5.11 Paul And Christ
Paul's Use Of The Gospels
The ultimate aim of our calling to the Truth is a relationship
with the Father and His Son. Yet the idea of having a relationship
with unseen beings is difficult. And yet it is utterly essential.
Paul gives a fine example of how we really can develop a relationship
with the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 3:22 speaks of three groups in
the Corinth ecclesia, following Paul, Peter and Apollos. Yet in
1 Cor. 1:12 someone says " I am of Christ" . This seems
to be Paul himself- so Christ-centred was he, that he wanted no
part in ecclesial politics nor in the possibility of leading a faction.
His Christ-centredness was a phenomenal achievement. One of the
secrets of Paul's spiritual success was that he consciously modelled
himself on the examples of faithful men that had gone before. These
included Moses and John the Baptist. If we appreciate the extent
to which Paul did this, it will be evident that he would have tried
to assimilate the example of Jesus his Lord into his very being.
Whenever we break bread, as we take that bread and wine, we are
physically symbolizing our resolve to assimilate the personality,
the spirit, of the Lord Jesus Christ, deep into our body and spirit.
Israel labouring all night to eat that bitter Passover lamb are
our prototype in this. The extent to which Paul succeeded in doing
this becomes apparent when we analyse his writings from the perspective
of how far they allude to the words of the Lord Jesus as recorded
in the Gospels. To do this, I read through the Gospels, looking
for connections with Paul's letters; I then read through his letters,
looking for links with the Gospels.
Perhaps I need to say something about the business of 'links' between
passages. It seems to me that some have gone too far in seeing such
links; e.g. the last twenty sentences which you spoke will have
some 'links' with the last 20 sentences which I have spoken. But
this doesn't mean that you are 'alluding' to my words; because you
don't know what my last 20 sentences were. Similarity of language
doesn't necessarily imply a conscious connection between it. And
yet we must balance this against the fact that all Scripture is
ultimately recorded by the same Spirit of God. There are
many designed connections between passages, many of which hinge
around a play on words, or a connection between just one word in
one passage and one word in another passage. Many of Paul's
expositions in Hebrews and Romans quote the Old Testament in such
Conscious Links With The Gospels
I have recognized a connection between the Gospels and Paul's letters
on the following criteria:
1. It is apparent that often the Bible and the Lord Jesus use
words which are unusual; words which only occur two or three times
in the whole Bible, and which could have been replaced by a commoner
word. If, for example, the Lord Jesus uses a word which occurs
in only one other place, it seems likely that there is an allusion
being made to His words. Obviously one needs to look at the context
to confirm whether this is the case.
2. Sometimes there is explicit allusion to the words of Christ;
e.g. " the Lord (Jesus) hath ordained that they which preach
the Gospel should live of the Gospel" (1 Cor. 9:14) is referring
to His command of Mt. 10:10. He may make an allusion to the Lord's
words without directly quoting them. Thus Paul's comment that
as often as we take the bread and wine we " shew the Lord's
death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:24) is surely an allusion,
but not a quotation, to the Lord's comment that He would not take
the cup again until He returns (Mk. 14:25). Likewise
" I beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ"
is surely a reference to the Lord's description of Himself as
being, there and then, " meek and lowly of heart" (Mt.
11:29; 2 Cor. 10:1). Paul's point is that as the Lord was in His
life, so He is now, in His heavenly glory.
3. There are sometimes phrases, involving up to 6 words,
which are taken straight out of the Gospel records. It is putting
too much down to chance to suggest that this is just an accidental
similarity. Invariably the context supports the feeling that an
intended allusion is being made.
However it should also be noticed that Paul sometimes consciously
alludes to ideas within the Lord’s teaching, and yet does so in
a way that is not verbally similar. Thus Jesus only rarely speaks
of ‘the ecclesia’; rather does He speak of the flock, family and
vineyard of God. Yet Paul translates as it were into more theological
vocabulary what Jesus had expressed in images and parables.
