The Famous Bultmann's Exalting Paul Leads To A Complete Invalidation of Paul

Introduction

Beginning in the Reformation, Paul's epistles often supplanted any need to focus on the words of Christ. "Zwingli's copy of the NT was confined to Paul's Epistles and Hebrews." (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 1 sec. 51.)

Luther too emphasized Paul's words over the gospels. Eventually, a rationale was needed to justify the continued ignoring that Jesus's taught justification is by repentance, not faith (Parable of the Publican and the Tax Collector) and your only means to heaven is "heaven maimed" (by repentance) or you can go to hell "whole" (with no repentance). (Mark 9:42-47.) A faith that was alone could not save if you relied upon Jesus's words. To keep Paul's faith alone doctrine, Jesus's words had to be somehow marginalized. By 1929, a means was found that was explicitly based upon Paul's own direction to us to ignore Jesus's words "in the flesh."

This modern notion that Paul correctly viewed Jesus' teachings as irrelevant and we must realize the only way to follow Christ is to follow Paul was declared by the influential theologian Rudolf Bultmann. In 1929, Bultmann quashed the "From Paul to Jesus" movement led by William Wrede with the argument you are about to hear. This is what explains the modern trend to explicitly acknowledge that Paul's Gospel differs from Jesus's Gospel but trumps Jesus anyway. (For proofs, see this link.)

Bultmann admitted the lack of importance to Paul of Jesus's teachings when Jesus was in the flesh. However, Bultmann claims this was deliberate, and perfectly explains Paul's meaning in 2 Cor. 5:16 which Bultmann says are words from Paul which we must obey to reject any further obedience/adherence to Jesus's words while "in the flesh" i.e., prior to the Ascension.

Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:16 that "even though we once knew Christ kata sarka [through/by means of the flesh], we know him thus no longer." Bultmann interprets this to mean that Paul tells us therefore that we once knew Jesus by means of doctrines delivered when in the flesh, but now we know Jesus through messages delivered to Paul when Jesus was in his resurrected 'spiritual' body. Paul encountered a voice and light version of Jesus without flesh on the Road to Damascus. Based on such a reading of 2 Cor. 5:16, Bultmann exalts Paul's revelations from the resurrected Jesus as superior because Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:16 that we are "no longer" to know Jesus from the time Jesus taught while in the "flesh."

Bultmann Concedes Jesus Pre-Cross Is Irrelevant To Paul

William Wrede (1859-1906) in his book Paul (1904) had argued Paul's writings show little knowledge of the teachings of Jesus reflected in the Gospels. This led to the "back from Paul to Jesus movement" which is now largely forgotten due to Bultmann's influential reply. (Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (B&H Publishing Group, 2009) at 370.)

Rudolf Bultmann, a famous theologian, conceded the point of Wrede's in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul (1929) -- also republished in Faith and Understanding (New York: Harper & Row, 1969) Vol. I at 220. However, Bultmann turned it around as a proof that we should only be following Paul because of Paul's direction in 2 Cor. 5:16.

Bultmann thus starts by admitting that Jesus's teachings (pre-resurrection) were indeed irrelevant to Paul:

"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his. . . . views. when the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and purposes -- irrelevant for Paul." Id., at 223.

As others summarize Bultmann's initial point, they state:

Bultmann noted that Paul rarely alluded to or quoted from the teachings of Jesus, and that these quotations and allusions were related to ethical rather than theological matters. (Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (B&H Publishing Group, 2009) at 369.)

Bultmann Interprets Paul As Saying To Ignore The Pre-Cross Jesus

Bultmann next turned around this admission as a point in favor of Paul because Paul supposedly deliberately ignored Jesus's teachings while "in the flesh." Bultmann says Paul gives us a pattern that we should imitate rather than be revulsed by, as William Wrede had portrayed its consequence.

For proof, Bultmann relied upon Paul's remarks in 2 Corinthians 5:16. Bultmann said this verse meant we no longer know Christ in the flesh, i.e., we can dispense with Jesus's teachings when He was in the flesh. Only the messages Paul received from the resurrected Christ - who supposedly no longer had flesh -- is the means to know Christ any longer. This indeed is compatible with how Origen and Clement read 2 Cor. 5:16 in the early church. (See our discussion at this link.)

