apostles repudiated the Judaizers, and
recognized Paul as a true apostle, with authorization as direct as
their own.
Thus Baur was wrong. But suppose Baur were right about the point
which has just been discussed; suppose even the most impossible
admissions be made; suppose it be granted that the original apostles
differed fundamentally from Paul. Even then the testimony of the
original apostles to the true connection between Paul and Jesus
is not invalidated. For even if the original apostles differed
fundamentally from Paul, the difference concerned only the place
of the Mosaic Law in the Christian economy, and did not concern
the Pauline conception of the person of Christ. So much at least
must be insisted upon against Baur. The really astounding fact,
which emerges from all discussion of the apostolic age, is that the
Pauline conception of the person of Christ, whatever may be said of
the Pauline doctrine of Gentile freedom, was never criticized by
the original apostles. Indeed, so far as can be seen, it was never
criticized even by the Judaizers themselves. Apparently it never
occurred to Paul that his conception of the heavenly Christ required
defense. About other things there was controversy; the doctrine of
Christian freedom, for example, had to be defended against all sorts
of objections and by the use of all sorts of evidence. But about the
person of Christ there was not one word of debate. "Not by man but
by Jesus Christ," Paul says at the beginning of Galatians. Evidently
the Judaizers said, "Not by Jesus Christ but by man." But apparently
it never occurred to Paul that any one might say, "By Jesus Christ
and therefore by man." The Judaizers, apparently, as well as Paul,
recognized the alternative between Jesus Christ and man; like Paul
they separated Jesus Christ from ordinary humanity and placed Him
on the side of God. The same phenomenon appears everywhere in the
Pauline Epistles--the tremendous doctrine of the person of Christ is
never defended, but always assumed. Indeed, in the earlier epistles
the doctrine is never even set forth in any systematic way; it is
simply presupposed. In Colossians, indeed, it is more definitely
set forth, and apparently in opposition to errorists who failed
to recognize its full implications. Even in Colossæ, however, the
doctrine does not seem to have been denied; the errorists apparently
did not deny the supreme place of Jesus in the scale of being, but
merely erred in attaching undue importance to other beings. What is
really significant in Colossians is the character of the errorists.
Evidently they were not conservative disciples, who appealed
against the heavenly Christ of Paul to the facts about the historic
Jesus. On the contrary, they were gnostics, engaged in unhistorical
speculations, and as far removed as possible from anything that
primitive Palestinian Christianity might conceivably have been. So
when Paul first has to defend his doctrine of the exclusive and
supreme importance of Christ, he defends it not against conservative
disciples, who could appeal either with or without reason to the
original apostles, but against gnostic speculation. With regard to
the person of Christ Paul appears everywhere in perfect harmony with
all Palestinian Christians.
The fact is of such importance that it must be examined in the
light of all possible objections. Is there any trace in the Pauline
Epistles of a primitive view of Jesus different from the lofty
Christology of Paul?
One such trace has occasionally been found in 2 Cor. v. 16. In that
verse, after Paul has spoken of the complete break that comes in a
man's life when he accepts the benefits of Christ's death, he says:
"Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though
we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no
more." Some interpreters have discovered in the words, "even though
we have known Christ after the flesh," a reference to a fleshly
conception of Christ which laid stress upon His Davidic descent, His
connection with the Jewish people, and in general His ordinary human
relationships, to the neglect of His higher, divine nature. That
fleshly conception of Christ might then be regarded as the primitive
conception, which Paul himself shared until a mature stage of his
Christian life. But this latter suggestion is excluded not only
by the whole tenor of the Epistles (in which Paul never displays
the slightest consciousness of any such revolution in his idea of
Christ), but also especially by the present passage. The passage
deals with the complete and immediate break which comes in a man's
way of thinking when the death of Christ becomes representative
of him--that is, at the beginning of his Christian life. It is
therefore entirely out of accord with the context to suppose that
Paul is contrasting an immature stage of his own Christian life
with the present mature stage. But he is also not alluding to
any lower, fleshly conception of Christ as being held by others.
