The Importance of Paul

A trend I've been seeing lately is people becoming more fed up with the great Apostle Paul, some to the point of abandoning him altogether. Islamists hold that Paul changed Christianity, as do some atheist and agnostic scholars, and obviously homosexual non-Christians abhor him. Most of what I've been seeing though is an increasing view of Paul's teachings as being either totally or somewhat incompatible with what the red letters say, and its coming from the general populace of Christians. This view really sets in stone my belief that Christians either don't know anything about Christian history, or simply don't think through the consequences of changing what has been set in stone for nearly 2000 years. As I've stated in a few places, this is the product of a Christianity that is now willing to question everything with a skeptical eye.

I question everything, let me make that clear- but I do it in search of knowledge, not due to skepticism. If you've been following my blog articles at all, you'll know that I'm not exactly supportive of a "blind faith" version of what "faith" is. My great hope and desire is that all Christians become increasingly literate in Christianity, and more aware of why we believe what we do. Asking questions is part of that. There is however, a difference between asking the questions "Why is that there," "Why do we believe that," and "How am I supposed to accept this?" The first two question with an intellectual curiosity, a desire to know. The third question asks with a self-centered skepticism that puts the focus on the person's own worldview, rather than viewing Scripture as the revealed Word of God, and accepting any answer regardless of the culture clash. Some things are difficult, no doubt. To be sure though, there is nothing in Scripture that is worth "throwing out" based on its incompatibility with the culture around me. Its all in there for a reason.

The Apostle Paul's teachings fall right in the center of this. His views on a patriarchal family, the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and that women are not allowed to teach men have all been viewed negatively by various groups, and its gotten to the point that people aren't just ignoring his individual teachings- they're willing to throw out Paul altogether. The general consensus about Paul among his enemies is that he and his theology are merely the product of his Pharisaical upbringing and his Hellenistic, Second Temple Jewish worldview. Essentially, Paul's teaching are all chalked up to the culture he grew up in, and have no relevance to Christianity today.

Rachel Held Evans, a voice within the Emergent movement who has been working her way up the "Christians You Need to Know" ladder, voices this opinion in her blog:

 As a woman, I’ve been nursing a secret grudge against the Apostle Paul for about eight years

As if we're supposed to empathize with her because she's pointing out that its a woman thing. The bold print is her own, amongst a list of things that are not in bold, so she's emphasizing this point about herself. She simply does not want to accept what Paul says. That's all there is to it. Now if you're familiar with Evans' views, and especially her interpretive hermeneutic (I cringe calling it that), you'll know she's not a Biblical scholar, and she's definitely not a theologian of any sort (in her new book, she refers to Islam as "the Nation of Islam," which is the Farrakhan movement...). So, how much of what we're about to read has she really thought about? Not much. The hermeneutic is emotion. Its all about feeling and responding according to our culture.

There are some things that I think people haven't thought about with Paul. Some things that Christians find central to defining what Christianity is that we would actually lose by negating Paul. But maybe I'm wrong- maybe people like Rachel Held Evans have thought through these things. Maybe people are willing to throw out Paul because they simply don't care. What a scary thought. Either way, so that you might be informed- Christian- here are some reasons to hold on to our beloved Apostle.

Canonicity

"Canonicity" is a big word for saying "what books we think are inspired." For example, the six Star Wars movies are considered "Star Wars canon." The comic books however, are not. They contain things either not endorsed by George Lucas or things that are inherently contradictory to the six movies. It goes the same with Scripture. We have a set of writings that we consider to be absolute in their necessity to what it is we believe.

The problem is, I think a lot of people are under the impression that the only reason we have these books is because a group of people got together and chose them for one reason or another. That's not the case- the group of books is actually entirely accidental, more or less (from our historical perspective of course; Spiritual from our Christian mindset). There was no ecumenical council that decided everything. Early Christians were just smart enough to start collecting writings from Church leaders that they recognized were of a different nature. This is reflected in the various early Papyrus and Codices that we have. Nowhere do we have a set of the complete New Testament before around 300AD. But, we do have various groupings of the different books that we call the NT. That means that there were Christians living in different areas that had collected different sets of manuscripts and kept them together, and that there was overlap within the groups until someone noticed that there were a set of documents that were particular to all the different Christian populations, and decided to put all of them together. Whoever this was though, certainly wasn't of any authoritative sort that decided for the church what was to be canon and what wasn't.

The reason that we have the books we do is because they all work together, in a very weird and oddly coincidental sort of way. When you remove one, or a few, you start affecting all the rest, and with as developed as Christian theology is today, removing one or a few would be detrimental to what we have concluded up to this point.

All this said, let us look at Paul. Paul was the most prolific of the NT writers. Of the twenty seven books of the NT, Paul wrote either 13 or 14, depending on who wrote Hebrews. Going with 13 books, that means that Paul wrote 48% of the NT. His importance within Christian theology well displayed thus.