This is also how the Christian theologian and physician Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) viewed 2 Cor. 5:16 in his book of 1911 Geschichte Der Paulinischen Forschung (J. C. B. Mohr) at 191 (and in English translation, Paul and His InterpretersThe conception of authority in the Pauline writings (1918) at 36.) Schweitzer explained: "since the death and resurrection of the Lord [Paul believed] conditions were present that were so wholly new that they made his [i.e., Jesus's] teaching inapplicable." (Id.) Thus, Albert Schweitzer says this is what explains Paul's failure to mention any significant teachings of Jesus: "If we had only St Paul to guide us, we should not know that Jesus spoke in parables, that He spoke the Sermon on the Mount and taught His people the Lord's Prayer." This was stated by Schweitzer to prove Paul intended us to similarly ignore such lessons from Jesus.

Bultmann saw things the same way. As one commentator on Bultmann summarized his influential view of 2 Corinthians 5:16:

Bultmann...regards the historical Jesus as irrelevant as to the kerygma [i.e., preaching] of the risen Lord whom Paul proclaimed. Bultmann understood 2 Corinthians 5:16 ("even though we once knew Christ kata sarka [through/by means of the flesh], we know him thus no longer") to mean that Paul chose not to employ his knowledge of Jesus kerygmatically, a view with which Bultmann agreed [with Paul.]. Accordingly, the influential scholar of Marburg [i.e., Bultmann] declared Paul the "founder of Christian theology." (Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008) at 13.)

Thus, Bultmann was blunt: Paul in 2 Cor. 5:16 meant the pre-cross messages from Jesus were irrelevant because Jesus was then in the flesh. Jesus now had resurrected body, and Paul says we now no longer know Jesus from the time He was in the flesh. On the road to Damascus, Paul met the resurrected Christ, and was passing those post-resurrection messages to us. The pre-cross Christ represented Jesus in the flesh whose doctrines, Paul wishes us to understand (per Bultmann), were now supposedly irrelevant in the NT.

As a consequence of this view of 2 Cor. 5:16, Bultmann said it was nonsense to imagine we would abandon Paul and find Jesus. Bultmann claimed rather that "one could only find Jesus through Paul," as the authors of The Cradle, the Cross, etc., summarized Bultmann's interpretation of Paul. Id., at 370. Hence, Bultmann ridiculed as nonsense the notion of "the back from Paul to Jesus" movement. Id.

Incidentally, in this Bultmann is guilty of an obvious logical fallacy of circular reasoning. While Wrede doubted Paul's authority because Paul treated Jesus's teachings as irrelevant, Bultmann affirmed Paul's own words as proving why Paul ignored Jesus's teachings as proof of Paul's authority. But that means Bultmann in claiming this supposed an authority in Paul's words which is the very matter that Wrede questioned. Bultmann used Paul's own words to prove Paul's authority which is clearly circular reasoning.

How This Aligns With Paul's Teaching That Flesh Cannot Inherit Eternal Life

Regardless, Bultmann's view of 2 Cor. 5:16 appears correct. It lines up with Paul's view that "flesh cannot inherit eternal life" (1 Cor. 15:50-54). That verse confirms Paul's experience with a post-ascension "Jesus" was with a being who did not have flesh, just as 2 Cor. 5:16 supports believing Paul admits he never met a Jesus who had flesh. Paul must have encountered someone on the Road to Damascus who said he was Jesus and did not have flesh, but had a "spiritual body" without flesh. The blinding "light" and "voice" version of Jesus in the three vision accounts, we are left to understand, was a "spiritual body" without flesh. For more on the distinction between a body of flesh and a spiritual body, see "Bodies After Ascension."

Bultmann's Argument Implodes Unwittingly Any Validity for Paul

No one has seen how Paul has invalidated himself if Bultmann's influential interpretation were examined carefully.

From what Bultmann just said, Paul is claiming the message of the flesh-bound Jesus no longer applies once Jesus resurrected, right? Then this means the resurrected Jesus whom Paul met did not have flesh? Right? In fact, didn't Paul simply describe Jesus as "light" and a "voice" when He returned to visit Paul? Indeed, because Paul teaches "flesh" cannot inherit eternal life (1 Cor. 15:50-54), Paul must have met a Jesus (so he assumed) who only had a "spiritual body," and not flesh.

And from what Bultmann says, it follows that the person communicating to Paul taught the commands Jesus gave in His ministry no longer applied after the resurrection, right?

Each of these two consequences of Bultmann's reading of 2 Cor. 5:16 separately destroy Paul's validity.

