Did Paul Make Jesus Up?

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (1995).

Many people like to make the claim that Paul was the founder of Christianity. Some admit that Jesus must have existed, but they claim that Paul corrupted His teachings. Others aren’t quite ready to admit even that Jesus existed as an historical person in the first place, and they claim that Paul actually made Jesus up.

“Now, how on earth can they make such a ridiculous claim?” you ask. Simple: Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, but they don’t contain many biographical details about Jesus’ life. Therefore, it is claimed, Paul invented Jesus—whom he understands to be more of a spiritual being than a physical one—and the Gospel writers eventually found it necessary to fabricate more details about Jesus’ life in order to smooth out the invention process.

As goofy as this thesis sounds (and it is goofy), a surprising number of people still believe it. Do a casual Google search of “Paul founded Christianity,” and you’ll get quite a whole mess of hits.

In his DVD The God Who Wasn’t There, a film which argues for the conspiracy theory that Jesus never even existed, skeptic Brian Flemming thinks that Paul didn't understand Jesus to be an actual historical human being:

Paul wrote lots of letters about Christianity. In fact, he wrote 80,000 words about the Christian religion. These documents represent almost all we have of the history of Christianity during this decades-long gap [between the alleged life of Jesus and when the first Gospels were written]. And here’s the interesting thing: If Jesus was a human who had recently lived, nobody told Paul. Paul never heard of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Herod, John the Baptist—he never heard about any of these miracles. He never quotes anything Jesus was supposed to have said. He never mentions Jesus having a ministry of any kind at all. He doesn’t know about any entrance into Jerusalem, he never mentions Pontius Pilate, or a Jewish mob, or any trials at all. Paul doesn’t know any of what we would call the story of Jesus except for these last three events: [the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension.] And even these Paul never places on earth. [For a clip, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6THwSYY_aU.]

Blatant inaccuracies plague the above paragraph. First of all, it is true that Paul does not say much about the life of Jesus in his letters. But we shouldn’t expect such things from him. Paul was responding directly to issues faced by the individual churches to whom he was writing. Most of them probably already knew the story. Second of all, Flemming is flat-out wrong when he says, “If Jesus was a human who had recently lived, nobody told Paul.” I can’t even begin to put into words how absolutely irresponsible and fundamentally incorrect that statement is. And Paul actually does give some rather important details about Jesus’ life—not just His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. So here are my responses to his points, one by one:

1. Did Paul hear of Mary? It sure seems like he did. If he didn’t know Mary’s name, he sure knew that Jesus was born of a woman (see Galatians 4:4). In fact, he goes a step further in his letter to the Romans, calling Jesus God’s “Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). (Some scholars think that Jesus’ genealogy in Luke could be Mary’s genealogy, since it differs from Matthew’s genealogy, which traces Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through His step-father Joseph.) Hmmm… for a guy who allegedly didn’t know that “Jesus was a human who had recently lived,” Paul sure seems to think that Jesus was actually physically born into history.

2. Did Paul hear of Joseph? Paul never talks about Joseph in the letters we have, but I don’t think that means Paul “never heard” of the guy. It simply means that Paul had no reason to mention him in any of his letters. If Joey writes Sally a letter telling her why he thinks American history is important to study, but he doesn’t mention Abraham Lincoln, do we then assume that Joey has never heard of Abraham Lincoln? No. Lincoln was an important part of American history, but one can make a point about American history without mentioning Lincoln.

3. Did Paul hear of Jesus’ birth being in Bethlehem? See #2. The same principle applies here.

4. Did Paul hear of Herod? Most likely. Josephus definitely heard of Herod (see Ant. 18.5.1), so why wouldn’t Paul have heard of the guy? Again, you don’t have to mention someone in a text in order to have heard of that someone. Is Flemming trying to argue that Herod never existed?

