Paul Vs. Jesus

Paul had a tough gig.

Blazing a trail into the Gentile world, hounded by the Judaizers at every step, he didn’t have Zoom, phone, email, text or socials to help him keep in touch with the new Kingdom communities that emerged behind him.

All he had was quill and parchment, and the slowest version of snail mail.

Plus, in many cases, he had to correct their abuses and excesses that undermined the unity of the church and discredited their public testimony. And in some cases (like the Corinthians), he had to also win over his readership before they’d hear him.

Paul wrote open-hearted letters of appeal to believers he often knew; he did not set out to write a doctrinal textbook. So, surprise, surprise, he offered his personal opinions in his letters. This made it personable to his audience, but it muddies the waters for us 2,000 years later.

For example, sometimes it’s clear when he’s opining. “Yet I wish all men were even as I myself am [single and celibate]” (1 Corinthians 7:7). Other times, it’s less clear: “Now I wish you all spoke in tongues…” (1 Corinthians 14:5). No one takes the first statement as authoritative and binding but I‘ve personally heard more than my share of those incorrectly making a case for the second—implying that not speaking in tongues makes one a second-class believer.

Moreover, all Paul‘s letters were addressed to a specific group of people in a specific and unique context—settings of which we only have limited knowledge.

In other words, misrepresenting Paul is easy to do, and a good dose of humility is required when drawing conclusions, especially around passages that are clearly rooted in the cultural context of his first century audience.

There are times we just have to shrug our shoulders and admit we don’t have a clue what he meant. Two obvious examples here are “because of the angels” (1 Corinthians 11:10) and those “baptised for the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:29). Of course, we all have our opinions on these passages (and may have a good idea of what they didn‘t mean), but that’s all they are—opinions. Because we do not know.

Tone & Intensity

Firstly, all this means that many of his epistles are corrective—even negative—in tone. And given Paul’s unique calling, his measure of grace gifts and his intense personality, it’s sometimes a heavy tone, too.

That’s important to note. Personally, after a six-month deep dive into Paul’s epistles several years ago for a writing project, I found I came out of it more judgemental and critical than before the project. Again, that was not Paul’s doing, but mine. I failed to factor in the tone of his writing and intensity of his personality, and I needed an attitude adjustment. (Immersing myself in the Gospels helped.)

[Quick sidebar: reading each epistle through several times before focusing on individual sections is good practice, as it helps us better grasp the flow of thought through the epistle. Without a reasonable grasp of the historical context and the contextual flow, we’re bound to interpret passages from our own preconceived ideas.]

Passion & Concern

Secondly, remembering the tension between Paul’s primary passion and his primary concern provides a helpful guide.

Because here’s what’s at stake.

Without grasping Paul’s primary concern, we will fail to contextualise his writings properly AND fail to apply them correctly today.

Paul, as mentioned, picked his battles. He accommodated things like first century patriarchy and slavery in society because to fail to do so would have undermined the fledgling church’s public testimony.

[Quick sidebar: It’s worth noting that while he reluctantly accommodated these societal ills for the Kingdom’s sake, he also helped sow the seeds of their destruction (Galatians 3:28).]

Firstly, confronting these two societal evils in the first century would have provoked retribution the early believers were not yet ready for, stoking the fires of imperial persecution prematurely. The result? The Gospel of the Kingdom may not have reached the Gentile world, becoming instead a small Jewish sect.

Secondly, bringing down these two societal constructs would have pulled the proverbial roof down on the vulnerable; the church was not strong enough to provide society-wide relief to the women and slaves who would’ve borne the brutal brunt of it.

Said another way, like all Biblical accommodation, Paul worked with what he had. These societal evils were not a battle the early church was called to fight.

That the exact opposite is true today cannot be stated loudly enough.

Today, if followers of Jesus do not contend against societal evils that exploit, oppress and marginalise people, we’re not only failing to apply Paul’s wisdom, but we also undermine the Gospel. We obscure the Message of Jesus. We put up roadblocks that slow the spread of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

And the verdict is sadly in: by consistently failing to advocate for human rights and minorities (or doing so reluctantly or coming late to the party), Christendom has lost the respect of a watching world.

We have so much work to do.

In short, Paul was being missional in his generation. We honour him by being missional in ours.