Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Long Tradition of JWO and Minimization of Paul
Introduction
The oldest tradition in the church relied upon Jesus' Words Only (JWO) as the test of orthodoxy. In the period of 125 A.D. to 325 A.D., after the twelve apostles were gone, the church faced the crisis of Marcion (144 A.D.). He claimed only Paul had the true gospel. Marcion insisted the teachings of the twelve, particularly in the gospel of Matthew and John, did not reflect the true gospel. Marcion thus forced the early church to speak out on the issue of Paul's authority compared to the words of Christ from the twelve. Tertullian was the early church's spokesperson on Marcion. The Emergence of the New Testament Canon (1995): "Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures." 1
Lieuwen gives several proof texts. For example, Hegessipus in the first half of the second century said canon was only "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord"; to this alone "a right faith must conform."
The early church leaders ( e.g Tertullian) simultaneously were saying that Paul's message was deemed inferior to those Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings. Thus, orthodoxy focused on the words of Jesus from the Gospels. Jesus' words were the test of orthodoxy. The early church, through Tertullian in 207 A.D., said Paul's teachings were below these gospel accounts. In particular, Paul's words were inferior to the gospels of Matthew and John. If there was any conflict between these gospel accounts and Paul's teachings, Tertullian said we were to prefer Matthew and John over Paul. Thus, JWO has the longest support in Christendom. It also is the most common-sense position to take on determining what is orthodox. If Paul cannot be reconciled to the words of Christ, we do not bend Jesus' words to fit Paul. Rather, all of Jesus' teachings must be given precedence regardless of the impact on Pauline doctrine. Jesus must not be marginalized to fit Paul.
We shall explore the history behind JWO and its rationale in the next two sections.
-
This work is reprinted at http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm.
-
Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Canon The Poor, otherwise known as the Ebionites. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed at page ix et seq .)
As explained in Appendix B, sometime around 64 A.D., the Ebionites developed a canon that only included Matthew in its Hebrew original. They specifically excluded Paul's writings. As to Paul, the Ebionites made a blatant claim that Paul's words were heretically contrary to those of the Lord Jesus. Thus, Paul must be excluded, they said. We can infer their simple canon list was created around 64 A.D. because (a) Paul's writings existed and were circulating at that point and (b) the Ebionites do not comment positively or negatively on the inclusion of Mark, Luke or John's Gospel (or any other epistle, for that matter). These works date from 65 A.D. onward. Presumably these writings did not exist when the Ebionites declared the Hebrew Matthew was canon, and Paul was to be excluded.
Incidentally, the existence of this Hebrew version of Matthew comes as a surprise to some Christians. However, its existence is confirmed by numerous ancient sources, including Jerome who made a complete translation of the Hebrew Matthew which later was lost. (Jerome was the translator of the Latin Vulgate released 405 A.D.) The same ancient sources say a Hebrew version of Matthew was later translated into Greek, and it is this translation which ended up in our New Testament. 3
In sum, the Ebionites insisted that this Hebrew Matthew was the canon at that time. All of Paul's writings had to be excluded as uninspired, the Ebionites claimed. (For more details, see Appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed. For more on the Ebionites' view of Paul, see page 306.)
Thus, the Ebionites were the first to insist Jesus' words alone were canon. They excluded Paul. In fact, the Ebionites were the first to propose a say Paul is a prophet. They never say Paul has specific prophecies that would put him on par with Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel or Jesus. Nor do they ever teach Paul's faithalone (i.e. without works) doctrine is the valid test for salvation. The early church (125-325 A.D.) always found a way to fit Paul into what Jesus says, as recorded by the twelve.
In fact, Tertullian, a well-respected Christian lawyer and apologist for the faith, wrote in 207 A.D. Against Marcion. This work was to attack the rising influence of Marcion. The Marcionites, beginning about 144 A.D., claimed that only Paul had the true gospel. Marcion claimed the books of Matthew, Mark, and John contradicted Paul's gospel. Marcion only accepted a shortened version of Luke's gospel as valid. As a result of Marcionism, the issue of Paul's level of authority had to be resolved by the apostolic churches. The apostolic church had to answer whether Marcion's emphasis on Paul was valid. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed at page ix et seq.)
