A LAYMAN SPEAKS,
SOME VIEWS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PULPIT
J. Philip Landis, BSEE MIT 1948
Prepared for WCTS Meeting November 14, 2001
As stated elsewhere, the principal function of orthodox Christianity is the salvation of man. Furthermore, only Christianity can accomplish this function.
...much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever... [WESTMINSTER CONFESSION X. IV]
This particularism seems to flow from the teachings of Paul rather than from Jesus (whose teachings on salvation antedate Christianity as a religion). In the writer's view, the Church's concept of salvation is founded on Paul's faulty reasoning. The basic problems Paul raises are related to the following three points.
1. Paul appears to have misunderstood the role of the Jewish Law. Whereas Its function was to guide men in doing the will of God, and enhancing their relationships with one another, Paul saw it as a code of behavior unattainable by mortal man and serving only to show man his state of sinfulness.
2. In addition, Paul took the mythology of Adam and Eve and added to the results of their "sin" the notion of transmission of an In inherently sinful nature to all subsequent mankind. Therefore his first point is rendered irrelevant. One would be in a state of sin even it one could perfectly keep the Law.
3. Paul further ascribes to God the requirement that a process of atonement be utilized by mankind which is unattainable by human endeavor.
He has thus painted himself into a corner from which his doctrine of salvation through the sacrifice of Christ is his escape.
The Hebrew Scriptures teach no such doctrine of original sin (formalized by Augustine, but certainly taught in its primitive form by Paul). If one wishes to take Genesis literally, mankind suffered several results from the disobedience of Adam and Eve (expulsion from Eden, "sweat of the brow" living, pain in childbirth, etc.). There is absolutely no teaching regarding procreatively transmitted sin. And there is no evidence of this thinking elsewhere in the OT. There is ample evidence of knowledge of man's "propensity to sin" and much anguish In dealing with it. However, there is also clearly an understanding of the forgiving nature of God when confronted with a contrite heart. The OT has mighty sinners who enjoyed the blessings of God. Furthermore, for the legally minded, there was a Levitical Code which provided the necessary sacrificial rites to deal with atonement for sin, all within the ability of mere mortals to accomplish.
Presumably the teachings of Jesus as they later appeared in the Gospels were available to Paul in oral or preliminary written form. It seems Paul would have found no basis for his ideas there. The Synoptics teach a forgiving God whose children should forgive "seventy times seven" (Matt 18:22). The concept of Jesus' death as sacrificial is not taught in any of the gospels. The closest reference is of giving his life "as a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45), a very vague and isolated statement. And while John's Jesus demands belief as the means for attaining life eternal (John 6:40, typ.), it is not for the atonement-related reasons that Paul Indicates.
Paul was at odds with the Jerusalem church over the matter of circumcision and ministry to Gentiles in general. One can only wonder what else the Jerusalem church might have found objectionable in Paul's teachings. Unfortunately his ideas have been preserved, theirs have not.
The writer believes one must assign most of Paul's ideas to sources other than Jesus. In his writings he makes little or no reference to Jesus as the source of his concepts. Jesus is not claimed as the source or Inspiration for Paul's three problems above nor is Jesus claimed to have proclaimed himself as the solution to the problems.
Paul's notions concerning the sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrifice could have been derived from the Akedah tradition of Judaism. The Akedah ("binding") tradition thought of Isaac as a young man of 25 years who willingly presented himself to be sacrificed [30SEPHUS, ANTIQ 7.13.2; PSEUDO-PHILO 32:3]. The obedience of Abraham and the willingness of Isaac, "as proof of devotion to God, created an inexhaustible store of spiritual credit upon which future generations may draw" [N.M.SARNA, THE JPS TORAH COMMENTARY, GENESIS, page 394]. Many of the elements of this tradition were ready-made for adaptation by Paul to suit his purposes.
The teachings of Jesus bring a very transcendent God into closer proximity to man by stressing God's fatherly manifestations of love and forgiveness. Paul may claim an "Abba" relationship with God, but the God he teaches is an unrelenting, demanding tyrant, slavishly tied to the thinking of the old Israelite sacrificial cult.
The writer finds the notion that the problem of man's redemption could be solved by the intentional sacrifice of Jesus is unbelievable on several accounts.
1. The impossible requirement (except by the sacrifice of Christ) set by God and his implacable attitude toward his highest (in this world) creation are totally incompatible with the OT concept of God or of any concept of him otherwise revealed.
2. Jesus is said to have pre-existed with God, and to have known prior to death that he would be raised and exalted in three days. That the sacrificial "death" of such a one constitutes a significant act of obedience or love on the part of either participant is preposterous. However else one may view the Akedah, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son was true obedience. He would have had no prospect of getting his son back in three days.
3. The requirement that this "process" be believed in order that its efficacy apply to the recipient is totally incompatible with the knowledge that it was invented by Paul and never taught by Jesus.
4. It renders the entire LIFE of Jesus inconsequential. From his childhood "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man." And, if Paul is right, for what? "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." And, for what? Simply to die like some Israelite's unblemished ox?