Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Does Jesus End up Marginalized To Make Room For Paul
Marcionism: The First Marginalization of Jesus
In 144 A.D., Marcion, a defrocked bishop, claimed that only Paul had the true gospel. Marcion insisted the twelve apostles, including Matthew and John, were legalistic. Marcion claimed they did not have the true gospel of grace of Paul. Marcion adopted as the sole correct narrative of Jesus' life an account similar to Luke's gospel. However, it omitted the first three chapters and had several other omissions. (Appendix B: How the Gospel Was Formed at page ix et seq .)
As Marcionism spread throughout the Roman Empire, and had its own churches and liturgy, the apostolic church rose up to fight Marcionism as heresy. The key spokesperson of the early church was Tertullian of Carthage, North Africa. In about 207 A.D., Tertullian wrote Against Marcion. He reminded everyone that Paul's authority was subordinate to the twelve apostles. Tertullian insisted Paul could not be valid if he contradicted the twelve or Jesus. Tertullian even noted that if we were being scrupulous, we must note that there is no evidence except from Paul's own mouth that Jesus made him an apostle. I know it today did not take hold until after 325 A.D.)
Where did Marcion go wrong? Rather than re-evaluate Paul because of the contradictions with the gospel accounts, Marcion assumed Paul had the greater insight. As E.H. Broadbent in The Pilgrim Church concludes:
Marcion's errors were the inevitable result of his accepting only
what pleased him and rejecting the rest. 2
Marcionism once more has crept into the church. It has done so with stealth and cunning. We must go back to Tertullian's sage advice from 207 A.D. It is Paul who must fit into the words of Christ in the Gospels. It is not the Gospel accounts which must be truncated to fit the words of Paul.
- E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke) did not contain the pure gospel. Paul and the Gospel of John instead were all that you needed to know about the true gospel. Luther wrote in 1522 that Paul and John's Gospel ' far surpass the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. " Paul and John's Gospel are 'all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you never see or hear any other book or doctrine.'' Luther also wrote even more bluntly elsewhere that Paul had the truer gospel than what is presented in the Synoptics:
Those Apostles who treat oftenest and highest of how faith alone justifies, are the best Evangelists. Therefore St. Paul's Epistles are more a Gospel than Matthew, Mark and Luke. For these [Matthew, Mark and Luke] do not set down much more than the works and miracles of Christ; but the grace which we receive through Christ no one so boldly extols as Paul, especially in his letter to the Romans. 4
Thus, Luther like Marcion knew there was something different in the Synoptics. He did not acknowledge Jesus contradicted Paul's doctrine. Yet, if Paul's doctrine were true, then why would the Synoptics omit it? If Paul and the Synoptic-Jesus taught the same thing, then why do Luther and Marcion insist the truer gospel is in Paul's writings?
-
Martin Luther, "Preface to the New Testament [1522]," Works of Martin Luther:The Philadelphia Edition (trans. C.M. Jacobs) (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982) Vol. 6 at 439-444.
-
Martin Luther, quoted in G.F. Moore, History' of Religion (Scribners: 1920) at 320. As Bainton says: "That this doctrine [i.e., faith alone] is not enunciated with equal emphasis throughout the New Testament and appears denied in the Book of James did not escape Luther." (R. Bainton, Here I Stand, supra, 5 Yet, in Revelation Jesus is talking much of the time.
Also, Apostle John is certainly the human hand involved. 6
Luther's reason for rejecting the Book of Revelation is easy to deduce. Numerous Pauline thinkers have recognized the anti-Pauline emphasis on salvation by faith and works in Revelation. This is highly dangerous to their Pauline doctrine because Jesus' message was freshly delivered after Paul died. For that reason, modern Paulunists urge the rejection of Revelation as inspired canon. (See page 182 et seq .) It thus takes little to realize what caused Luther to reject the Book of Revelation. Christ was present in Revelation, but it is not the Christ of Paul.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book."
(Rev. 22:19), KJV
-
Martin Luther, "Preface to the New Testament [1522]," Works of Martin Luther: The Philadelphia Edition (trans. C.M. Jacobs) (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982) Vol. 6 at 439-444 (or 1932 edition at 488-89.) See The Canonicity of the Book of Revelation (2005), available online at www.jesuswordsalone.com.
-
Papias (ca. 100 A.D.), Bishop of Hieropolis, is the one witness who unquestionably was an associate of Apostle John. In an ancient text, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, which Eusebius frequently cites, we learn in section VIII: "With regard to the inspiration of the book (Revelation), we deem it superfluous to add another word; for the blessed Gregory Theologus and Cyril, and even men of still older date, Papias
Luther Marginalizes The Synoptic Gospels In Preference for Paul
This is corroborated by the fact Luther also concluded James' Epistle was uninspired. Luther freely admitted James' Epistle contradicted Paul on the same point that Jesus in Revelation contradicts Paul: James and Jesus in Revelation reject faith alone as the appropriate salvation formula.
As a result of Luther's view, the Synoptics ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Revelation, and James were effectively put on the shelf by the Refonnation's founder. These New Testament writings were too far afield of Paul to be given 100% validity on par with Paul.
Thus, we can see the banner of Sola Scriptura had quickly degraded into Only the Scripture that Fits Paul. Daniel Fuller correctly faults Luther's approach:
But when he set up his understanding of justification by faith as
the basis for suppressing such books us the Synoptic Gospels,
Hebrews, and James, he then made it impossible for these books to
deepen or improve his understanding of this doctrine. 8
Because Luther was blatantly marginalizing Jesus' words in the New Testament, the Sola Scriptura banner was quickly being taken down. In its place the reformed congregations re-established the banner of 'approved' church doctrine. This meant de facto that Paul's doctrines must triumph. Even though Jesus' words conflicted with Paul, Paul's words trumped Jesus' words every time.