Paul is also mentioned in the Book of Acts and is depicted as having been chosen by Christ Himself through a vision, and thus commissioned as the Apostle that replaced Judas Iscariot. Of the 28 chapters of Acts, 19 focus on Paul.

The Apostle Peter groups Paul's letters in with the rest of the Scriptures (graphas- "writings") in 2 Pet 3:16. Peter regards Paul as "our beloved brother" (2 Pet 3:15), and also gives the warning that people will try to distort what he says, "to their own destruction."

So what affect does removing Paul from our Christian canon have on the New Testament? Here's a list of some important points, in no particular order of importance:

1) We lose the Pastoral epistles- 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Without these, we have virtually no instruction on how churches are to be run. We have no rules concerning the choosing of pastors, elders, or deacons. We have no rules or guidelines concerning their lifestyles, their beliefs, their status as Christians, or their position of authority within the church. We basically lose the structure of Church.

2) We lose the writings of Luke- Luke and Acts. If Paul was a false apostle, and at odds with Christ's teachings, we definitely lose Acts. Not only would it nullify his choosing by Christ on the road to Damascus, but it would make Luke a liar, or at least Luke's sources untrustworthy, and therefore we cannot hold either work as being "infallible." We would have to begin to question the veracity of both books and the trustworthiness of Luke himself.

3) We lose Peter- Acts, 1, 2 Peter. If Peter endorsed Paul and held Paul's writings up with other Scripture, which would include the Gospels, we would also have to question Peter's doctrinal authority. We know from Galatians that Paul, on at least one occasion, stood up to Peter- so perhaps Peter was swayed by Paul's beliefs and conformed to the "Pauline Brand" of Christianity. At the very least, we would have to deny 2 Peter based on his outright approval of Paul. From the other perspective, this is the perfect alibi for the canonicity of Paul. Jesus definitely commissioned Peter, and Peter in turn, approves of Paul and regards his writings as equal with other Scripture. So... yeah.

4) We lose historical information about the spread of Christianity and the trials of Christianity based on any books that are removed above. Paul's missionary trips, his jailing, Peter's remarkable release from prison at the hands of angels, the story of Annanias and Saphira, and so many others.

5) We lose the book of Romans. Romans is widely regarded as the single greatest and most important book in all of the Bible. Without it, we lose an infinite amount of Christian apologetics (ever heard of the "Romans Road?" or used it?). We also lose the single most logical book dealing with Salvation. Nearly the entire book is a single, rolling argument for the necessity of a faith-without-works-based salvation. I could go on and on about the importance of this book.

In all, to remove Paul from Scripture would wreak havoc on the Bible itself. A good portion of Scripture would be removed. Other books and at least one other Apostle would be called into question, and likely also removed.

Doctrine and Theology

This is the big one. There is so much at stake by removing Paul from canon that one cannot fathom that there would really be anything left to what we regard as Christianity, especially Protestantism. There are an infinite number of doctrines that hinge on Paul's writings. Paul, almost across the board, is regarded to be the highest of every Christian theologian that history has ever produced. Outside of Catholicism, he is regarded to be the greatest of the Apostles. His importance as a teacher and a guide is limitless. Here are some things to think about in losing him:

1) We lose our archetype of the proper Christian walk. Many, including myself, hold him to the height that he is the pinnacle of what the Christian life is to be. Let's remember, Christ wasn't a Christian. While we are commanded to live as He did, we also have to be real and recognize that Christ is God, and therefore to live as he did is an impossibility. He didn't have a sin nature. But to live as one who had the struggle of a sin nature is entirely possible. Of all the Apostles, only Paul gave the command to follow his own example (1 Cor 11:1, Gal 4:12). It is possible to experience victory within the Christian walk- living with Christ as our perfection, and Paul as our witness, we are able to find true hope in life.

2) As stated above, we lose the Book of Romans. There are so many things written there, I would be hard pressed to list every one, and would fail trying. Not every one of these is solely found in Romans, but there are many things in Romans that are stated so plainly that without them, orthodox Protestantism would be severely at a disadvantage in its theological structuring. Within Romans, there are some clear-cut things that we would certainly lose an argument for, in chronological order:

