Ted next takes on Doherty's observation about Romans 16:25-27:
The concept of a divine "mystery," a secret kept by God for long ages, recurs several times in the Pauline corpus (cf. Col. 1:26 and 2:2, Eph. 3:5, Titus 1:3, etc.). The plain meaning of the above words would seem to define the mystery as Christ himself, now revealed through Paul's gospel (and that of others) after being hidden for long ages. There is no occasion for understanding any incarnation in these words, and we have the added element that what is known and proclaimed to the world comes through the scriptures.
Here is the passage in question, using Doherty's amalgamation of several translations:
25Glory be to God who has strengthened you, through my gospel and proclamation about Jesus Christ, through his [God's] revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, 26now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings at the command of the eternal God that all nations might obey through faith 27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
According to Ted, this "doesn't actually say what the mystery was." OK. But considering the context, surely it had something to do with Jesus? Something to do with a connection between the salvation of mankind and something Jesus said or did while on this earth? Ted says the passage "seems redundant if the mystery was that of Christ himself, since he had just mentioned Christ." Well, yes, this passage is the conclusion of 16 entire chapters in which Christ is continually mentioned. Is Paul just now getting around to saying, "Oh, and by the way, God has revealed a mystery that is pertinent to all this, but I gotta run now. Y'all take care, y'hear?" Much more likely, it seems to me, is that Paul was claiming that everything he had been writing about up to that point had been a mystery prior to its recent revelation to him and his predecessors among the Christian community's leadership.
Now, Ted reasons thus: (a) "Paul believed this mystery had been revealed to him"; (b) "he KNEW that Jesus hadn't approached him while on earth to tell him this mystery"; and (c) we therefore "should not expect Paul to include an incarnated Jesus in Romans 16 as the source of this revelation." But the question is: Of which Christian beliefs was Jesus himself the source, according to the earliest Christian writings? Of course Paul could not claim that Jesus of Nazareth had told him anything directly, but he could have credited Cephas, or James, or some other disciple with having passed something on to him from Jesus. Or, having been told by Cephas (or whomever) that Jesus had said such-and-such, he could have attributed it to Jesus without reference to any intermediaries. But to the Galatians (1:11-12), he denied that there were any intermediaries between him and the ultimate source of his teachings. It is not credible that he would have done this if Paul knew, no matter how he knew, that Jesus of Nazareth was the source of what he, Paul, was now teaching people.
Disregarding evangelical dogma, we may suppose that Jesus, if there was such a man, never told anyone that he was God's own son or that his death was going to be an atonement for the sins of all humanity. In that case, certain of his followers came up with those ideas themselves. How or why they did it need not concern us here, except for this: Something Jesus said or did, during his lifetime, must have made them start thinking along those lines. And whatever that something was, Paul had to know about it, because somebody had to have told him. So then, why does he seem entirely oblivious to it? He mentions nothing that Jesus ever said or did that convinced anyone who witnessed him saying or doing it that he must have been God's son.
Ted then tries to salvage the passage for historicity by figuring out precisely what mystery Paul was referring to. The epistle to the Romans, he notes, was mainly about God's plan of salvation and the inclusion of gentiles in that plan; and, in chapter 11, Ted finds this:
25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in
Ted observes that the mystery here is apparently "that Israel won't be saved until Gentiles are also saved." But is that the same mystery to which Paul was referring in Chapter 16? Ted thinks it must be, because "This is the only other reference in Romans to a mystery." It is not obvious to me why we should assume Paul to have been so rigidly consistent, but even if Ted's inference is correct, how does this explain Paul's failure to credit Jesus? We must suppose it was because Jesus never said anything about salvation being offered to the gentiles, that was an idea that Paul came up with on his own.
It does appear that if there was a historical Jesus, he either said nothing about gentiles or else failed to make himself clearly understood on the subject. And in that case, we would indeed expect Paul to think he had uncovered a mystery when he discovered, by whatever means he thought he discovered it, that salvation through Christ was as available to gentiles as to Jews. That in turn could, just possibly, explain his choice of phrasing in Romans 16:25-27 -- provided only that Jesus' ministry were unambiguously referenced elsewhere in Romans. It is not plausible that Paul would write 16 chapters to the Christians of Rome explaining why they should believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world, without mentioning one word that Jesus himself had to say on the subject, simply to make the point that Jesus did not die only for the sins of Israel.