5. Did Paul hear of John the Baptist? Paul never does mention John the Baptist in his letters, but see Acts 13:24-25. Evidently, Luke (who wrote Acts) thought that Paul had heard of John the Baptist, since he quotes Paul as referring to John.

6. Did Paul hear about any of Jesus’ miracles? See #2. Again, the same principle applies.

7. Did Paul ever quote anything Jesus was supposed to have said? Yes! In Acts 20:35, Luke quotes Paul, who was quoting Jesus to make a point: “In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (This saying is paralleled nowhere in the Gospels, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus did not say it. See John 21:25.) Paul also directly quotes Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, referring to His famous remarks about the bread and wine representing His body and blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:17-20). Also, Romans 12 has many parallels with the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 5. For example, compare Romans 12:14 with Matthew 5:44 (love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you). In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul alludes to Jesus’ teaching on marriage (see Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9). Also, compare 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 (see also Matthew 10:10). (I am aware that some scholars do not believe 1 Timothy to have been written by Paul. But I have not yet been given any compelling reason to doubt that this letter was the product of the mind of Paul.) Also, Paul may be quoting Jesus directly when he uses the intimate expression about God, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6; cf. Mark 14:36). (The Aramaic term abba [אבא] means “papa” or “daddy.” It’s the intimate form of the term ab [or av], which in most Semitic languages means “father.”) I could list many more examples.

8. Does Paul mention Jesus having a ministry of any kind at all? Paul doesn’t mention Jesus’ ministry explicitly in his epistles, but according to Luke, Paul was certainly aware of Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 13:31).

9. Does Paul know about Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem? “For many days He [Jesus] appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:31).

10. Does Paul ever mention Pontius Pilate? Flemming says that Paul “never mentions Pontius Pilate.” Again, Flemming appears to have done very little homework: “Though they [the Jewish religious leaders] found no ground for putting Him [Jesus] to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed” (Acts 13:28). “I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of [Messiah] Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus [Messiah]” (1 Timothy 6:13-14).

11. Does Paul know about a Jewish mob? Yes, according to Luke, he did (Acts 13:27-28). (Important note: Some people accuse the New Testament of anti-Semitism because it speaks of a Jewish mob calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. Let me be clear: The NT makes little fuss over the fact that this mob was “Jewish”—most people in Jerusalem (including Jesus) were Jewish. The NT records intra-Jewish disputes, so it makes sense that some mobs would be Jewish. It is anachronistic to read Christian anti-Semitism of later ages back onto the pages of the NT, which is itself a very Jewish collection of documents. Also, Paul was a Jew, a fact that is getting increasing attention in both Jewish and Christian scholarly circles. I’ve been quoting a lot from Acts 13, and it’s important to point out that in the context of that passage, Luke is reporting Paul’s speech in a synagogue. Paul would still go to synagogue on Sabbaths, reasoning with his fellow Jews there, trying to convince them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah [see Acts 17:2].)

12. Does Paul know about any trials at all? Again, see Acts 13:27.

13. Does Paul place the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension on earth? In other words, does Paul believe Jesus to have been crucified on earth as an actual human being? Of course (see 1 Corinthians 2:8). What about His resurrection? Yup (see 1 Corinthians 15). Ascension? He alludes to it, but not directly, and he doesn’t talk about the event as it took place on earth. Still, so what? I refer you, dear reader, again to my answer to #2.

So Flemming is monumentally wrong when he says that Paul did not know anything about Jesus’ historical life. I should also mention that earlier in the clip, Flemming makes the common error of saying that Paul was formerly “Saul.” “Saul” was merely Paul’s Jewish name, one which he retained long after he placed his faith in Jesus. “Paul” was his Greco-Roman name, one which he probably had as a Roman citizen. Acts 13:9 is the first place where Luke refers to him as “Paul,” and he says that this is simply what he was “also called.” Not that his name changed.