- Professor George Howard recently re-published a medieval text that has the earmarks of this Hebrew original Matthew. It was preserved ironically by a Jewish critic of Christianity as an appendix to his rebuttal work to Christianity. It reads virtually identical to our current version. Yet, its variances repair some textual errors in our Greek New Testament ( e.g Jesus' ascribes the 30 pieces of silver in the Hebrew Matthew to Zechariah, but our Greek NT version ascribes this erroneously to the prophet Jeremiah). Thus, this Hebrew Matthew must be closer to the original Matthew. For more information, see the Hebrew Matthew at www.jesuswordsonly.com. See also, Nehemiah Gordon, "Hebrew Yeshua versus the Greek Jesus Against Marcion" that clearly reduce Paul to a completely marginal figure.
First, as discussed below, Tertullian proves that Paul is inferior to the twelve apostles. Paul had to submit to their authority in Acts chapter 15. Second, Tertullian said there is no evidence other than Paul's own word that Jesus made Paul an apostle. Luke's account in Acts omits any evidence for this key claim of Paul that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ.
Lastly, one by one, Tertullian tears apart Marcion's doctrines of total depravity, predestination, salvation by faith alone, and eternal security. On this second cluster of issues, Tertullian never identifies what verses in Paul that Marcion is citing. However, we all know what they were. We can hear in Tertullian's paraphrase of Marcion's ideas the ring of Paul's doctrines. Tertullian is silent on where these specific ideas of Marcion derive, but they are all too familiar to us.
But first, let's provide a little more background on Marcion and the rival church system he founded. Here was the first splinter group within Christianity.
Background on Marcionism
In 144 A.D., one particular ex-bishop of the church named Marcion proclaimed three core teachings:
-
Salvation-by-faith alone. "The Good [God of the NT] redeems those who believe in Him but He does not judge those who are disobedient to him." (Marcion, Antitheses #19.)(See page 49.)
-
The Law was not given by God the Father and could be disregarded; and
-
Jesus did not come in sinful human flesh but only appeared to have a body of human flesh.
Marcion relied upon Paul exclusively for doctrine. He rejected any of the Gospels written by the twelve apostles. Marcion claimed they were written solely for Jews. In a sense, he was simultaneously Dispensational and His claim that Paul alone had the correct gospel dispensation allowed Marcion to shuffle aside any of the apostles' writings as unimportant if they did not match Paul's gospel. ( JWO/JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112 at page ix.)
We have seen previously that Paul indeed taught:
-
Salvation by faith alone. ((Rom. 4:4); (Eph. 2:8-9).) Even unrepentant disobedient Christians (committing incest) are saved. (1 Cor. 5:5, discussed at page 149.)
-
The Law of Moses was given to Moses by angels who are "not gods" and no obedience to the Law was therefore necessary. ((Gal. 3:17); 3:19-29, Gal. 4:8-9, discussed at "Denigration of the Law as Given by the Angels" on page 83.)
-
Jesus only appeared to come in sinful human flesh ((Rom. 8:3)) and Jesus only appeared to be a man ((Phil. 2:7)). (For discussion, see page 336 et seq .)
Yet, despite Paul teaching the three core teachings of Marcion, Marcion was rejected universally by the post-apostolic church leaders.
Marcion was a serious threat to the survival of Christianity. Marcion had created a church system, with many churches. Marcionite churches had bishops and teachers. Marcion's church was in almost every land and community. Some believe in certain cities there were more Marcionites than orthodox Christians. The Encyclopedia Brittanica in "Marcion" reflects this understanding:
The Marcionite sect, highly ascetic and celibate, grew rapidly
until it was second in strength only to the original church
theological explanation why the Law did not have to be
followed. Marcion must have realized that Paul's claim that the
Law was given by angels was unsound Biblically. So Marcion devised
what he regarded as a better reason to prove the Law of Moses was
invalid. What was this?
Marcion had a very elaborate and well-defended view why the Law was invalid, set forth in his Antitheses . 4 Against Marcion relied on much more than this. Tertullian's primary defense of Christ was based on lifting up Jesus' words in the Gospels above Paul, thereby defeating the core doctrines of Marcion.
Based on Tertullian's work, the apostolic churches defeated Marcionism. The Marcionites early Paul-only-ism almost swallowed the church. Yet, the early church bravely fought back and survived. Marcionism took almost three hundred years to be defeated within Christianity.