This approach led eventually to an explicit abandonment of Sola Scriptura. The reformers quickly turned to Catechisms to give the right spin to things. Matthaeus Flacius (a Lutheran) said in his Key to the Scriptures (1567)- the first hermeneutics book to emerge from the Reformation-that:
-
See "Luther's Admission of James' Direct Conflict with Paul" on page 247.
-
Daniel Fuller, "Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith, " Unity and Diversity in N. T. Theology. Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd must be in agreement with all that the catechism declares or that is taught by the articles of faith. 9
Fuller aptly criticizes this view. Flacius was urging Christians "to conform their language and thinking about a passage of scripture to an a priori [/'. e ., a presupposed] understanding of what God's Word must be like."
By such illogic and violation of reformed principles of Sola Scriptura, marginalization of Jesus became encrusted in official refonned confessions. These writings were quickly put above Scripture. They were put above challenge even if someone were quoting Jesus' words.
The effort by Luther, Calvin and certain Protestant catechisms to marginalize Jesus' words, giving preference to Paul, have now reaped their logical conclusion. Some put it bluntly: we cannot any longer view the four gospels as truly part of the New Testament-they reflect all 'Old Testament' principles. As one sincere Paulunist, Dr. Russ Kelly, put it:
Even though uninspired persons designated the four Gospels as 'New
Testament' books, most thinking Christians realize that, in
reality, the New Covenant did not begin until the very moment
Christ died on Calvary. The blood of Christ, the blood of the New
Covenant, or testament, sealed and ratified the New Covenant and
ended the Old Covenant, or Mosaic Law once for all time.
- Kemmel, History of Investigation, supra, i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not convey a gospel of salvation by faith alone. It is a very different gospel. See "What About Faith in the Synoptics?" on page 161.
However, Luther viewed John's gospel as consistent with Paul. If the verb tense for believes in John's Gospel is translated to convey a one-time faith for salvation, then John's salvation message can sound consistent with Paul. However, John's true meaning was that one who continues to believe/trust should have eternal life. It was not a one-time step of faith that should save, as we will soon discuss. However, Luther's conception of salvation could not easily incorporate the Greek progressive continuous tense which is in John 3:16. Why?
Because in the Gennan language, Luther could not express the Greek continuous meaning. There is no Gennan verb form equivalent to the Greek progressive tense, i.e., the Greek Present Active tense. The Gennan language "has no progressive mood." 10 Thus, due to a weakness of the German language, Luther could not even unequivocally express a progressive meaning -continues to believe. (The King James translators in 1611 did a similar slight of hand to believing in John 3:16). 11
However, the flaw in Luther's translation is self-evident to anyone who knows classical Greek. If John's meaning had been a one-time belief saves you, the corresponding Greek tense should have been the aorist for believes. was in the Greek form of the present participle active. The meaning was a faith/trust that "continues" should save, not that a one-time expression of faith saves. (For a discussion of the Greek involved, see Appendix A: Greek Issues .)
Yet, Luther wanted John's Gospel to fit Paul. Otherwise, there would have been no consistency whatsoever between Paul and any of the four gospel accounts. It may have been a subconscious bias. It may have been simple error. Regardless, the Greek issues involved in translating believe in John's Gospel are rudimentary and beyond any dispute. The Greek present participle active in John 3:16 is continuous in meaning. Had it meant a one-time faith (which fits Pauline doctrine), an aorist tense in Greek would have been used to convey such meaning. Paul used the aorist tense in (Rom. 10:9) to identify a faith that saves is a single step. By contrast, John's Gospel never chose to use the aorist tense to identify any faith-condition for salvation. Rather, John's Gospel always used the continuous tense of the present participle active for believes. John's Gospel is not Pauline; it is antiPauline. (See "What About Faith in John's Gospel?" on page 164.) Luther's translation of John 3:16 was misleading.
10."German does not have the...progressive mood" (i.e., 'is believing'). ( http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~oberle/courses/review.html#The Present Tens.) See also, Simple present or present continuous? at http://www.Ungualearn.co.uk/Jearners/ge/tenses.htm ("As German does not have continuous tenses, you just use the simple present for general statements, habits and future actions as well as present occurrences.") See also German Language Course which explains English has the "Present Progressive," e.g., "are believing" but German "is able to do without the progressive forms." (See, http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/1238/intro.html (accessed 2005). The author explains thus "I go and am going would translate the same into German." (Id.) Thus, in German, there is no ending that makes a verb correspond to the Greek present continuous/progressive tense. Instead, in German, the present tense can mean action in the present that continues or does not continue. Thus, unlike Greek, the German present verb tense has no endings to specify one way or the other whether action is one-time or continuous. This may have been a primary reason why Luther could convince others that John's Gospel sounded Pauline. Until Young's Literal, Foreword to the Book of John :
The doctrine which points out to us the power and the benefit of the coming Christ, is far more clearly exhibited by John than by the [synoptists] . The three former [synoptic Gospels] exhibit Christ's body...but John exhibits his soul. On this account I am accustomed to say that this Gospel is a key to open the door for understanding the rest. . .In reading [the four Gospels] a different order would be advantageous, which is, that when we wish to read in Matthew and others that Christ was given to us by the Father, we should first learn from John the purpose for which he was manifested.