But Flemming also blows it when he says, “Just like the other savior gods of the time, Paul’s Christ Jesus died, rose, and ascended all in a mythical realm.” Then, a quote from Hebrews 8:4 appears on the screen: “If Jesus had [emphasis is Flemming’s] been on earth, he would not even have been a priest” (Hebrews 8:4; Earl Doherty’s translation). Then he says this: “Paul doesn’t believe that Jesus was ever a human being. He’s not even aware of the idea.”

Two things:

1. Flemming quotes Hebrews to back up a baseless point he’s trying to make about Paul. No one knows for sure who wrote Hebrews.

2. Note that Flemming uses Earl Doherty’s translation of Hebrews 8:4. Earl Doherty is the author of The Jesus Puzzle, which also advances this crazy conspiracy theory that Jesus never existed. Earl Doherty's arguments that Jesus never existed fuels most of the material for Flemming's arguments against the historical existence of Jesus. (For a good refutation of Doherty’s argument on this passage, which Flemming is alluding to, see Mike Licona’s excellent review of Flemming’s film at the following address: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87.)

In conclusion, Paul was a faithful follower of Jesus who truly believed that there was a man named Jesus who both lived and died and rose again in history. This is absolutely fundamental for Paul. If Jesus was not a real person, then Paul might as well have been talking about Dionysus, or Mithras, or any of the so-called “savior gods” that Flemming tries to compare Jesus to.

If you want to know more about whether Paul founded Christianity or was simply being a faithful follower of Jesus, see David Wenham’s excellent book Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? For a more recent study with a variety of scholarly contributors, see Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate, edited by Todd D. Still.

Paul did not believe in a Gnostic, incorporeal Jesus. He would have been aghast at such a suggestion. Paul believed in the Jesus of history—a Jesus without whom both he and those to whom he preached would be lost. Paul saw Jesus as the promised mashiach—the Messiah, Anointed One, Christ. And we should thank God for using Paul to spread the message of Jesus as he did.

Bible Stuck in the VCR

This video, done by Eric Hovind (son of creationist Kent Hovind, who is currently serving time in prison for tax fraud, a violation of both Matthew 22:21 and Romans 13, as well as a host of other related passages) with two other Christians provides one example of how awful we are at communicating and thinking responsibly.

This is the kind of video that makes skeptics laugh at us. And no, they're not laughing because of a hardness of heart. It's because of the sheer ridiculousness of statements like these (my comments about these statements are in brackets):

Eric Hovind: Science can't really give us certainty.

Christian 2: Not science alone.

Eric Hovind: Because it's starting from the bottom and working its way up to the top. [Huh? So you're supposed to start from the top and work your way down to the bottom? That is, you're supposed to believe a statement like, "A UFO landed in Texas," and then you're supposed to try to find evidence that supports your claim?]

Christian 3: Right. It would be like if you were to walk into a crime scene, and you're the investigator trying to put together the clues, the facts—trying to know what happened. You could look at fingerprints and footprints and try to determine what took place, but you could never be absolutely certain, not having seen it yourself. But if someone gave you a videotape [picks up a Bible—Bible = videotape?—big fat analogy fail] of what took place during the crime, you would be able to know exactly what happened. And all the clues that you had gathered would then fit into place.

Eric Hovind: It all makes sense. It would be perfect.

Christian 2: Yeah, because you could see what actually happened and have absolutely… We have the video tape, if you will, of what happened [can't really stick my Bible in my VCR, though]. We have truth—absolute truth. The Bible says, "Thy word is truth" [see John 17:17, which is Jesus saying to the Father that His word is truth], and Jesus, whom we know to be the Word Himself [come on, skeptics, you know you know this too] stated, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" [see John 14:6]. Every foundation of truth we have—the certainty we can have—is found in Scripture, not just science alone.

