Paul and Jesus
The Christian religion is based on the idea that Jesus brought us the gospel. That while He was on earth He gave us revelation about God. That is the central reason why Christians can claim to know more about God. God came to us in the form of Jesus and told us. That is why it becomes very problematic when Christians claim a certain thing is part of that revelation and then subsequently claim that is is not. If we have this revelation and we are sure we are right then there should not be any flip-flops. Politicians can change their minds but Christians can’t because they don’t claim to be speaking their mind. They claim to be speaking the mind of God.
Now how does this revelation get from Jesus to us. Is it through the scriptures? Jesus didn’t write the scriptures. Jesus gave his revelation to 12 men over the course of about 3 years. Did they write the New Testament? Some of it. Not all of it. Paul wrote 13 books. That is quite a chunk. Paul did not receive that training. So how do we know Paul wrote what Jesus taught? Could there have been a gap between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught? Certainly Newman saw some tension between them on the matter of justification. How can be sure that Paul reflects the revelation perfectly?
The point is the faith was passed on to Paul and to Luke so that they could write scripture. Why does God make scripture so dependent on this passing on? Jesus could have just written the New Testament. I mean even the writings of the 12 have to survive one passing on. Why do it once or twice when you don’t have to? If this process is inherently error prone and should not be trusted by future Christians then why force all Christians to rely on it? Why remove the writing not only from the pen of Jesus but also remove it many years from the time of Jesus and in Paul’s case remove it even from the first hand account of Jesus.
The truth is that Paul was a model of what new leaders in the church should become. Just because he was not one of the 12 at Pentecost, or even a believer at that point, it did not limit his authority. New leaders could be just as strong as the old. Sure there was something special about the epistles that would not keep happening. That was only because only so many of those were needed. It was not because some period of revelation had ceased. It was precisely for the reasons the church gave at the time. People needed to know what writings belonged in the liturgy. People needed protection form fake letters.
So when Paul passed his authority to Titus and Timothy, when John passed his to Irenaeus and Polycarp, and Peter passed his to Clement. There was no reason to see their leadership as a sad second choice because the real apostles had died. That would be to presume the gates of hell had prevailed in some way against the church. Paul had already shown how great a saint on could be without actually meeting the criteria of Acts 1:21-22.
21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
