The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (88 page)

An investigation by D. Wenham concluded that “there is massive evidence of Pauline knowledge of Jesus-traditions.”
²²
Wenham categorized allusions in Paul to the sayings of Jesus as highly probable, probable, or plausible. The chart below summarizes some of the most important of Wenham's findings.

Table 9.1: Highly Probable Allusions to Jesus in Paul's Letters

Wenham also argued for the probability of Paul's knowledge of many other sayings and events, including Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist (Matt 3:13–17 and parallels); Jesus' sayings about taking up the cross (Matt 16:24–26 and parallels; etc.); the sayings about drinking his cup and sharing his baptism (Mark 10:38); the commissioning of Peter (John 21:15–19); Jesus' transfiguration (Matt 17:1–13 and parallels); the story of James's and John's competition (Matt 20:20–24); the ransom saying (Matt 20:28// Mark 10:45); the parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1–9, 18–23 and parallels); the discussion of paying taxes (Matt 22:15–22); teaching about peacemaking (e.g., Matt 5:9); and the instruction about cutting off off ending limbs of the body (Matt 5:29–30). Wenham argued for the plausibility of Paul's knowledge of other details recorded in the Gospels such as the traditions of Jesus' birth (Matt 1:18–25; Luke 2:1–20); temptation (Matt 4:1–11 and parallels); the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7); his use of the title “Son of Man” (e.g., John 1:51); and the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32). Although space does not permit a discussion of the contextual and linguistic evidence supporting the probability and plausibility of these allusions, the evidence for many of the allusions that Wenham deemed highly probable or probable is compelling.

The data collected by Wenham suggest Paul's extensive knowledge of the life of Jesus. Wenham remarked:

The sheer quantity of evidence assembled is impressive. Indeed, if Paul knew all the gospel traditions which we have noted, then he knew most of the story of Jesus as the Gospels present it (at least in content, if not in order)—from the infancy of Jesus to his baptism, his ministry, and on to his death, resurrection, and ascension.
²³

The evidence presented by Wenham has been deemed persuasive by a number of scholars who are well versed in both Paul's teachings and Jesus' sayings in the Gospels. R. Bauckham commented: “Allusions to Jesus traditions in Paul's writings are in fact much more numerous than an older stereotype of Paul allowed.”
²⁴
Similarly, after comparing a number of examples of allusions in Paul's writings to Jesus' teaching, J. D. G. Dunn concluded:

In short, once granted the likelihood that Paul and the churches to which he wrote shared a good deal of common Jesus tradition, familiar enough on both sides to be a matter of allusion and implicit reference, the probability becomes strong that Paul would have naturally and without contrivance referred to that tradition in just that way. Against that plausible background several passages in Paul gain additional illumination and resonance. And the conclusion becomes increasingly persuasive that
knowledge of and interest in the life and ministry of Jesus was an integral part of his theology, albeit referred to only
sotto voce
[i.e. under his breath] in his written theology.
²⁵

However, not all of the Pauline allusions to the Jesus tradition argued by Wenham are equally convincing. The process of identifying allusions is often subjective, despite Wenham's attempt to objectify the process as much as possible by pointing to specific textual features. Nevertheless, Wenham has demonstrated that Paul's knowledge of Jesus' teachings extended far beyond 1 Cor 7:10 and 9:14 and that the continuity between Jesus and Paul is significantly greater than much recent NT scholarship has affirmed.
²⁶

Not only are verbal allusions to Jesus' teachings more frequent in Paul than many scholars have assumed, but the theological similarities between the two figures are also much greater than many have acknowledged. Although some have argued that Jesus viewed himself as a mere mortal prophet or sage whom Paul deified under the influence of pagan mystery religions, recent research has demonstrated that Jesus' self-understanding was quite similar to Paul's view of Jesus. For example, many scholars today believe that a source (identified as “Q”) that was utilized by Matthew and Luke was likely the earliest source for the Gospels.
²⁷
Several scholars have suggested that “Q” reflects a low Christology in which Jesus is merely an inspiring sage. However, L. Hurtado recently argued:

Instead, Q reflects a very high view of Jesus' role, powers, and person. He is directly associated with God in crucial eschatological functions, and he has unquestioned authority in the lives of his followers. He is uniquely endowed with God's Spirit, and in his powerful activities that include healing, exorcism, and other remarkable miracles, as well as in his proclamation, God's kingdom comes to eschatological expression. Through him, his followers are privileged to participate in declaring and demonstrating God's kingdom, and he is paradigmatic for all their activities. They suffer opposition precisely for his sake, and on his account; he promises them a spectacular vindication that will involve sharing his kingdom.
²⁸

The earliest canonical Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, also reflects a very high Christology. Mark portrays Jesus' coming as the fulfillment of OT prophecies about the coming
of Yahweh (Mark 1:2–3), thereby identifying Jesus as God. Numerous scenes from Jesus' life in Mark may be described as “epiphanic” in that they echo descriptions of the acts of Yahweh in the OT. For example, in Mark 6:45–52 Jesus walked on the water, an act of which God alone is capable according to Job 9:8. He identified himself with the words “I am”
(egō eimi)
in a manner reminiscent of the self-identifi cation of Yahweh in Exodus 3 . Marcus correctly stated that “the overwhelming impact made by our narrative is an impression of Jesus' divinity.”
²⁹
Moreover, Jesus' preferred title “Son of Man” constitutes a clear allusion to Dan 7:13–14 and describes Jesus as a divine King of heavenly origin who will reign over a universal and eternal kingdom.
³⁰
Consequently, Paul's affirmations of Jesus' eternal existence and deity are consistent with the portrayals of Jesus in the earliest Gospel material and are closely associated with Jesus' own self-understanding.