Eric Hovind: Wow. [He turns to the audience.] Now, some of you aren't convinced that [the Bible] is truth. [Um, if the Bible is essentially a videotape, how could they NOT be convinced that it's truth? Problematic much?] You're not convinced that the Word of God is truth despite the fact that it claims to be truth. [The Quran claims to be truth, but are you convinced of that?] You're kind of like the detective. [He holds up a magnifying glass.] You're great at doing scientific research, you're great at making observations, but you refuse to look at the videotape. [He turns to Christian 3.] I just wanna challenge 'em [referring to the skeptical detectives out there who refuse to stick the Bible into a VCR]. Would you please pick up a copy [of the Bible], read it for yourself and examine it as if it is truth and see what you come away with [in other words, just believe in it, and find evidence for it later]. We've got a couple of great Bibles through our ministry… The Defender's Study Bible—I've had this Bible for many, many years. [It's] a great one by Henry Morris. [It] goes into looking at the Bible through the eyes of the Creator, as if creation really is true. Then another one I love is The Evidence Bible by Ray Comfort. The notes in here really teach you how to evangelize the exact same way Jesus Christ did. You know, there's a passage in Psalms [146:5-6]. It says this: "Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help…which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is..." The truth is, we have absolute truth. It's found in God's Word. This is starting from the top and workin' our way down. Hey, thanks for joining us for "Creation in Common Sense." I really hope you'll always use creation science for evangelism. [Why? Is creation science an accurate representation of the Bible? Is it an accurate representation of science?]

Is the Quran a videotape? If not, what makes the Bible a videotape and the Quran NOT a videotape? Why is the Bible true, and the Quran untrue? Does it make sense to simply shout, "Absolute truth is found here!" without really investigating that claim?

There's a huge reason why I react strongly to statements like "don't be an intellectual—start with the Bible." It sounds like this: "Be mindless." Um, God gave us our minds, and I think He expects us to use them responsibly, especially when communicating with others about the Bible.

Pastor Satire

This video by RockTV of Rock Church is too funny not to include here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZueN2iuRq0o&feature=related.

The only problematic thing is on Rock Church's website, they say, "Experience God, not religion." See the post below to find out why that's a false dichotomy (even thought the intention behind it is to condemn legalism, which is good--but "religion" doesn't equate to "legalism").

No further commentary needed.

Is Christianity a Religion?

Non-Christian: Man, I hate religion. All it does is shut off minds and create hypocrites.

Christian: Oh, you hate religion? As a Christian, I hate religion too!

Non-Christian: Um, what? But isn’t Christianity a religion?

Christian: No, Christianity is a relationship—not a religion!

Non-Christian: I don’t get it.

Christian: Religion is all about what man can do to reach up to God, but Christianity is all about what God did to reach down to man! Jesus wants to have a personal relationship with you because He died for you.

Non-Christian: Still sounds like a religion to me.

Does the above conversation sound familiar to you? The statement “Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship” is a popular one among contemporary evangelicals. In this saying, religion is defined as something negative—that is, it’s a legalistic/hypocritical attitude. But notice that the Christian and the non-Christian appear to be speaking two different languages. The Christian is speaking “Christianese,” and the non-Christian is talking like normal people talk.

It’s important to properly understand that Christianese is not limited to just phrases like “turn or burn” or “you need to get saved”—it can also refer to sayings such as “Christianity is not a religion” or “Jesus wants to have a real relationship with you and be a part of your life.” (For an example of a Christian video which thinks it’s critiquing Christianese but is actually being complicit in it, see here.) In other words, when we say things that only make sense to our own insulated evangelical cultural bubble (notice that I didn’t say such sayings reflect the Bible), we fail miserably at communicating what the Bible is actually trying to say.

(Here is another video which tries to set up a contrast between “real” and “religion.” Here’s a question: Is the “real” character in this video truly real?)

The fact is, here are two passages that demonstrate that the Bible itself sets up no such contrast between Christianity and religion:

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27 ESV).

“But if a widow has no children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God” (1 Timothy 5:4 NIV). Some versions, such as the NASB, translate the Greek word ευσεβειν (eusebein) as “practice piety,” since the word carries the connotation of performing religious duties toward one’s household.