However, there are other cases where a word or short phrase is
used which appears to link back to the Gospels (as in 1 and 2 above),
and yet the context does not seem to support the suggestion that
there is an intended allusion. A few examples will make the point:
- " Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"
is rooted in the Lord's words that He came to call sinners and
to seek and save the lost (Mt. 9:13; 18:11; 1 Tim. 1:15). Godliness
having the promise of life both now and in the future is a reflection
of Christ's teaching that the life of self denial would have its
present as well as future rewards (1 Tim. 4:8; Mk. 10:29).
- Paul spoke of how we must go through tribulation to
enter the Kingdom. Perhaps he was alluding to the Lord’s parable
of the sower, where He taught that when, and not “if” tribulation
arises (Mt. 13:21). Paul knew that it must come because
of the way the Lord had worded the interpretation of the parable.
- " The great shepherd of the sheep" is a repetition
of " the good shepherd that giveth his life for the sheep"
- the greatest shepherd there could have been (Heb. 13:20 cp.
- " Why make ye this ado and weep?" (Mk. 5:39) is unconsciously
alluded to by Paul in Acts 21:13: " What mean ye to weep
and to break mine heart?" . If this is a conscious allusion,
it seems out of context. But as an unconscious allusion, it makes
- The way Paul shook off the dust of his feet against those who
rejected his preaching was surely an almost unconscious reflection
of the attitude which the Lord had enjoined upon his men; but
there is no evidence that Paul was given the same commission (Acts
13:51 cp. Mt. 10:14).
- " Think not that I am come to destroy (" to make
void" , Darby's Translation) the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Mt. 5:17) has some
kind of unconscious, hard to define link with Rom. 3:31:"
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
establish the law" . The Greek words for " destroy"
and " make void" are different; yet the similarity of
phrasing and reasoning is so similar. I can't pass this off as
chance, yet neither can I say there is a conscious allusion here.
There is, therefore, what I will call an 'unconscious link' here.
- " Shall not uncircumcision (i.e. the Gentiles)...judge
thee (first century Israel), who...dost transgress the law?"
(Rom. 2:27) is an odd way of putting it. How can believing Gentiles
" judge" first century Jews who refused to believe?
Surely there must be some connection with Mt. 12:41, which speaks
of Gentiles such as the men of Nineveh rising " in judgment
with this generation (first century Israel), and shall condemn
it: because they repented..." . Again, I can't say there
is a conscious allusion being made here. But the similarity is
too great to just shrug off.
- “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready
for solid food” (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14) surely alludes to Jn.
16:12, although it doesn’t verbally quote it: “I still have many
things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”.
Of course, it may be that there is a conscious connection
in these places, it's just that I can't see it that clearly. But
I would suggest that the mind of Paul was so saturated with the
Gospel records that he was using ideas and sometimes language from
them without realizing it. There are many other examples of unconscious
allusion between the Bible writers. Even the Lord Jesus seems to
have made 'unconscious' allusions, in the sense of making allusions
without any semantic purpose. This is especially apparent in some
of the links between His parables and the Proverbs. " So shall
thy barns be filled with plenty" (Prov. 3:10) is alluded to
by him, apparently unconsciously in the sense of being without semantic
import, in the parable of the barns. Peter likewise was full of
unconscious allusions to the Lord’s life and words in the Gospels.
Consider how he says to Cornelius: “I am he whom ye seek: what is
the cause wherefore ye are come?” (Acts 10:21). He is combining
allusions to Mt. 26:50 and Jn. 18:4-6, but without any apparent
meaning. The similarities are too great to pass off as co-incidence.
The events in the garden were so permanently imprinted in his subconscious
that they just came out.
This idea of unconscious allusion shouldn't be so hard to understand
with some reflection. If I'm with a North American for some time,
I start to speak with an American accent. Children unconsciously
come out with the phrases and expressions which they hear their
parents use daily. Or take a read through the later writings of
Robert Roberts. There was a man who truly loved his Bible and knew
it well. All the time he is writing in the language of the King
James version of the Bible. You can read a page of his writing and
jot down next to almost every sentence the verses to which he is
alluding. He often does so out of context; it's just that the word
was so much in his mind that it came out in whatever he wrote. Or
analyse the language of elderly believers who have been reading
the King James version of the Bible all their lives. They may speak
about our first principle doctrines as " those things which
are most surely believed among us" . This is taking Lk. 1:1
a bit out of context, but that phrase is so apt that we use it to
talk about basic doctrines, e.g. that the Kingdom will be on earth.