The interpretation which finds in the passage a human Messiah in
contrast to the divine Christ of Paul, errs fundamentally in making
the words "according to the flesh" modify "Christ," whereas as a
matter of fact they clearly modify the verb "know." Paul says not,
"Even if we have known a Christ according to the flesh, we know
such a Christ no longer," but, "Even if we have known Christ with
a fleshly kind of knowledge, we know Him in such a way no longer."
He is not speaking of two different conceptions of Christ, but of
two different ways of knowing Christ. There is in the passage,
therefore, not the slightest reference to any primitive conception
of the person of Christ different from Paul's conception.
In 2 Cor. xi. 4 Paul speaks of "another Jesus" whom his opponents in
Corinth were proclaiming or might proclaim. Was this "other Jesus"
the historical Jesus, in distinction from the heavenly Christ of
Paul? Does this verse refer to a primitive, Palestinian conception
of Jesus different from the conception held by Paul?
The verse is certainly very difficult; it constitutes a famous _crux
interpretum_. But just for that reason, it should not be made the
foundation for far-reaching theories. There is not the slightest
hint elsewhere in 2 Corinthians that the opponents presented a view
of the person of Christ different from that of Paul; indeed what
is characteristic of the polemic in this Epistle is that doctrinal
questions are absent. There is not even any evidence that the
opponents, though apparently they laid stress upon Jewish descent,
Palestinian connections, and the like, and so may perhaps loosely
be called "Judaizers," insisted upon the keeping of the Mosaic Law.
Apparently Paul does not feel required to defend the content of his
gospel at all. Certainly he does not feel required to defend his
doctrine of the person of Christ. But if the opponents had really
proclaimed a human Jesus different from the divine Christ of Paul,
it is inconceivable that Paul should not have defended his view. If
there is one thing that is fundamental in the religion of Paul, it
is his conception of Christ as divine Redeemer. Any denial of that
conception would certainly have called forth anathemas at least as
severe as those which were hurled against the legalists in Galatia.
Yet in 2 Cor. x-xiii, though these chapters contain perhaps the
bitterest polemic to be found anywhere in the Pauline Epistles,
there is no trace of any defense of the Pauline conception of the
person of Christ. The natural suggestion is that such defense
is absent because it was not called forth by anything that the
opponents said. It is adventurous exegetical procedure to hang a
heavy weight upon the very obscure verse, 2 Cor. xi. 4.
As a matter of fact, however, the obscurities of that verse are
not hopeless, and rightly interpreted the verse contains no hint
of a primitive conception of Jesus different from that which was
proclaimed by Paul. The translation of the American Revised Version
may first be presented as a basis of discussion, though it is
probably incorrect in important particulars. In that version the
three verses 2 Cor. xi. 4-6[73] read as follows: "For if he that
cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye
receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different
gospel, which ye did not accept, ye do well to bear with him. 5 For
I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6
But though I be rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge; nay, in
every way have we made this manifest unto you in all things." By a
modification of this translation at the end of verse 4, the whole
passage might mean: "Bear with me in my boasting. I am 'boasting' or
defending myself only in order that you may not be deceived by the
opponent who comes to you. For if he comes arrogantly proclaiming
another Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel, ye bear with him
only too well. Bear with _me_ then when I defend myself. For I am
not a bit behind these 'preëminent' apostles,[74] since despite what
they say I have really made the whole truth known to you."
[73] 4. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει ὃν οὐk ἐκηρύξαμεν,
ἣ πνεῦμα ἔτερον λαμβάνετε ὃ οὐκ ἐλάβετε, ἣ εὐαγγέλιον ἔτερον ὃ οὐk
ἐδέξασθε, καλῶς ἀνέχεσθε. 5. λογίζομαι γὰρ μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν
ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων. 6. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης tῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ'οὐ τῇ γνώσαι,
ἀλλ'ἐν παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς.
[74] The translation preferred in the American Revision, "very
chiefest apostles," seems to be based upon the mistaken view
that the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι are the original apostles at Jerusalem.
This view is rejected in the above paraphrase, which diverges
from the American Revision in other ways also.