Continuity and Development

The strict “founder” versus “follower” dichotomy, in which the debate over Paul's relationship to Jesus has often been cast, unnecessarily prompts the interpreter to gravitate to one of two extremes. The most reasonable interpretation of the data suggests that Paul both respected and relied on the teachings of Jesus but felt free to develop and augment those teachings based on his own reflection on the significance of his Damascus road experience and his study of the OT. As in a comparative study of the four Gospels, so here, in comparisons of the teachings of Jesus and Paul, one must not assume that all differences amount to disagreements.

Several important factors in the mission of Paul required him both to develop and to modify the message of Jesus: (1) Jesus' passion, resurrection, and glorification demanded an emphasis on the exalted Christ; (2) the death and exaltation of the Messiah and the outpouring of the Spirit introduced a new eschatological era and enacted a new covenant between God and his people; and (3) the differences between Jesus' Jewish audience and Paul's Gentile audience required Paul to use different idioms and thought forms in order to relate to his own cultural context.
³¹
After an extensive comparison of the theologies of Paul and Jesus, which highlighted more differences than Wenham's research, Barclay concluded:

The central question is whether in essence Paul's theology is harmonious with, and a legitimate development of, the message of Jesus. As we have seen, this question cannot be answered simply by discovering or denying the presence of echoes of the words of Jesus in Paul. That issue, which lies
on the level of historical continuity between Jesus and Paul, cannot by itself determine whether Paul's theology is congruous with that of Jesus. But there is sufficient evidence to show that, whether consciously or otherwise, Paul did develop the central insights of the teaching of Jesus and the central meaning of his life and death in a way that truly represented their dynamic and fullest Significance.
³²

Conclusion

Although Paul's contributions to the Christian faith should not be underestimated, Paul should be recognized as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ rather than as the founder of a form of Christianity that deviated drastically from the teachings of Jesus. Paul's teachings originated from his reflection on the life and teachings of Jesus, his study of the OT, and his contemplation on the significance of his Damascus road experience.
³³
Although the major motifs of his theology are rooted in the message of Jesus himself, Paul was necessarily an innovator who pored over the Hebrew Scriptures as he addressed the unique challenges raised by the churches that he influenced.

The fact that Paul's mission primarily addressed Gentile congregations whereas Jesus' ministry was primarily focused on Palestinian Jews meant that Paul often had to look beyond Jesus back to the OT to understand the implications of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection for his audience. However, the differences between Jesus' teaching and Paul's letters are like the difference between the seed and the mature plant, the foundation and the superstructure built upon it. In Paul's letters to the churches, one hears not only the voice of the Spirit that inspired the OT Scriptures but also the voice of Jesus, Paul's Savior and Lord.

THE “NEW PERSPECTIVE” ON PAUL

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Paul's letters and theology occurred. Ever since the Reformation, Protestant scholars and some leading Catholic scholars viewed Paul's letters as a polemic against Jewish legalism which insisted that individuals could save themselves by their efforts to keep the OT law. Paul countered this arrogant theology by maintaining that salvation was by grace through faith alone. Since the 1977 publication of E. P. Sanders's
Paul and Palestinian Judaism
, many scholars concluded that such legalism did not in fact exist in first-century Judaism. This “new perspective” on first-century Judaism has required a reexamination of Paul's
gospel, that is, his teachings about the law, good works, and justification. For this reason it is helpful to provide a brief review of the history of scholarship on this issue.
³⁴

The Scholastic Perspective

Scholasticism was a philosophical movement that was dominant in Western Christian civilization from the ninth century to the fourteenth century. It sought to reconcile the teachings of the classical philosophers with Christian theology.
³⁵
One of the most important scholastics was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas devoted many years to writing an enormous work called the
Summa Theologica
in which he scrutinized the classic themes of Christian theology in light of the teachings of Aristotle.
³⁶

Aquinas taught that human beings can receive eternal life only when God graciously transforms their nature. Human nature is sinful and so qualitatively different from God's nature that humans are incapable of pleasing God.
³⁷
The OT law was incapable of producing the conduct necessary to satisfy God because it was hampered by this fallen human nature.
³⁸
God graciously gave the new law (the gospel message and the law written on the heart) and sent the Holy Spirit to transform individuals.
³⁹
This transformation enabled people to do what was right and good not out of fear of punishment but from their own desire to love and please the Lord, resulting in eternal life.
⁴⁰
Aquinas emphasized that individuals did not merit the grace that transformed them. He insisted, however, that once they were transformed by that grace, they truly merited eternal life for the good deeds they performed. He also taught that one person's good works might merit eternal life for someone else.
⁴¹

The Lutheran Perspective

Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk of the early sixteenth century, lived a miserable existence under the influence of scholastic theology. Luther was tormented by the growing dread that neither his own good works nor the merits of his monastic order were sufficient to save him from the wrath of the heavenly Judge. However, while Luther was lecturing on Paul's letters at the University of Wittenberg, he became captivated by the letters to the Romans and Galatians and the concept of the “righteousness of God” portrayed there. Luther eventually concluded that an individual's “active righteousness” was utterly incapable of saving him from eternal punishment.