Doherty cites four passages in three other epistles in support of his construal of Romans. Ted addresses them by repeating his assertion that Paul is claiming nothing more than that salvation through Christ, once thought to be offered only to the Jews, was in fact for gentiles as well. It will be instructive to examine one particular datum he offers in support of his case. First he quotes Colossians 4:3:
praying for us also, that God may open unto us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds;
But, says Ted, "Paul wasn't in prison for preaching Christ." Oh? Then what for? Well, says Ted, "the real reason recorded in Acts was due to his message of salvation to Gentiles."
So, if he'd been preaching Christ to Jews, he would have been OK, but since he was preaching Christ to gentiles, they locked him up. That seems improbable on its face. For one thing, it is not a distinction Paul himself ever made. According to his own words, when he was persecuted, it was simply for preaching Christ, not for choosing the wrong people to preach to. As for what Acts might prove, it cannot be a reliable historical source except, at a minimum, on the assumption of Jesus' historicity. Any appeal to Acts in support of Jesus' historicity is therefore a circular argument. We can note at this point that among scholars with relevant credentials, nearly all of whom are historicists, Acts is regarded by many as a work of fiction.
But, for whatever it might be worth, let's see what Acts actually says about why Paul was imprisoned. Fortunately, Ted helps us out here. "See Acts 22:21-22, 23:29," he says. OK, here is the first passage:
21And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles. 22And they gave him audience unto this word; and they lifted up their voice, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.
Not quite crystal-clear, is it? We need to do some scene-setting. This is Chapter 22 of Acts. In Chapter 21, Paul, while visiting Jerusalem, was attacked by a mob of non-Palestinian Jews. The accusation against him was: "This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." (Acts 21:28). Just as the mob was about to kill him, some Roman soldiers arrived and took him into custody. Before they could get him off the street, though, Paul asked the captain of the soldiers for permission to address the mob. The captain agreed. Paul's speech is in Chapter 22, verses 1-21. Verse 22 reports the mob's reaction to it.
The story as a whole is inconsistent with any supposition that the only thing provoking the mob into a homicidal rage was Paul's telling gentiles that they too could be saved if they believed in Jesus.
And what about Acts 23:29? It is part of a letter that the captain wrote to the Roman governor explaining why Paul was in custody. Here, according to the author of Acts, is that letter in its entirety, with verse 29 highlighted:
Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor Felix, greetings.
When this man was arrested by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, I came up to them with the troops and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And wanting to ascertain the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their Council; and I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment. When I was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, also instructing his accusers to bring charges against him before you.
Remember that according to Ted, the highlighted words by themselves support his assertion that:
Paul wasn't in prison for preaching Christ. Though he was accused of breaking Jewish law, the real reason recorded in Acts was due to his message of salvation to Gentiles.
I do agree that according to Acts, Paul was persecuted because of his message of salvation, and I certainly agree that according to Acts, he took that message to the gentiles. But I see nothing in Acts to suggest that his taking the message to those people rather than to Jews was itself the reason for his being persecuted.
Ted finally does get around to addressing the question: "what about the revelation of salvation through the teachings of Jesus? Why doesn't Paul reference that?" He suggests that because the church leaders in Jerusalem were "reluctant to take the message of salvation to Gentiles," it "wouldn't make sense" for Paul to cite Jesus as authority for any of his teachings. But why? How would their reluctance have inhibited Paul? The man was not exactly easy to intimidate.
Furthermore, the church of Rome was not new when Paul wrote to them. In Romans 15:22-23, Paul implies that there had been a Christian community there for "many years," and he gives no hint that all the old-timers among them were Jews. It could not have come as news to the Roman Christians that salvation was now available to gentiles.
In his conclusion to this essay, Ted says "one should not expect" Paul
to have made any overt references to Jesus' ministry. One can easily test this
claim with a little thought experiment. Imagine that Paul had included several
unambiguous references to things Jesus said and did during his time in this
world. Can we imagine that even one person would ever have said, "Hmm, how very odd that Paul should
have mentioned those things. It is really quite contrary to what we should have
expected"? I just don't think so.
Next
Previous
This page last updated on August 4, 2010.