 |
| Picture by Stephen Larson |
In the Presbyterian Women’s Bible study, Who is Jesus? What a difference a Lens Makes, in lesson five, “According
to Paul,” the focus is on Paul’s theme of a crucified and risen Jesus. Yes, the
cross and the resurrection are two of Paul’s important themes. As author Judy
Yates Siker states “Paul’s lens,
first and foremost, is the cross, and that resulting portrait is not focused on
the life and teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels but rather is focused on the
risen Christ.”
Toward the end of the lesson Siker writes:
“From Paul’s perspective the cross is at the heart of the
Gospel message, for it reveals a God who embraces humanity in all of its
sinfulness and redeems humanity through the power of Jesus’ death and
resurrection. The cross reveals a God who so identifies with human suffering
and the pain of humanity’s own inhumanity that, in Jesus, this God takes on the
power of sin and the power of death, and transforms it all into life abundant
(Rom.5-6)”
Siker goes on to quote Romans 5:6-8, a beautiful picture of
God’s redeeming love. I applaud her words in this section on page 55 of the
lesson.
However, even in this lesson Siker continues to split apart
the New Testament’s views of who Jesus is. She tends to place too much emphasis
on scholarly debates about the text which tends to muddy her good words about
the good news which women need to hear. In this lesson there are two debates about
the text that Siker uses
The first is her decision to exclude several books which traditional
views, until the nineteenth century, have attributed to Paul. The books are 2
Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians and Ephesians. Ephesians is
an interesting case. I believe most conservative/evangelical scholars would
certainly include Ephesians as one of Paul’s letters. In the Dictionary of Paul and His letters, all
of the above books are attributed to Paul.
In the book’s piece on Ephesians, the author, Talbot School of
Theology professor Clinton E. Arnold, affirms Paul’s authorship noting that
Professor Ralph P. Martin, one of the book’s editors does not agree. It could
also be noted that Marcus Barth in his Ephesians commentaries also attributes
Ephesians to Paul.
If Siker had accepted the book of Colossians as a Pauline letter
she could have also underscored Paul’s magnificent Christology. As Peter T. O’Brian
writes, “Colossians has much to say about the importance of the gospel, the person
and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially as Lord in creation and author of
reconciliation (Col 1:15-20.).” [1]
The other scholarly debate that Siker uses in this study is
the idea that Paul seems to have nothing to say about the life and teachings of
Jesus. As she put it if we only had Paul to read we would only know, “born of a
woman (Gal. 4:4) of the lineage of David (Rom. 1:3) born under the law (Gal
4:4), had a group of followers (1 Cor. 15:5), died on a cross (Phil 2:8).”
Siker does give some good reasons for Paul’s seeming silence
about the life and teachings of Jesus, that is, he was after all writing
letters to address the problems of the various churches. But she also adds that
“some scholars argue that Paul did not know very much about the historical
Jesus.” (She leaves the door open to the reader to choose their preference.)
This divides the risen Lord from his incarnation when there
really is no division. If Paul knows the risen Lord, he knows the Jesus who
lived and ministered on earth. His letters develop the theology that is formed
out of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul’s ethics, as he
guides the churches and individual Christians, grow out of the teachings of
Jesus.[2]
If liberal scholarship did not so easily pull the various
books of the New Testament apart but read the text as a whole the problems
would not be so great. One could believe Paul and see him and his letters in
the contexts of Luke’s writings in the book of Acts. Paul’s letters should undergird
Acts and Acts affirm Paul’s letters. One could simply accept the biblical fact
that Paul knew the apostles and other Christian leaders who knew Jesus during
his ministry on earth.
I have not written much about the suggestions for leaders at
the end of each lesson. They are written by Dr. Lynn Miller. Both Miller and
Siker at the end once again bring up the idea of a different Jesus because of
different author’s perspectives. Speaking of Paul’s words about redemption and
the cross, Siker, at the end, writes, “No, this is not the same portrait of
Jesus we saw in the Gospels, for Paul’s lens is a lens of the cross.” And Miller
in suggestions for leaders writes:
Paul’s letters to specific communities ‘bear witness to the
challenges of applying the gospel message to new and changing circumstances.”
What are todays changing circumstances and who is the Jesus that can speak to
those circumstances?”
That is a question with the aroma of apostasy.
Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
[1]Peter
T. O’Brian, “Letter to the Colossians,” Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters, A compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, Gerald
F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, editors, ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1993).
[2]
For a compelling argument against Paul having little knowledge of the earthly
Christ and his teaching see, J.M.G. Barclay, “Jesus and Paul,” Dictionary of Paul.
