Doherty begins with a comment on Romans 1:19-20, where Paul assures his readers that God has himself revealed everything about himself that humanity needs to know about him. Doherty remarks: "Paul here shows no conception that Jesus on earth had been a reflection of God himself, the Son demonstrating the Father's invisible attributes in his own incarnated person." Such a conception of Jesus' earthly ministry is supposed to central to Christianity's entire message, so why does Paul seem unaware of it?
Ted suggests that Doherty is quoting Paul out of context. To remedy that, he quotes Romans 1:18-23, which includes Doherty's excerpt:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. [Ted's emphasis]
Ted begins his response by noting: "Paul is writing to believers in Rome (1:7)." Very well. An author's intended readership is usually relevant to an understanding of his writing, but the relevance needs to be explicated, especially when it is offered as a solution to an apparent puzzle. What does their being in Rome have to do with how much Paul is going to tell anybody about Jesus? Ted doesn't say, but he does go on:
Paul states that "14I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish." He states in 1:16 that his gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Again: So what? Yes, we would expect Paul to tailor his teaching differently for Jews and Greeks, but what is that tailoring going to do to what he says about Jesus' ministry? In particular, how does it account for his completely ignoring that ministry? Ted doesn't say.
He finally gets to a point of sorts when he says that Paul here is asserting "the guilt of all men for not recognizing since the creation of the world God's power and authority over them." Apparently, Jesus' ministry is supposed to be irrelevant because it did not begin until long after the creation of the world, and so, in Ted's words, "This is NOT the place to discuss the arrival of Jesus on earth only recently."
Well, this strikes me as like saying that a prosecutor won't bother calling eyewitnesses to testify to a crime if he is confident of getting a conviction without their testimony. Paul may well have believed, since he said so plainly enough, that all of creation itself is the only evidence any right-thinking person needs to be convinced of God's "power and authority." Even so, surely the actual physical presence among men of God's own son would have added something to that argument? Could Paul not have supposed that the incarnation ought to have convinced some people who would otherwise not believe?
There are countless apologists nowadays feverishly defending the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin because, and only because, they think it proves Jesus rose from the dead. They think this, notwithstanding that from Day One of the Christian era, the Bible was supposed to be all the proof anybody needed to be convinced that the resurrection really happened. Those same apologists, indeed, will often affirm that very point, that even without the shroud, there is no reason for anyone to doubt the resurrection. Nevertheless, they do not think the shroud is irrelevant to an argument about the truth of Christianity. We ought not assume, therefore, that Paul would not have thought that Jesus' ministry was irrelevant to an argument about God's place in human affairs. Apologists are not wont to be so selective about what evidence they will muster in defense of their dogmas.
Ted also points out: "Paul states elsewhere of knowledge through scriptures, the prophets, visions, and personal revelation -- not just on the world around us." Indeed, according to Paul, there are many sources of knowledge about God. He mentions the scriptures quite often -- his epistles are loaded with references to them -- and from time to time he cites prophets, visions, and personal revelation. Now, it would have surprised no one if he did not always mention Jesus' ministry as a source of knowledge about God. But, he never does. Not once. The omission of Jesus from Romans 1:19-20 is simply the most conspicuous example of this. If Paul had routinely mentioned the ministry elsewhere in his writings, this would simply be an oddity. But it is not odd, except on the assumption that Paul is talking about a man who had recently lived in this world and who founded the religion that Paul was now promoting.
In this passage, according to Ted, "Paul isn't providing a complete list of all of the ways in which all of God can be known." Obviously not. But could there have been, in Paul's mind, a more important way of knowing God than to become familiar with the teachings promulgated by his son during his sojourn in this world? Did Jesus have nothing to say about God that Paul considered worth passing on? It is hardly credible that Paul would have thought so.
If all men are guilty "for not perceiving God in nature," as Ted puts its, how much guiltier are they for not perceiving God in Jesus while he walked this earth? Granted, few men ever saw Jesus, but many Jews did. And, Paul does suggest that the Jews are especially guilty, but why? Not because they rejected the son of God while he lived in their very midst. Paul never hints that they did anything of the sort. Rather, it was because it was their scriptures through whom God revealed himself.
Next, Ted tries to claim that Paul did in fact attribute godly attributes to Jesus. Here are his references (I've bracketed a correction to an apparent typo):
Paul elsewhere does address Jesus' godly attributes: Selflessness (Rom 15:3), sinless (2 Cor 5:21), meek and gentle (2 Cor 10:1), role as Son-referring to God as Father (Gal 4:6), obedient (Phil 2:8), God dwelt in his body (Col 2:9). In addition, Paul may (depending on the interpretation of "Lord") have referred to Jesus as having foretold the future (1 Thess 4:15), having been a teacher (Rom 14:4, [I Cor.] 7:10, 1 Cor 9:14), and an initiator of tradition (denoting authority) (1 Cor 11:23).
And now let us, while never minding whether there could be some dispute about how "Lord" ought to be interpreted, check those references. (Since Don quotes only from NASB, so will I unless otherwise noted.)
Rom. 15:3
For even Christ did not please Himself; but
as it is written, "THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME."
II Cor. 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to
be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in
Him.
II Cor. 10:1
Now I, Paul, myself urge you by
the meekness and gentleness of Christ--I who am meek when face to face with you,
but bold toward you when absent!
Gal. 4:6
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of
His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Phil. 2:8
Being found in appearance as a
man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death
on a cross.
Col. 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of
Deity dwells in bodily form,
I Thess. 4:15
For this we say to you by the
word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord,
will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
Rom. 14:4
Who are you to judge the servant
of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the
Lord is able to make him stand.
I Cor. 7:10
But to the married I give
instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her
husband
I Cor. 9:14
So also the Lord directed those
who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
I Cor. 11:23
For I received from the Lord
that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He
was betrayed took bread;
For every one of these, I ask: Where are the words indicating that Paul could not plausibly have been referring to any being other than a man who had lived in this world just a few years previously to when Paul was writing? Just where, in this world, did Paul think this man had lived and taught? Galilee? Judea? He never says. Just when did Paul think this man was in this world? A year before? Ten years? A century? He never says.
Nothing in these passages is the least bit inconsistent with Doherty's proposal that in Paul's mind, Jesus was never a man of this world, but rather was a spiritual being inhabiting a spirit world. To be sure, Paul is never quite explicit about that. But neither does he ever explicitly put Jesus in this world, talking face to face with ordinary people, either.
Jesus has no earthly ministry in Paul's or anyone else's
epistles. Outside the gospels, Jesus is crucified and raised back to life, and
by some unspecified means he somehow communicates a few ideas to Paul and other
people not identified. That is all. On a historicist assumption, Paul had to
have learned most of what he knew about Jesus by talking with some of his
disciples or with others who had themselves talked with his disciples. But Paul
gives no hint that he learned anything that way. He could have, but he never
says he did. He says instead that he learned them either by revelation or by
reading scripture. So far as we can tell from all his writings, he learned
nothing any other way.
Next
Previous
This page last updated on August 4, 2010.