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
At any rate, whether desirable or not, the longing for redemption
is a fundamental fact of history, and may be shown to have emerged
independently at many points. The character of Paulinism as a
redemptive religion, the Pauline doctrine of human depravity, is
therefore insufficient to establish dependence of Paul upon the
mystery religions of the Hellenistic age. Dependence could be
established only by similarity in the form in which the doctrine
of depravity appears. But as a matter of fact such similarity is
strikingly absent. The Pauline use of the term "flesh" to denote
that in which evil resides can apparently find no real parallel
whatever in pagan usage. And the divergence appears not only in
terminology but also in thought. At first sight there might seem
to be a parallel between the Pauline doctrine of the flesh and the
Greek doctrine of the evil of matter, which appears in the Orphic
sects, then in Plato and in his successors. But the parallel breaks
down upon closer examination. According to Plato, the body is evil
because it is material; it is the prison-house of the soul. Nothing
could really be more remote from the thought of Paul. According to
Paul, the connection of soul and body is entirely normal, and the
soul apart from the body is in a condition of nakedness. It is true,
the body will be changed at the resurrection or at the coming of
Christ; it will be made more adequate for the Kingdom of God. But
at any rate, there is in Paul no doctrine of the inherent evil of
matter. The real starting-point of the Pauline doctrine of the flesh
is to be found in the Old Testament, in the passages where "flesh"
denotes human nature in its frailty. Certainly the Pauline teaching
is far more highly developed than the teaching of the Old Testament.
But the Old Testament provides the starting-point. The "flesh" in
Paul, when it is used in its developed, ethical sense, does not mean
the material nature of man; it includes rather all that man receives
by ordinary generation. The contrast between "flesh" and "Spirit"
therefore is not the contrast between matter and spirit; it is a
contrast between human nature, of which sin has taken possession,
and the Spirit of God.
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