So this is why I think it's unhelpful to set up a false dichotomy between "Christianity" and "religion." If our language doesn't carefully reflect the Bible, are we really presenting the Bible to our culture?

Bad Exegesis in Less Than Five Minutes

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB 1995 updated edition.

This video purports to disprove the existence of Jesus in less than five minutes.

I'm responding to this video for two reasons:

1. If you're a normal, intelligent adult, you may or may not know what context is, even if you've heard the phrase "taking a verse out of context" before. I do not assume that everyone knows this because experience proves that people in general like to quote-mine (that is, grab any quote from a book without paying attention to the point of the entire body of text). So I think this is a good case study in how to accurately handle any kind of text (not just the Bible).

2. The video does raise some interesting points for theological discussion. If Jesus is not imaginary, then why doesn't He just appear to people on a regular basis? Also, if He doesn't appear to people, does that make Him imaginary?

The video, put together by Marshall Brain (who operates websites known as godisimaginary.com and whywontgodhealamputees.com), appeals to two separate texts of Scripture to prove its case:

1. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for your sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also" (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Brain wants us to notice "[t]hree important facts" about this passage, which is taken from Paul's explanation of Jesus' resurrection to the Corinthian Christians, which is the earliest text we have about the resurrection of Jesus: First, "Jesus proved His resurrection by appearing to people." Second, it is "OK [for Jesus] to appear to people." And third, Jesus' act of appearing to people "does not take away free will or harm faith." In fact, just the opposite is true. According to 1 Corinthians 15 (and the Gospel accounts), as Brain is intent on showing us, Jesus' act of appearing to people ignited the faith of the people Paul lists, including himself.

2. "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst" (Matthew 18:19-20).

At this point, Brain's exegesis begins to get a bit sloppy. He says that we learn that "Jesus is already here amongst us" from this passage and that "God will do anything we ask." He is wrong on both counts. Here's why:

Read all of Matthew 18 here (pay special attention to verses 15-20). We know that in this passage, Jesus is talking to His disciples about discipline in the ἐκκλησία (ekklesia, Greek for "assembly" or "church"). Keep in mind that Jesus and His disciples are all Jews.

As a Jew, Jesus appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the "Old Testament") in verses 15-20, reproduced below with some explanatory clarification in brackets (the words I put in bold font indicate the part of the passage that is quoting the Old Testament):

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed [a quote of Deuteronomy 19:15; see the context here, which lists laws God set forth for the people of Israel]. If he refuses to listen to them [the "two or three"], tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector [Jews during this period did not typically associate with Gentiles or tax collectors]. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven [on the meaning of "binding" and "loosing," see here]. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst [notice the "two or three" phrase, which hearkens back to the earlier allusion to Deuteronomy 19:15]."

Deuteronomy 19:15 is one of the laws that Jesus and His contemporaries would have known well, since it was part of their Scriptures: "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed" (Deuteronomy 19:15). Again, notice the "two or three witnesses."

So when Jesus says that when "two or three have gathered in My name," He's talking about something very specific: two or three witnesses against a brother accused of a particular sin is to have Jesus there to judge the situation. So the "anything that they [the two or three] may ask" in this case refers to whatever may be done to resolve the issue of the brother caught in sin. Churches today follow this procedure in regard to cases when a particular Christian is accused of committing a sin.

(Note: There are other "anything" passages that AREN'T found in a church discipline context, so be careful. Brain brings them up on his website, but we'll save those for another day. Suffice it to say that understanding what Jesus means by anything in those passages is incredibly important. It is NOT, as Brain accuses Christian interpreters elsewhere, to say that "anything" doesn't really mean "anything." No, Jesus said what He meant, and He meant what He said. But as with any statement, misunderstanding of what is meant by a particular word can indeed crop up if we aren't responsible with our exegesis. Clarification on the term exegesis: Also, in case you're wondering what this strange word exegesis means, keep the following in mind: exegesis [pronounced "EX-eh-jee-siss"] is the act of carefully drawing the meaning out of a text, while eisegesis [pronounced "EYE-seh-jee-siss"] is the act of irresponsibly reading a meaning into the text, which is exactly what Brain is doing. That is, he's engaged in eisegesis, not exegesis.)