Even according to this interpretation there is no real reference to
a Jesus of the opponents different from Paul's Jesus. The "other
Jesus" of the opponents existed, rather, merely in their own
inordinate claims. They had no other Jesus, no other Spirit, and
no other gospel to offer. They asserted, indeed, that the teaching
of Paul was insufficient; they asserted that they had fuller
information about Jesus, about the Spirit, and about the gospel.
They said, "Paul has not made the full truth known to you." Yet
they had really nothing new to offer. Paul had really given to the
Corinthians the whole Jesus, the whole Spirit, and the whole gospel.
As a matter of fact, however, this interpretation is unsatisfactory.
It is obliged to supply a link to connect verse 4 with verse
5--namely, the thought, "Bear with me." That thought is here
entirely unexpressed; verse 1, where it is expressed, is too far
back to be in view. Thus if the pronoun "him" is supplied with the
verb at the end of verse 4, there is no clear connection with verse
5; the "for" of verse 5 is very obscure. If, however, the pronoun
"me," not "him," is supplied with the verb at the end of verse
4, all is plain. Since the pronoun does not appear at all in the
Greek, the translator is free to supply it as the context demands;
and the context apparently demands the pronoun "me." The meaning of
the passage is then as follows: "Bear with me in my 'boasting.' My
boasting is undertaken to prevent you from being deceived. For if
the one who comes to you seeks to commend himself by claiming fuller
knowledge of Jesus, the Spirit, or the gospel, then you do well to
bear with me in my boasting, you do well to listen to my defense.
For I am not afraid of the comparison with the opponent. It is not
true that I have concealed from you anything about Jesus, about the
Spirit, or about the gospel; on the contrary I have made everything
known to you."
The exegetical question is somewhat complicated by a question of
the text in verse 4. Manuscript evidence is rather evenly divided
between the present tense of the verb at the end of the verse and
the imperfect tense.[75] Unquestionably the imperfect tense is the
more difficult reading; it is favored therefore by the well-known
principle of textual criticism that the more difficult reading is to
be preferred to the easier. If the imperfect be read, it may perhaps
be explained as the imperfect tense in the apodosis of a condition
contrary to fact; there would then be a transition from one form
of condition to another. Paul would then say: "If he who comes is
preaching another Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel--if such
were the case you would do well to bear with my defense of my own
preaching." If indeed the pronoun "him" be supplied at the end of
verse 4, as is usually done, the imperfect might be taken simply as
referring to past time, and the meaning would be: "If he who comes
is preaching another Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel--when
that took place ye were bearing with the newcomer only too well."
But even so the imperfect is extremely harsh, and on the whole it is
more probable that it has crept in by a copyist's error--perhaps in
conformity to the same imperfect in verse 1, where the imperfect is
used to express a wish.
[75] Between ἀνέχεσθε and ἀνείχεσθε (or ἠνείχεσθε).
What has caused the vast majority of commentators to supply "him"
rather than "me" at the end of verse 4 is apparently the parallel
with 2 Cor. xi. 19, 20, where Paul certainly expresses the thought,
"Bear with me, for you bear with my arrogant opponents only too
well." The parallel does indeed constitute the strongest argument
in favor of the ordinary view of verse 4 which supplies the pronoun
"him," and regards the adverb "well" as sarcastic--"only too
well." But the argument is not decisive. The connection with verse
5 really fixes the pronoun which is to be supplied at the end of
the preceding verse. Paul is defending himself against the charge,
implied in verse 6, that he had not made the full truth known. The
opponents had claimed to have further information about Jesus, the
Spirit, and the gospel. "But," says Paul, "if that is their claim,
ye do well to listen to my defense. For I have made Jesus and the
Spirit and the gospel just as fully known to you as they have." The
thought is perfectly clear if only the pronoun "me" be supplied at
the end of verse 4.