In fact, Marcionism- despite being crippled by the 300s - had a strong fascination for centuries thereafter. Paulonly-ism lived on within the fringe of Christianity. This was because the Marcionite churches had entered Armenia early on. They re-emerged as a force in Armenia in the eighth century. Their Christian opponents labelled them Paulicians because of their adherence to Paul. Eventually they spread to Bulgaria and Turkey. The Paulicians claimed: (a) only Paul's gospel is the true gospel; (b) salvation is by faith alone; (c) the gospels Matthew, Mark and John had to be eliminated as canon; and (d) there is to be selective receipt of Luke's gospel account. This was unmistakably similar to the core doctrines of Marcion. In 844, the Paulicians took control of a state in Turkey and became a military power. In 871, they were defeated by Emperor Basil I of Byzantium. The Eastern Orthodox treated the Paulicians as heretics. Yet, the Paulicians survived into the twelfth century. 5
- See "Paulicians," Catholic Encyclopedia. It mentions they "[ljrejected the Old Testament...[2][T]o believe in him Jesus saves men from judgment....[3] Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament." In N. G. Garsoian, The Paulician Heresy dispensational theology. The virtue of modem dispensationalism is that it does not expose the advocate to an accusation of polytheism. Instead, it only exposes the advocate to the charge that God changes His nature in time.
Thus, Marcion forced the early church to weigh modem Pauline theology. Yet, the post-apostolic church of 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. clearly rejected Marcion and his Pauline theology.
Tertullian Demonstrates Paul is Inferior to the Other Apostles
In Book 4, chapter 2 of Tertullian's Against Marcion (ca. 207 A.D.), Tertullian clearly says Paul's authority is inferior to that of the twelve apostles. Tertullian explains Paul's gospel is only valid so long as it is consistent with Jesus and the twelve.
First, Tertullian starts out by emphasizing the priority of the gospels written by the actual twelve apostles, namely the gospels of Matthew and John. Those of Luke and Mark were inferior because they were produced merely by disciples of their teachers. Later Tertullian identifies Luke and Mark as "apostolic men," but not apostles. Tertullian writes:
I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have
the apostles for their authors, If they also have for their
authors apostolic men [i.e., Luke and Mark], yet these stand not
alone, but as companions of apostles or followers of apostles:
because the preaching of disciples [i.e., Luke or Mark] might be
made suspect of the desire of vainglory, unless there stood by it
the authority of their teachers [i.e., the twelve apostles], or
rather the authority of Christ, which made the apostles
teachers. In short, from among the apostles the faith is
introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among
apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal, <all of them>
beginning with the same rules <of belief>, as far as relates to
the one only God, the Creator, and to his Christ, born of a
virgin, the fulfillment of the law and the prophet S .****Marci 0n
seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process [i.e.,
writing a gospel apparently based on Luke but altering it]. Luke,
however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a
master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master.... 6
This unquestionably puts Luke below the other Gospels of Matthew and John. Thus, Tertullian was saying that (a) to the extent Marcion is using Luke legitimately then (b) Luke is still inferior to the gospel accounts of Matthew and John.
Tertullian's view of Luke's Gospel as subordinate to Matthew has de facto been accepted by conservative Christians today, as we must. Otherwise Luke has Jesus uttering a command to "hate your" mother and father which is contrary to prior Scripture. Matthew's account of the same exchange
- Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Gospel according to Luke. Tertullian is thus suggesting that Luke's Gospel is the source of Marcion's gospel account of Jesus' life. Tertullian is then saying that to the extent Marcion's gospel account was written by Luke, it is not as authoritative as either Matthew or John. The latter were apostles of Jesus. Luke was not.
Next, Tertullian discusses the possibility that Marcion is claiming Paul wrote this proto-Luke gospel. Scholars believe Tertullian was not merely hypothesizing. They believe that Marcion indeed was claiming Paul wrote protoLuke. Whatever the truth, Tertullian is going to discuss what would be the authority of a gospel narrative of Jesus' life even if it were written by Paul as compared to narratives written by Matthew or John. We are going to get to a key issue: would such a gospel narrative written by Paul be on par with a gospel written by Matthew or John? Tertullian answers no, thereby demonstrating a lower regard for Paul than the twelve, in particular lower than the writings of Matthew and John.