Or we describe the warm handshake after a brother is baptized as
" the right hand of fellowship" - using Gal. 2:9 out of
context (notice it speaks there of " the right hands
of fellowship" !). There's no harm in doing this, as long as
we are aware of the fact that we aren't always using passages strictly
in context. It's surely the inevitable outcome of a Bible-centred
way of thinking. Or consider the prayers of Bible-minded brethren.
Often they are packed with incidental allusions to Bible verses
in their favourite version. The following list shows how very often
Paul was consciously alluding to the Gospels; if he made so many
conscious allusions, it's only to be expected that he makes many
unconscious ones too. And take David. When he writes in
Ps. 110 of how Yahweh said unto my Lord…he is quoting the very phrase
used by Abigail years before, when they weren’t even married (1
Sam. 25:30). He was unconsciously alluding to the words of his wife
before they were married, even years later. It is of course true
that context plays a vital part in Biblical interpretation. But
this can lead us to overlook the fact that many New Testament quotations
of the Old Testament- many of those in the early chapters of Matthew,
for example- are picking up words and phrases from one context and
applying them to another. Paul himself did this when he quoted the
words of the poet Aratus “We are all the offspring of Zeus” about
our all being the offspring of the one true God.
The point has been made that the NT writers hardly ever directly
quote the Gospels as they do, e.g., the prophets; but they allude
to them. And the conclusion has been powerfully drawn: "
To live continuously cannot be done by quoting. To match every circumstance
of our daily lives with an appropriate extract from a memorized
saying of Jesus is neither possible nor desirable. Our learning
in his life should be such as the Apostles' was: one which sees
his actions, hears his words and reads the records of his thoughts,
and makes them our own. So that as time advances we walk more naturally
with his steadfast tread...speak normally in tones and phrases which
remind others of what Jesus said and the way He said it..."
Paul As Rabbi
Many of Paul’s allusions, both to the words of the Lord and indeed
to the Old Testament Scriptures, may appear to be merely incidental
and out of context. We have suggested that this may have been a
reflection of how his mind was so saturated with Scripture and the
words of his Lord. But there is another additional possibility.
Paul was trained as a rabbi, and would have been used to the rabbinic
way of writing. The rabbis made Midrashim, or commentary
/ interpretation, on the Old Testament Scriptures. They believed
that every single word of God was worthy of extended commentary.
Because many of their readers virtually knew the text of Scripture
by heart, they often give no more than a word or at most a few words
from a Scriptural quotation, intending the reader to recite the
rest of the passage silently to themselves; and then the rabbi immediately
added his comment. Indeed, a case can be made that the whole New
Testament is a form of Midrash on the Old Testament, re-interpreting
it in the light of Christ. Paul so often employs the same literary
devices found in the rabbinic Midrashim (1):
- al tiqra [read not thus, but thus- Gal. 3:16 is a
- tartei mashma [the word has another meaning]
- muqdan umeuhar [noting the earlier and later]
- and the habit of repointing the original Hebrew text to provide
a word relevant in the context of which he is writing. This explains
why some of his quotations appear to be neither from the Masoretic
nor Septuagint texts. It may also help explain why some of his
quotations / allusions to the words of the Lord may not be strictly
literal quotations from the text of the Gospels.
Paul’s frequent “What then shall we say to this?” occurs at least
5 times in Romans alone (Rom. 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14,30)- and this
is the classic phrase used by Jewish teachers at the end of presenting
their argument to their students. Seeing then that Paul writes in
a rabbinic way, as if He is giving a stream of Midrash
on earlier, familiar writings [e.g. the words of Jesus or the Old
Testament], we should be looking for how he may quote or allude
to just a word or two from the Lord, and weave an interpretation
around them. This means that many of the ‘unconscious’ allusions
listed may not in fact be unconscious- it’s simply that I’ve not
perceived the interpretation which Paul is giving them within the
context. There’s homework enough for the enthusiast.
(1) See John Bowker, The
Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretation
of Scripture (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1969).