To rightly understand Paul and his letters, we must identify with the audience to which he wrote.
I contend that Paul did teach his new congregations about the Rabbi Jesus (he obviously knew perfectly the Jesus Tradition, or otherwise the leaders at Jerusalem would have never bestowed upon him the title of Apostle). I believe with my whole heart that he also did this through the convention of the Hebrews known as Holy Oral Tradition, which meant he taught them in person and by word of mouth only. I find I cannot explain otherwise the fact that Paul refuses to mention Jesus' words and deeds in his letters (again, Holy Oral Tradition was forbidden to be written down). It's not as though he mentions Jesus' words and deeds infrequently in his letters. It's not as though he uses them rarely within his correspondences. He simply makes no mention at all of his Master's earthly words, deeds, or teachings within the letters he wrote to his churches.
Even still, I'm convinced that Paul taught the early congregants in each city about Jesus, and this seminal teaching regarding the Resurrected Rabbi - not Paul's later letters - were at the core of their faith.
Yes, the earliest Gentile churches were focused on Jesus the Resurrected Rabbi. They were focused on memorizing, understanding, and living out the stories and teachings that eventually made up the Gospels. So at the heart of the earliest churches - the ones that received Paul's letters (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) - the congregants were constantly learning about and meditating on the teachings of Jesus the Rabbi. There were no other distractions, such as other books of the NT. There weren't countless books on 'Having Your Best Life Now" (what a load of crap). There weren't mortgages on massive buildings and so much other BS. There was Jesus the Rabbi and the Holy Oral (Jesus) Tradition that was passed from person to person. Paul's letters - which pastors and teachers currently treat as primary texts - were secondary (subordinant) to the Jesus Tradition within the earliest churches.
As time went on, obviously, Paul needed to write letters of clarification on such intellectual subjects as sanctification, justification, and other such topics. He, at times needed to admonish, sometimes to scold, sometimes to encourage and sometimes to settle debates. But when he needed to reinforce the Rabbi's specific teaching he did it in person, or sent Timothy to remind them face to face (in keeping with Holy Oral Tradition). Paul's letters were not seen by those first Christians as primary texts. The Jesus Tradition was their penultimate and primary 'text'.
We too should see Paul's letters as subordinant yet garner from them whatever they might yield. But even moreso we must realize that a teaching that preceded and superseded these letters was given to the earliest churches regarding the Savior, the Rabbi Jesus. This teaching was the Jesus Tradition; a group of memory texts that now make up the Gospels. The teaching regarding the Master had to be the foundation of their faith and therefore, their congregations. Otherwise are we to assume that all they knew about Christianity was what was in Paul's Jesus-free letters? Surely not.
Indeed, the earliest churches were focused on the Person of Jesus and His teachings regarding the kingdom of heaven.
Likewise, the Jesus Tradition (the Gospels) should be our focus, not Paul's letters. Return, O Bride to the Resurrected Rabbi, Yeshua.
Comments