Finally, Brain proposes that we pray for Jesus to spontaneously appear to us (based on his sloppy exegesis), and he asks, "What do you think will happen?" The answer, according to Brain, is nothing. He says that we know from the Bible that "Jesus is already here," it would "be trivial for him to appear," "it is OK for him to appear," and supposedly Matthew 18:19-20 shows that Jesus "has promised that he will appear [to us at any moment based on our whims]."

Brain concludes that because "nothing will happen" after such a prayer for Jesus to spontaneously appear to us, Jesus is imaginary. I leave these questions to you:

1. Do you think Brain is right? Whether you do or not, please post a comment saying why or why not.

2. If Jesus ISN'T imaginary, then why do you think He doesn't always choose to appear to us individually, but He did appear to people like Peter, James, and Paul to confirm His resurrection? I don't have an answer to this question, but I'm posing it because I do think it's worth thinking about.

May your day abound with grace.

The Academic Christian’s Concern: Don’t Be a Snob

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB 1995 updated edition.

Caveat: As someone who either thinks she is an academic or actually is one, I’m writing this piece mostly to challenge and convict myself. I strongly believe there’s nothing wrong with being an academic, and I spend a lot of time defending academics, but I would be wrong not to point out how many academics can become arrogant and infatuated with the mind, ignoring the importance of the other gifts which God has given people. Making the mind a god, like making anything a god, is idolatrous, and therefore, it is very dangerous.

It’s really easy for academic Christians to be snobs and look askance at lay Christian organizations, people, and churches. We sometimes pretend we know so much, when in fact, we know very little, and God is singularly unimpressed with our ridiculously inflated egos. We also are tempted to ignore the many wonderful people God has used and is using just as effectively as He is using Christians in “higher education.”

On the first day of class, my Greek professor warned us not to misuse our eventual knowledge of Greek by trying to impress people with it. If you think about it, attempting to impress people is a colossal waste of time. What am I accomplishing by doing that? Certainly not anything good, and definitely something that has a lot more to do with my own pride and puffery than with spreading the gospel. (There’s a huge difference, for example, between spreading “oh-look-at-me-write-in-Hebrew-letters” and using such knowledge to spread the message of the gospel. Don’t be snobbish, like this caterpillar.)

So instead of creating more and more people in the church who despise intellectuals or who equate the word intellectual with pompous snob (and I do think that intellectual arrogance helps to spread anti-intellectualism rather than hinder it), maybe we should remember to keep things in perspective. If we think that an academic ministry is any more important than a janitorial ministry, for example, then we have an over-developed sense of self-importance. To allude to a comment made by Jon Arbuckle to Garfield the cat, we have a “self-esteem problem—too much of it.” (I think the term self-esteem is inherently problematic from a Christian perspective anyway. Isn’t holding ourselves in high esteem a bad thing, as in “arrogant”?)

Here’s something that every Christian, academically oriented or not, should keep in mind:

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12:4-31).

Romans 11:29: ἀμεταμέλητα γαρ τά χαρίσματα καί ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ θεοῦ

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB (1995 edition).

The Greek in the title says it all: "For the gifts [τά χαρίσματα] and calling [κλῆσις] of God are irrevocable [ἀμεταμέλητα]" (Romans 11:29).


In context, what is this verse talking about? Is it talking about the spiritual gifts of the church? Why not? It has χαρίσματα (charismata, meaning "gifts"), so it must be talking about that, right? Surely, it must.