If, however, exegetical tradition be followed, and the pronoun "him"
be supplied, the essential implications of the passage are not
really different. In no case is anything said about a conception
of Jesus really differing from that of Paul. One interpretation,
indeed, definitely excludes such an implication. The passage may
mean, "If the one who comes to you preaches another Jesus--in that
case you would do well to bear with him. But as a matter of fact
there is only one Jesus. Therefore you will do well to be content
with me. For I have made Jesus fully known to you." According
to this interpretation, which has much to be said in its favor,
Paul refutes the opponents and their arrogant claims of bringing
something superior to Paul's message, by a reference to the obvious
fact that there is only one Jesus. "If they had another Jesus,"
Paul says, "then they might claim to bring you something that I did
not bring. But since, unfortunately for them, there is of course
only one Jesus, and since I made that Jesus fully known to you, they
cannot maintain any superiority." This interpretation is probably to
be preferred among all those which supply the pronoun "him" rather
than "me" at the end of verse 4.
At any rate, whichever interpretation be adopted, Paul would surely
have expressed himself very differently if the opponents had
presented an account of Jesus radically contradictory to his own. In
that case he could hardly have appealed merely to the completeness
of his presentation. Instead, he would have had to establish the
truth of his presentation. As it is, the "other Jesus" of the
Judaizers existed only in their own inordinate claims. They really
had no other Jesus to offer; Paul had made the whole Jesus known.
The passage contains no hint, therefore, of a primitive conception
of Jesus differing from the lofty conception proclaimed by Paul.
Thus the Pauline Epistles contain not the slightest trace of any
conflict with regard to the person of Christ. About other things
there was debate, but about this point Paul appears to have been in
harmony with all Palestinian Christians. Even the Judaizers seem
to have had no objection to the heavenly Christ of Paul. But if
the Judaizers, who were Paul's bitter opponents, had no objection
to Paul's view of Christ, it could only have been because the
original apostles on this point gave them not even that slight
color of support which may have been found with regard to the way
of salvation in the apostles' observance of the Law. The fact is of
enormous importance. The heavenly Christ of Paul was also the Christ
of those who had walked and talked with Jesus of Nazareth.
Let it not be said that this conclusion involves an undue employment
of the argument from silence; let it not be said that although the
original apostles did not share Paul's conception of the heavenly
Christ, Paul did not find it necessary to enter into the debate in
his Epistles. For on this matter Paul could not possibly have kept
silent. He was not in the habit of keeping silent when the essential
things of his gospel were called in question--the anathemas which he
pronounced against the Judaizers in Galatia and the sharp rebuke
which he administered to the chief of the apostles at Antioch are
sufficient proof of his fearlessness. But what can possibly be
regarded as essential to his gospel if it was not his doctrine of
Christ as divine Redeemer? That doctrine was the very warp and woof
of his being; without it he was less than nothing. Yet the historian
is asked to believe that Paul submitted tamely, without a word of
protest, to the presentation of a purely human Jesus. The thing is
unthinkable. Paul would not have submitted to the preaching of such
a Jesus if the preachers had all been angels from heaven.
What is really most significant in the Pauline Epistles therefore,
is the complete absence of any defense of the Pauline doctrine
of Christ, the complete absence, indeed, of any systematic
presentation of that doctrine. The Pauline view of Christ is
everywhere presupposed, but nowhere defended. The phenomenon is very
strange if the modern naturalistic account of Jesus be correct.
According to that account, the historical Jesus, a great and good
man, came after His death to be regarded as a divine Redeemer; one
conception of Jesus gave place to a very different conception. Yet
the surprising thing is that the mighty transition has left not
the slightest trace in the primary sources of information. The
chief witness to the transcendent conception of Jesus as divine
Redeemer is quite unconscious of introducing anything new; indeed he
expressly calls attention to the harmony of his proclamation with
that of the intimate friends of Jesus. There is only one possible
conclusion--the heavenly Christ of Paul was also the Christ of
those who had lived with Jesus of Nazareth. They had seen Jesus
subject to all the petty limitations of human life; they had seen
Him hungry and thirsty and weary; they had toiled with Him over the
hills of Galilee; yet they gave the right hand of fellowship to one
who regarded Him as the divine Redeemer seated on the throne of all
being, and they were quite unconscious of any conflict between their
view and his.