-
In Luke 14:26, Luke says Jesus said, "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not more of lesser account as being the follower of a later apostle, Paul, 9 to be sure: so that even if Marcion had introduced his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single document would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of his [i.e., Paul's]predecessors [the twelve apostles]. For we should demand the production of that gospel also which Paul found , that to which he gave his assent, that with which shortly afterwards he was anxious that his own should agree: for his intention in going up to Jerusalem to know and to consult the apostles, was lest perchance he had run in vain- that is, lest perchance he had not believed as they did, or were not preaching the gospel in their manner. At length, when he [i. e., Paul] had conferred with the original < apostles >, and there was agreement concerning the rule of the faith, they joined the right hands ....If he [i.e., Paul] therefore who
-
For the doubting Thomas' over this Oxford translation, the Latin original confirms this is correct. It is: "Porro Lucas non apostolus sed apostolicus, non magister sed discipulus, utique magistro minor, certe tanto posterior quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli for his faith as well as his preaching, much more must I require for Luke's gospel the authority [i.e., from the twelve] which was necessary for the gospel of his master [i.e., Paul]. 10
Tertullian could not be more clear. Paul's authority was not recognized as direct from Jesus or by revelation. It only derived from Paul's recognition by the twelve apostles. He was their disciple, and they were Paul's masters. If Paul created a gospel text, Tertullian responds that Paul's conduct in Acts chapter 15 reveals Paul's authority could not exceed the words and guidance of the twelve. Paul was not allowed to run beyond the teaching of Christ that the twelve had. Thus, if Paul was Luke's source for his gospel, then Luke's gospel still must be consistent with the apostolic canon of Matthew and John or otherwise it is invalid. This means that for Tertullian, Paul was not free to utter doctrines that were inconsistent with the gospels of Matthew or John.
Tertullian Questions In What Sense Paul Was An Apostle
Tertullian is not through analyzing Paul's authority within the New Testament church. Tertullian even gets to the issue in what sense Paul was an apostle of Jesus. Tertullian in Book 5 of Against Marcion remarks that there is actually no proof in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John that Paul was made an apostle. It is solely Paul's word. Tertullian says that if we are forced to admit any contradiction between Paul and the twelve, we must abide in the words from the twelve. (Tertullian never admits a contradiction, and seeks to
10.Tertullian (ed. Evans), Against Marcion, supra, Against Marcion:
I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am
a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher.
For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed
with-out good reason, and that is believed without good reason
which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with
the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I
find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the
apostles in the gospel I find no trace.
So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted
by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of
foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he
would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of
apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it
necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another,
by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to
Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion],
supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or
illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any
cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and
trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you
accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of
distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your
charge ? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e.,
Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who and
that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus
Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim
is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person writes
the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and
a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both
claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that
many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a
false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes
that he is an apostle of Christ. Thus far my converse has been in
the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now on Ipropose to
shatter your confidence, for you have no means of proving its
validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but
reject the means of establishing them. Let Christ, let the
apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it
except from the Creator's archives.
[You may argue:] 'And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle?' I
speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it
is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim
that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief,
accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to
adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either
prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you
have no proof, how can you believe? 11
11 .Tertullian, Against Marcion their teaching. There is no unique authority that Paul can ever have apart from the twelve, as Marcion was claiming.
Tertullian then goes on to prove that Paul is "his apostle" but only by Tertullian's elaborate effort to prove Paul does not contradict the twelve (i.e., Matthew and John). Tertullian's arguments in the balance of Book 5 of Against Marcion (as well as in Book I) reveal efforts to save Paul as the source of edifying yet these cannot possibly seem to have qnalified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature [i.e., they were 'unspeakable'] was such as to render them communicable to no human being. 12
In conclusion, Tertullian's statements in Against Marcion and Prescription Against Heretics completely marginalized the status of Paul. The church was being forced to examine Paul's credentials. Tertullian found them wanting. Yet, Tertullian was not through.
Tertullian Criticizes Every Pauline Doctrine of Marcion
Tertullian throughout Against Marcion shows how Marcion's understanding of Paul does not square with reason, Jesus, or Paul himself. Tertullian's approach is typically "Paul says this," but 'you Marcion do not understand.' However, in a stretch of four chapters beginning at chapter 23 to chapter 27 of Book One, Tertullian does a 180 degree turn. He discusses doctrines of Marcion which come from Paul but Tertullian never mentions Paul. Then Tertullian crushes each doctrine in turn. The interesting thing is that each of these doctrines were unquestionably Pauline. However, Tertullian no longer could attack Marcion for taking Paul out of context or misunderstanding him. These topics that Tertullian attacked in chapters 23 through 27 were: salvation by faith alone, eternal security, predestination and total depravity.
12.Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. XXIV, available online from http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anfD3/anfD3-24.htm, quoting entire text from Anti-Nicene Fathers not to ask you to agree with Tertullian. Rather I ask you to acknowledge that the very early church was proving as heresy everything that Paulunists emphasize today as valid.
Tertullian on Predestination : Is Double Predestination Fair? Can Marcion s God Be Truly Good If He Thwarts Salvation In The Greater Part of Humanity?