Nope, it isn't. This verse is not talking about the church (by church I mean Christians). Romans 9–11 is talking about Israel---specifically, the majority of Israel, which at Paul's time and in our own day today did not and still does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah who came to save the world and rescue us from our sin. So what does that mean for Romans 11:29, quoted in the title? It means that God's gifts to Israel and His calling of Israel (described in Romans 9:1-5) are ἀμεταμέλητα (ametameleta, meaning "irrevocable"). They can't be undone.

Interestingly, the book of Romans is often reduced in evangelical circles to a book of doctrine, and if any part of Romans 9–11 is mentioned at all, it's usually Romans 10:9-10 (the "Roman road" to salvation). Somehow, the fact that this is a letter written by a first-century Jew to a Jewish and Gentile church escapes us. We sometimes acknowledge this, but in practice we often forget it, treating the text as if Paul just sat down one day and decided, "I'm going to write a theological essay today that will be considered Scripture, and it will include all my thoughts on God, Jesus, and salvation." Romans becomes a string of prooftexts about how we're saved, and although Romans certainly does talk about salvation from God's wrath through Jesus (see Romans 3–5, for example), any exegete of the book knows that this does not exhaust what Paul wanted to say to this church in Rome.

For Paul, this was a letter---one inspired by God, to be sure, but I doubt Paul was thinking, "This letter I'm writing is going to be part of Scripture." A major theme of this letter, which is not just discussed in Romans 9–11, is the story of Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in God's family. Notice, for instance, the famous passage of Romans 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Most people isolate this passage and present it as one of their many prooftexts. But they forget the next verse: "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also" (Romans 3:29). What is the point Paul was trying to get across here? It appears that verses 28 and 29 are linked and NOT separate thoughts altogether.

Sidebar: If you're familiar with the current justification debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright, you know that seeing this letter in its first-century Jewish context is a major part of this discussion (did first-century Judaism tend to be legalistic, or did it teach grace?). If you have no idea what I'm talking about, the Christianity Today articles here and here do a good job of summarizing what all this is about. Also, if you're interested in this important discussion, here are two books I'd recommend:

1. John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007). Piper's passion for God's grace in this book is compelling. I disagree with his views on first-century Judaism and Paul (see pages 133-158), but I couldn't agree more with his enthusiastic commitment to preaching God's grace as revealed through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

2. N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009). N.T. Wright brought the split between Romans 3:28 and 3:29 to my attention, and his comments on how the history of the Western church might have been different if they had read Paul in light of his Jewish soteriology are also insightful: "[There would have been no] split between Romans 3:28 and Romans 3:29. No marginalization of Romans 9–11. No scrunching of the subtle and important arguments about Jew-plus-Gentile unity in Galatians 3 onto the Procrustean bed of an abstract antithesis between faith and works." Of course, N.T. Wright hasn't convinced me of his overall thesis (I'm still thinking it through), but I appreciate his sensitivity to (A) Scriptural authority in spite of all tradition and (B) the first-century Jewish context of Paul's letters.

Of course, Romans is not the only book reduced to a systematic theology textbook, with the Jew-and-Gentile-now-one-in-Christ theme shoved to the corner. Ephesians is often mined strictly for its "saved by grace through faith" passage in Ephesians 2:8-9, with not much regard for verse 10, and perhaps less regard for verses 11-22, which stress that the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is now torn down in Messiah Jesus.

Paul did teach that we're saved by grace, and that is incredibly important. But he also taught about Jews and Gentiles coming together as one in Messiah Jesus, which is also incredibly important. That means that everyone can be "in Messiah" (or "in Christ"), not just the Jews.

Also important to emphasize is that Paul was deeply concerned for his fellow Jews who still did not believe in Jesus. That's where Romans 11:29 comes back into the discussion. God's gifts and calling of the Jewish people are irrevocable. Let me end with Paul speaking for himself in Romans 11:28-32 concerning his fellow Jews who did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah (see all of Romans 9–11 here):

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you [Gentiles] once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.