Thus Paul was not regarded as an innovator with respect to Jesus
by Jesus' intimate friends. He was not regarded as an innovator
even with regard to those elements in his message--such as freedom
from the Law--about which no definite guidance was to be found in
the teaching or example of Jesus. Still less was he regarded as
an innovator in his account of Jesus' person. With regard to that
matter even the Judaizers did not venture to disagree.
But if Paul regarded himself, and was regarded by the original
apostles, as a true disciple of Jesus, how did he obtain the
necessary knowledge of Jesus' life? Was his knowledge limited to
intuition or remote hearsay; or had he opportunities for authentic
information?
That question has really been answered by the outline of Paul's
life in Chapters II and III. It has been shown that even before his
conversion, in Palestine, Paul must have become acquainted with the
facts about Jesus' life and death. The facts were common property;
even indifference could not have made a man completely ignorant of
them. But far from being indifferent, Paul was deeply interested
in Jesus, since he was an active persecutor of Jesus' disciples.
After the conversion, Paul was undoubtedly baptized, and undoubtedly
came into some contact with Christians in Damascus. The presumption
is strongly in favor of the presence there of some who had known
Jesus in the days of His flesh; the independence of which Paul is
speaking in Galatians is independence over against the Jerusalem
apostles, not over against humble disciples in Damascus, and it
does not relate to information about details. Three years after
the conversion Paul visited Peter at Jerusalem, and also met James
the brother of Jesus. It is quite inconceivable that the three men
avoided the subject of Jesus' words and deeds. The fifteen days
spent with Peter at Jerusalem brought Paul into contact with the
most intimate possible source of information about Jesus.
According to the Book of Acts, Paul came into contact with Barnabas
at the time of his first Jerusalem visit. Whatever may be thought
of this detail, the later association of Barnabas with Paul, at
Antioch and on the first missionary journey, is generally or
universally recognized as historical. It is confirmed by the
association of the two men at the time of the conference with the
Jerusalem pillars (Gal. ii. 1). Thus Paul spent several years in
the most intimate association with Barnabas. Who then was Barnabas?
According to Acts iv. 36, 37, he was a man of Cyprus by descent,
but he was also a member of the primitive Jerusalem Church. The
kind of information contained in this passage represents just that
element in the early chapters of Acts which is being generally
accepted by recent criticism. With regard to the community of
goods in the early Jerusalem Church, it is sometimes supposed
that the author of Acts has erred in generalizing and exalting to
the position of a principle what was really done in many cases by
generous individuals. But in order that there might be unhistorical
generalization, there must have been something to generalize.
Details, therefore, like the generous act of Barnabas in selling a
field and devoting the proceeds to the needs of the brethren, are
thought to constitute the solid tradition with which the author
of Acts is operating. Objections in plenty may be raised against
this treatment of the narrative as a whole, but certainly the
concreteness of the little detached note about Barnabas makes a
specially favorable impression. It will probably be admitted to-day
by the majority of scholars that Barnabas really had a place in the
primitive Jerusalem Church. But if so, his close connection with
Paul is of the utmost importance. How could Paul possibly have been
for years intimately associated with Barnabas in the proclamation of
the gospel without becoming acquainted with the facts about Jesus?
Is it to be supposed that Barnabas, who had lived at Jerusalem,
proclaimed Jesus as Saviour without telling in detail what sort of
person Jesus had been, and what He had said and done? Or is it to be
supposed that Paul closed his ears to what his brother missionary
said?
At the beginning of the first missionary journey, Barnabas and Paul
were accompanied by John Mark, and Mark appears again in the company
of Paul, as one of Paul's trusted helpers, in Col. iv. 10 and
Philem. 24. This John Mark certainly came from the Jerusalem Church;
for the house of his mother is mentioned as a meeting-place for the
Jerusalem disciples in the incomparably vivid account in Acts xii.
