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
What he does mean is that he regarded those ordinary sources of
information not as an end in themselves, but as a means to an end.
The natural man according to Paul does not understand the true
significance of the words and deeds of his fellow-men; he does
not use them to attest spiritual facts. The man who is in Christ,
on the contrary, even when he uses ordinary means of information,
is acquiring knowledge of spiritual relationships, relationships
which exist in the new world. So it is also with the knowledge of
Christ. The natural man may acquire a certain knowledge of Christ;
he may learn what Christ said and did and what were the worldly
circumstances of His life. But such knowledge is a knowledge
according to the flesh; it does not attain to the true significance
even of those facts which are learned. The man who is in Christ,
on the other hand, may operate partly with the same materials; but
even when he is operating with the same materials, even when he is
obtaining by sight or by hearsay knowledge of the words and deeds
of Jesus, these facts now are invested with a higher significance.
The natural man detects only the outward appearance of the words
and deeds of Jesus; the man who is in Christ makes them attest
facts that have significance in the new world. No doubt the higher
knowledge of Christ of which Paul is speaking is not limited to this
spiritual use of ordinary sources of information; no doubt there is
also a direct intercourse between the believer and the risen Lord.
But the spiritual use of the ordinary sources of information is
certainly not excluded. Paul does not mean that he was indifferent
to what Jesus said and did.
Thus 2 Cor. v. 16, rightly interpreted, does not attest any
indifference on the part of Paul toward the information about Jesus
which came to him through contact with Jesus' disciples. Such
indifference, however, is also thought to be attested by the Epistle
to the Galatians. In Gal. i, ii, Paul emphasizes his complete
independence over against the original disciples. He received his
gospel, he says, not by the instrumentality of men, but by direct
revelation from the risen Christ. Even after the revelation he felt
no need of instruction from those who had been apostles before him.
It was three years before he saw any of them, and then he was with
Peter only fifteen days. Even when he did finally have a conference
with the original apostles, he received nothing from them; they
recognized that God had already entrusted him with his gospel and
that they had nothing to add. What can this passage mean, it is
asked, except that Paul was indifferent to tradition, and derived
his knowledge of Christ entirely from revelation?
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