The Origin of Paul's ReligionMachen, J. Gresham (John Gresham)
Religion
The Origin of Paul's Religion
Machen, J. Gresham (John Gresham)
Bible. Epistles of Paul -- Theology; Paul, the Apostle, Saint
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account