1-17 of the escape of Peter from prison. Whatever may be thought
of the Book of Acts as a whole, the twelfth chapter is recognized
as embodying primitive tradition. Even Wellhausen was somewhat
impressed with the lifelike detail of this narrative; the chapter,
Wellhausen admitted, contains elements of high historical value.[76]
Certainly, then, the mother of John Mark and presumably Mark
himself were members of the primitive Jerusalem Church. Tradition,
moreover, as preserved by Papias of Hierapolis, connects Mark
with Peter and represents the Second Gospel (attributed to Mark)
as based upon Peter's preaching.[77] The connection of Mark with
Peter is confirmed by 1 Peter v. 13. In general, recent criticism
is favorably disposed toward the Papian tradition about the Second
Gospel; that tradition is often admitted to have some basis in
fact. Of course the words of Papias about Mark's connection with
Peter naturally refer, at least in part, to a time later than the
formative period of Paul's life. But no doubt the later relationship
was at least prepared for in the early days when Mark and Peter
were together in Jerusalem.[78] John Mark, therefore, constitutes
an important link, not only between Paul and the Jerusalem Church,
but also between Paul and one of the most intimate friends of Jesus.
Paul would have been able to learn the facts about Jesus' life from
Mark if he had not learned them elsewhere.
[76] Wellhausen, _Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte_, 1914,
pp. 22f.
[77] In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ iii, 39, 15.
[78] B. W. Bacon (_Jesus and Paul_, 1921, pp. 15f.) believes that
the connection between Peter and Mark is probably to be placed only
in the early years, principally before the first association of Mark
with Paul. This view, which is insufficiently grounded, involves a
rejection of the common view, attested, for example, by 1 Peter v.
13, according to which Mark was also with Peter at a later time.
The conference between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders, described in
Gal. ii. 1-10, whether or no it was identical with the Apostolic
Council of Acts xv. 1-29, would naturally bring an enrichment in
Paul's knowledge of Jesus' earthly ministry. It is hardly to be
supposed that at the conference any more than at the first visit
of Paul to Jerusalem the subject of the words and deeds of Jesus
was carefully avoided. Such avoidance would have been possible only
if the Jerusalem Church itself had been indifferent to its own
reminiscences of Jesus' earthly ministry. But that the Jerusalem
Church was not indifferent to its own reminiscences is proved by the
preservation (evidently at Jerusalem) of the tradition contained in
the Gospels. The existence of the Gospels shows that the memory of
Jesus' words and deeds was carefully treasured up in the Jerusalem
Church from the earliest times. Paul could hardly have come into
contact with such a church without obtaining information about
Jesus. He could not have failed to obtain information even if he
had been anxious to avoid it. But as a matter of fact he was not
anxious to avoid it; his apostolic independence, as will be observed
below, does not really presuppose any such absurd attitude on his
part.
On the third missionary journey Paul was accompanied by Silas (the
"Silvanus" of the Pauline Epistles). According to the Book of Acts,
Silas, like Barnabas and Mark, came originally from the Jerusalem
Church, though his connection with Jerusalem is not traced so far
back. He is said to have been one of the two men who accompanied
the Apostolic Decree from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts xv. 27). This
assertion of course will not escape unchallenged. It shares no
doubt to some extent the criticism which has been directed against
the Decree itself. But the tendency in recent years is to find a
larger and larger historical basis for the concrete assertions of
the author of Acts. So the mention of Judas and Silas as coming
from Jerusalem creates a favorable impression. It cannot be ruled
out merely because it stands only in Acts, or merely because it is
connected with the Decree. Even the Decree, it will be remembered,
is now often admitted to be a Decree of the Jerusalem Church or to
represent the substance of such a decree, even by those scholars who
suppose that Acts is wrong in representing Paul as being present
when the Decree was passed. The tradition which lies back of Acts
xv, therefore, cannot lightly be rejected. There is certainly some
evidence, therefore, for connecting Silas with the Jerusalem Church.
Of course, if the narrative in Acts be accepted as it stands, as
it is being accepted more and more generally to-day, then the
connection of Silas with the Jerusalem Church is firmly established.
That connection is not without its importance. It shows that even
when engaged in his specifically Gentile work, Paul had not shut
himself off from the sources of information about Jesus.