"Now, when the greater part thus perish, how can that goodness [of God]
be defended as a perfect one which is inoperative in most cases,
is somewhat only in few, naught in many, succumbs to perdition,
and is a partner with destruction [i. e ., wills the lost to
perdition]? And if so many shall miss salvation, it will not be
with goodness, but with malignity, that the greater perfection
will lie. For as it is the operation of goodness which brings
salvation, so is it malevolence which thwarts it [i.e., if it is
goodness of God that predestines salvation, Marcion must imply it
is evil in God that intentionally thwarts it]." (Against Marcion 1.24.) 13
Tertullian on Total Depravity and Justification of the Ungodly Rather than the Righteous: Why Would God Capriciously Grant Salvation On Enemies Rather than Prefer Those Who Love Him and Are Righteous?
"Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion's god is rational, on
this account first, because it proceeded to the salvation of a
human creature which was alien to him [i.e., an enemy not seeking
Him.] [I omit here T.'s discussion on limits to love of enemies a
person seeking God and to please Him, not an enemy], and only at
its second stage on an alien object by a redundant righteousness
over and above that of scribes and Pharisees [i.e., apply
kindness, not salvation, to enemies], how comes it to pass that
the second is attributed to him [i.e., salvation for enemies] who
fails in the first [i.e., salvation for those who are not
enemies], not having man for his proper object, and who makes his
goodness on this very account defective? Moreover, how could a
defective benevolence, which had no proper object whereon to
expend itself, overflow on an alien one? Clear up the first step,
and then vindicate the next....Suppose now the divine goodness
begin at the second stage of its rational operation, that is to
say, on the stranger [i.e., salvation for them], this second stage
will not be consistent in rationality if it be impaired in any way
else. For only then will even the second stage of goodness, that
which is displayed towards the stranger, be accounted rational,
when it operates without wrong to him who has the first claim
[i.e.. preference to save enemies/strangers is wrong if it
neglects those who are seeking God]. It is righteousness which
before everything else makes all goodness rational. It will thus
be rational in its principal stage, when manifested on its proper
object, if it be righteous. And thus, in like manner, it will be
able to appear rational, when displayed towards the stranger, if
it be not unrighteous. But what sort of goodness is that which is
manifested in wrong, and that in behalf of an alien creature? For
peradventure a benevolence, even when operating injuriously, might
be deemed to some extent rational, if exerted for one of our own
house and home. By what rule, however, can an unjust benevolence,
displayed on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even an honest one
is legitimately due, be defended as a rational one ? (Tertullian,
Against Marcion 1.23.) [n.b., T. is mocking Marcion], who never
takes offence, is never angry, never inflicts punishment, who has
prepared no fire in hell, no gnashing of teeth in the outer
darkness! He is purely and simply good. He indeed forbids all
delinquency, but only in word. He is in you, if you are willing to
pay hint homage....the Marcionites with such pretences, that they
have no fear of their god at all. They say it is only a bad man
who will be feared, a good man will be loved. Foolish man, do you
say that he whom you call Lord ought not to be feared , whilst the
very title you give him indicates a power which must itself be
feared? But how are you going to love, without some fear that you
do not love?...Still more vainly do they act, who when asked. What
is to become of every sinner in that great day? reply, that he is
to be cast away out of sight. Is not even this a question of
judicial determination? He is adjudged to deserve rejection, and
that by a sentence of condemnation; unless the sinner is cast away
forsooth for his salvation, that even a leniency like this may
fall inconsistently with the character of your most good and
excellent god! And what will it be to be cast away, but to lose
that which a man was in the way of obtaining, were it not for his
rejection-that is, his salvation ? Therefore his being cast away
will involve the forfeiture of salvation; and this sentence cannot
possibly be passed upon him, except by an angry and offended
authority, who is also the punisher of sin-that is, by a judge."
(Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.27.) 15
- Paul teaches we are all enemies of God, but God then bestowed His mercy on us while we were yet sinners. (Rom. 5:10). Tertullian says this is absurd because he believes there are those who seek after God. The Lord Almighty should pick them to bestow His mercy. Tertullian is basing this on Jesus' clear teaching of the saved fourth seed who had prior to hearing the word been a good and noble heart. (Luke 8:15). However, a Paulunist does not acknowledge ever that such a person exists. Yet, the Bible teaches they do exist: e.g..
xThus, Tertullian crushed all the core teachings of Paulinism in our day. Tertullian was not alone. This was the standard viewpoint of the early post-apostolic church from 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. One can never find the slightest agreement in this period with eternal security, total depravity, predestination, bondage of the will, or salvation by faith alone (, i.e., repentance/works are not necessary). Instead, ah were rejected universally and expressly, as we will next review.