• Not just the notion that men are guilty of sin, but that all men are guilty of sin, both Jew and Gentile, from all history. The natural inclination of all men is to have sufficient knowledge of God, and reject him.
• The "Wages" argument for salvation by grace alone. Salvation cannot be by works because then God would "owe" us Salvation.
• We would lose the only absolute statement on the doctrine of Salvation by grace alone apart from works, Romans 3:28. The removal of this statement gives Roman Catholics much more ground in their doctrine due to James 2:24, which is an exact opposite statement, and without Romans 3:28, it would be at best difficult (though not impossible) to establish a grace-alone doctrine in light of James' words.
• That the Law, in its essence, was good, and should not be looked at as evil or an enemy in any way.
• Justification by Faith.
• Imputation of Righteousness to believers is a parallel to the imputation of Adam's sin to humanity.
• We have been crucified with Christ and no longer are under the yoke of sin.
• There is no final condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
• The Holy Spirit makes up for our inability to pray.
• That "all things work together for good"- that there is purpose in all of life's situations.
• Two of the most important passages on predestination/election- Romans 8:29-30 and 9:6-24.
• That Christians cannot be separated from the special love given to them by Christ.
• That God chooses some unto Salvation and passes over others, and does so to make his name great.
• The most clear presentation of the entirety of the Gospel- Romans 10:9-10.
• That the "wild branches" will be reunited with the "natural branches".
• The argument of weaker brothers vs stronger brothers in regards to areas of conscience.

And that's not even complete, not to mention that its only one book.

3) We lose many of the most important passages on our doctrines of the deity of Christ, two of the most important being the "Kenosis" of Philippians 2:6-7, and Colossians 1:15. Jesus existed in the morphe of God, the exact class and likeness of Deity, and emptied himself upon taking on flesh. Jesus was also the prototokos- the "firstborn" of all creation, contrasted with the "first created" (which is a different word- protoktistos) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

4) Spiritual gifts. Paul is the most long-winded of the NT authors on the subject of the out-workings of the Spirit, which makes up the majority of what we know about the Spirit. Unlike the Father and the Son, our understanding of the Spirit is largely formed by what we know of what he does through us. Without it, we don't really know much about him. Romans 8 is considered the most important chapter on the Spirit. 1 Cor 12-14 is the most concise section on the gifts of the Spirit. 1 Cor 14 is the only passage concerning the proper practice of tongues, and the key verse for cessationism is 1 Cor 13:10.

And those are just a few. So many volumes have been written on the Theology of Paul of Tarsus that this paltry blog can hardly do them justice. Suffice to say, we would be at a theological crux at the loss of Paul. The loss goes far deeper than just answering the problem of a supposed contradiction between Paul's heavy-handedness and "in-your-face" style with Jesus' supposed "focus" on love above all other things.

Christian Life and Ethics

So many things to list here. And I'm not going to hit a tenth of them.

1) What sins are we to avoid? Paul's writings contain several of what we refer to as "vice lists."

2) What are the defining qualities of a saved person? Paul answers this several times over, and relates them to the activity of the Spirit.

3) How is a family to operate? Paul sets the standard as the monogomous (1 Cor 7:2), same-sex (Rom 1:26-27), complementarian (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:5), loving (Eph 5:25, 28; Col 3:19; Titus 2:4-5), and nuclear (Col 3:18-21).

4) How is the local Church body to operate? The pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are all written by Paul and outline the structure, function, and discipline of the local body. Without it, we'd be up the proverbial creek with no paddle.

5) The concept of "the Spiritual man" vs. "the natural man" (1 Cor 2:14-15) is typical of Paul. His emphasis on Spirituality as being the center of Christian life is central to his teachings.

We could continue to go on forever. The point becomes abundantly clear- Paul is central to Christian Scripture, thought, life, doctrine, and theology. Without him, Christianity would not be what we know it to be.

This little (ahem) blog isn't a warning to big name guys with lots of letters after their names that write books on canonicity and really couldn't care about Christianity itself. This has been a warning to the normal people- those who have questioned Paul in light of the contemporary focus on Jesus' teachings on loving one another (of course, forgetting that Paul wrote "the love chapter," 1 Cor 13). As Rachel Held Evans said on a recent episode of NBC's "The Today Show,"

...that's the challenge...trying to figure out what parts of [the Bible] apply, and should be followed literally, and which parts are maybe culturally influenced, and how do we decide- I try to defer to Jesus, because I'm a Christian, and love the Lord with all my heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, and that's how I try to decide what parts I'm going to practice. "Does this help me love God better?" "Does this help me love my neighbor better?" So the stuff I wanted to keep after the year related to that.

The idea here is that it's okay to throw out portions of Scripture simply based on what we believe to be irrelevant or unloving. We become the hermeneutic. We decide what to believe and not believe. This is a dangerous path, and its quickly becoming a trend amongst (primarily) young Christians, and is the result of not asking the question "What is at stake?" when certain writers or portions of Scripture are ignored. Remember Peter's warning:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Pet 3:14-16, italics mine.)

Paul is at the pinnacle of Christendom. He is our highest Apostle, our example as a Christian, and the most prolific writer of the entire Bible. There is no praise worthy of a mere human that we could lavish upon him that would be sufficient- and he would deny all of them in deference to our Lord and Savior, of which his own mouth confesses that,

...from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Mike