The mention of Andronicus and Junias in Rom. xvi. 7 is not
without interest. According to the most natural interpretation
of the verse, Andronicus and Junias are declared to have been in
Christ before Paul was in Christ. They were, therefore, primitive
disciples. Certain other details are more obscure. Does Paul mean
that Andronicus and Junias were themselves "apostles," the word
"apostle" being used here in a broad sense? In that case, the verse
may be translated, "Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and
fellow-prisoners, who are noteworthy among the apostles who were
before me in Christ." Or is it merely said that Andronicus and
Junias were regarded highly by the apostles, had a good reputation
among them? In that case, the relative pronoun is no doubt to be
taken with the words "Andronicus and Junias" rather than with the
word "apostles"; and two details are mentioned: (1) that Andronicus
and Junias had a good reputation among the apostles, and (2) that
they were converted earlier than Paul. Also the meaning of the word
translated "kinsmen" is doubtful. The word may mean merely "members
of the same race," that is, "Jews"; or it may mean "members of the
same family," that is, "relatives." Still another interpretation is
favored by Böhlig, who thinks that the word designates Andronicus
and Junias as members of the Jewish colony at Tarsus, the boyhood
home of Paul.[79] But however the interesting exegetical problems
may be solved, it seems evident that Andronicus and Junias had
become Christians earlier than Paul, and that they were therefore
representatives of primitive Christianity. The presence of such men
in the Church at Rome--or in the Church at Ephesus, if the common
separation of Rom. xvi. from the rest of Romans (on insufficient
grounds) be adopted--is interesting. It exemplifies the kind
of personal connection that was undoubtedly maintained between
primitive Christianity and the Gentile churches. Even far away in
the Gentile world Paul was not altogether removed from contact with
those who had been Christians before him. Wherever and however
Andronicus and Junias had become disciples, whether in Jerusalem or
elsewhere, whether by the instrumentality of Jesus Himself or by
the instrumentality of His apostles, in any case they had become
disciples in the very earliest days of the Church's life. It is
hardly to be supposed that they were ignorant of the facts about
Jesus, and in all probability there were other such persons, even in
Pauline churches.
[79] Böhlig, _Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos_, 1913, pp. 140-142.
But it is not necessary to lay stress upon Andronicus and Junias,
when Peter and James and Barnabas and Mark all came into close
contact with Paul. Paul had abundant opportunity for acquainting
himself with the words and deeds of Jesus.
Three important facts have thus far been established; (1) Paul
regarded himself as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, (2) he was
so regarded by the intimate friends of Jesus, (3) he had abundant
sources of information about Jesus' life. The natural conclusion is
that Paul was a true disciple of the real Jesus.
This conclusion is thought to be overthrown by two considerations.
In the first place, it is said, Paul himself attests his own
indifference to historical information about Jesus; and in the
second place, such indifference is confirmed by the paucity of
references in the Epistles to Jesus' words and deeds. These two
considerations lead into the heart of the problem, and must be
examined with some care.
The indifference of Paul toward historical information about Jesus
is thought to be attested chiefly by 2 Cor. v. 16 and by the Epistle
to the Galatians. In 2 Cor. v. 16 Paul says, "Even if we have known
Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more." What
can these words mean, it is asked, except that ordinary information
about Jesus, dealing with the details of His earthly life, the kind
of information that one man can obtain of another by sight and
hearing, has become valueless for the Christian? The Christian, Paul
says, is interested not at all in what eyewitnesses may say or in
what he himself may remember about the earthly life of Jesus; he is
interested only in the direct contact which he has at present with
the risen Lord.
This interpretation ignores the fact that the assertion in 2 Cor.
v. 16 about the knowledge of Christ is only an application of the
general assertion at the beginning of the verse about the knowledge
of persons in general. "So that," says Paul, "we from now on know
no one after the flesh." Paul says, therefore, not only that he
does not know Christ after the flesh, but also that he does not
know any man after the flesh, and the two assertions must obviously
be interpreted in the same way. Therefore the interpretation which
has been proposed for the knowledge of Christ, if it is to commend
itself, must also be applied to the knowledge of every man.