The Authority of Paul

As a child, I considered the Bible a single work: the word of God. I looked at it as if it was one book, written by one person. The book was infinitely old. I knew that there were men who wrote it down, but considered the "inspiration of God" to be a kind of dictation. God told them what to write, and they wrote it.

I thought that the Torah/Pentateuch was written by Moses. I didn't really think about who wrote the rest of the Old Testament, honestly. The New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. A few others wrote a couple things here and there; I wasn't sure about the details.

A lot of this, I know now, is because I had not really read much of the Bible. I went to church most Sundays with my mom and my sister, and I went to Sunday School beforehand. I thoroughly enjoyed Sunday School, but the sermon (which I called "church," in stark contrast to Sunday School), was a thing to be dreaded. I still listened, mostly, because I had no real choice in the matter. I often read parts of Genesis and Revelation because they were interesting, but there's only so much KJV one can take.

At this point, I started realizing that Genesis and Revelation didn't seem quite literal, and my concept of divine inspiration started to change. I thought that perhaps the Creation had been shown to Moses, in a dream or a vision, and he had written his description afterwards. This seemed to make sense; I thought that the Creation was something that would be completely indescribable in human language, so it was logical for God to show Moses a vision of the Creation and have him "translate" it, in a way, into a form which humans could more easily understand. Considering that Revelation itself claims to be a vision, this concept of inspiration worked easily with that book.

When I started really reading the Bible, I started to notice problems with my concepts of Biblical authorship. For one, why would Moses describe himself as the most amazing, humble person who had ever lived? That almost seems humorous. Also, why would Moses describe a time period as "At that time, the Canaanites were in the land" (Gen 12:6), when he didn't live in any time when they weren't in the land? To continue with that line of thought, why would Moses' narrative continue on to describe events past his death (Deut 34)? Why does Deuteronomy continually use phrases like "as it is to this day" (Deut 3:14), if Moses was writing it just a few years after the fact? I suppose he could have been told by God about events that had not happened yet, but that seems like you’re stretching possibility to make something seem real just because you’ve already decided it must be real.

Regardless of these authorial problems, though, the Bible projects a powerful feel of the sacred. I consider it holy. It is very, very old, which certainly contributes to this feeling, but there are older texts that I don’t feel that way about. Is this aura of sanctity something that comes only because I was raised in a culture that reveres the Bible so? I don’t know. However, regardless of this feeling of sanctity, ever since I was nineteen or twenty years old when I really started to read and pay attention to the Bible, there’s been a section which has bothered me. I speak of the letters of Paul.

I do not understand why Paul’s letters should be seen as authoritative. He often claims that he was given revelation by God himself, but many people have claimed divine revelation. Even if we take completely seriously Paul’s statement that all scripture is inerrant, why are we to assume he’s even talking about his own letters? Did he know they would become so important? In context, Paul was almost certainly only talking about the Hebrew Bible. What else would be considered “scripture” at this time?

Paul is a very important man. Without him, it’s unlikely that Christianity would have survived very long outside of a small sect of Jews. He was the ideal form of a charismatic—traveling from city to city, giving sermons, writing letters, and generally yelling at anyone who he thought was wrong about Jesus’ message. He effectively “kick-started” the Christian church, spreading it to peoples which would have otherwise been ignored.

Of course, not everyone agreed with him. Even the “pillars of the church” in Jerusalem didn’t seem to give him too much favor. According to Acts, a source probably close to the Jerusalem church, Paul visits Jerusalem immediately after his conversion on the road to Damascus. He isn’t trusted at first, but Barnabas convinces them to accept Paul. Paul then stays awhile in Jerusalem, preaching with Barnabas (Acts 9:26-28). This story implies that Paul sought out the “pillars” in Jerusalem, and wanted them to accept him.

According to Paul, however, he waited three years after his conversion to go to Jerusalem. He specifically says:

I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (Gal 1: 16-19)

Paul is very adamant that he did not consider Jerusalem’s approval to be relevant. He also specifically denies having anything to do with anyone except Peter and James. Then, as if he’s fighting Jerusalem propaganda that shows him as subservient (as Acts does), he exclaims, “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!” (Gal 1:20).

Even more telling is the disagreement between Jerusalem and Paul concerning the Torah. In both Galatians and Corinthians, Paul says explicitly that it is not necessary to follow the Torah's commandments concerning circumcision. He says:

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything. (Gal 6: 12-15)

This is echoed in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19. Clearly, Paul sees little value in circumcision. Paul also writes:

Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian. (Gal 3:23-25)

He doesn't seem to believe that the Torah is still valid at all!

Compare this with the Acts' account of Paul's last visit to Jerusalem. When Paul gets to Jerusalem, the elders of the church there tell him that there are many Jews who have heard rumors that Paul has been teaching that it is not necessary to observe the Torah, and they want to kill him! To protect him, they ask that Paul go through a ritual purification to prove that he is an observant Jew who believes in the Torah. According to Acts, Paul goes through with the ritual (Acts 21:17-26).

If this is true, then Paul is certainly being, at least, a bit duplicitous! I could not blame him for this, personally; being threatened with death by a few thousand angry Jews is probably not high on anyone's list of fun things to do. If it was duplicity, then it's understandable. However, the Paul that is described in his own letters seems unlikely to fake such a thing! The account of Paul in Acts, where Paul both seeks Jerusalem's acceptance and submits to their authority, does not mesh well with the account of Paul's own letters, where he could care less about what Jerusalem thinks.

Does this mean I think Paul is bad? No. I think he was wrong somewhat often, but I certainly don't think he was a bad person. Nor do I think his letters are useless. (At the very least, they certainly helped spread the message of Christ.) In some ways, I believe Paul had a better understanding of the truth than the pillars of Jerusalem; I certainly believe in justification by faith, possibly even more than Paul himself!

I do, however, think that Paul's letters are simply that: letters written by a particularly zealous and charismatic early believer. They are canon because they were early; they were so well circulated, and Paul was so well respected by the gentile Christians, that by the time any sort of real New Testament started to be canonized, most everyone was already reading them. They are good to read, and they are good to think about, just as any well thought-out sermon or treatise is good to read and to think about.

However, he has no more cosmic authority than any other man.

I admit that this raises a somewhat large problem: if I do not accept the Magisterium's word concerning what texts do and what texts do not have authority, whose word do I accept? My own? If that is true, how do I myself decide this thing? This is something I need to ponder.

biblicalPaulbiblical analysis