1. Paul Did Not Meet The Resurrected Jesus If Bultmann Has Read 2 Cor. 5:16 Correctly

First of all, didn't Thomas discover something unusual when Thomas met the resurrected Jesus? Paul seems to think that the resurrected Jesus has no flesh, right? For we are now no longer to know Jesus that way -- "through the flesh" -- the time Jesus had flesh. However, Thomas saw the nail holes in Jesus's hands and the scar on His side. That sounds like flesh to me. Doesn't it to you? Jesus even said to Thomas to handle him to prove He was "flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39.)

Thus, the person Paul claims to have encountered as Jesus in a post-resurrection period must not really have been Jesus. Paul should have seen Jesus's nail-holes and scars, and realized Jesus still had flesh.

But Paul in 2 Cor. 5:16, as Bultmann reads the passage, did not believe the resurrected Jesus had flesh, right? And the Paul who wrote 1 Cor. 15:50-54 did not believe "flesh" could inherit eternal life, but that is precisely what Jesus enjoys "in the flesh" that He took into heaven. Both passages confirm Paul met only a spiritual body, and one lacking flesh -- a body wholly unlike what Thomas encountered when Thomas met the resurrected Christ.

This is further confirmed by the 3 vision accounts of Acts 9, 22, and 26 where Paul's account says Jesus merely appeared as a blinding "light" and a "voice." This apparently was a spiritual body.

Now we realize something that did not cross our mind earlier when studying the vision accounts of Paul in Acts. Nowhere in Paul's encounters do we know how Paul identified Jesus as Jesus. It appears Paul simply relied upon a spiritual body (lacking flesh) to tell Paul "I am Jesus." What did that prove? Paul never realized he could not just trust the voice in his vision accounts to say "I am Jesus." Paul should have realized he needed to see the nail-holes to validate whom Paul saw truly was Jesus. That's what Apostle Thomas saw. Yet, in none of Paul's three vision accounts in Acts 9, 22 and 26 does Paul ever validate, like Thomas did visually, that this indeed was Jesus. Now we know why: Paul met a spiritual body who only was simply a blinding light and voice.  "The journey is interrupted when Paul sees a blinding light, and communicates directly with a divine voice." ("Conversion of Paul," Wikipedia.) Paul did not meet a flesh-and-blood being--although a glorified one--who was Jesus Christ.

Had Jesus Come Back To Paul In A Different Manner Than When He Left?

Another incongruity is that if Jesus returned as a "voice" and "light" to Paul, it contradicts the angel's message in Acts 1:11 that "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Jesus left as a body of flesh. If He returned to visit Paul, He should still have had a body of flesh.

Recap on Bultmann's Point #1

In sum on point #1, Bultmann's reading of 2 Cor. 5:16 (combined with 1 Cor. 15:50-54) reveals a misapprehension that Paul had that Jesus no longer had human flesh after the resurrection. Paul is utterly and completely invalidated unwittingly by Bultmann. Hence, a pro-Paul reader of 2 Cor. 5:16 actually found an interpretation that unwittingly destroyed Paul's validity.

Paul's Command To No Longer Know Christ According To The Flesh Contradicts Christ

Second, Jesus' final words as He ascended into heaven were that the Apostles (the twelve - Paul was not there) should teach "everything that I commanded you...." Matt. 28:20.

If Paul is correct in 2 Cor. 5:16 as Bultmann construes him, then the Jesus in Matt. 28:20 would have had in mind a set of commands post-resurrection and not those prior to the Cross. However, if that were true, we would expect -- nay it would be mandatory -- that these post-resurrection commands be put down in the gospels to fulfill Jesus's final command. But there is no mention in the gospels of commands post-resurrection other than the command to teach "everything" that Jesus had previously commanded them. Hence, Jesus could only have meant that post-Ascension the apostles were to teach the pre-Cross teachings of Jesus -- while Jesus was clearly "in the flesh."

Hence, Paul taught we are "no longer" to know Christ through the teachings of Jesus while in the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16), when Jesus says the opposite to His true Apostles in Matt. 28:20.

And Jesus gives us an ominous warning if we follow Paul's command to no longer know Jesus according to His teachings while in the flesh: "He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day." (John 12:48.)

Conclusion

While very weak efforts have been attempted by scholars to refute Bultmann -- Voulgaris, for example, argues that knowing Jesus "according to the flesh" in 5:16 means knowing Jesus "as a Jew" -- these efforts only strengthen one's confidence that Bultmann's reading is the correct one. Bultmann's view is also consistent with the reading in the early church of 2 Cor. 5:16. See our discussion of the various readings of 2 Cor. 5:16 at this link.

This means, if Bultmann is correct, that Paul in 2 Cor. 5:16 deliberately sought to displace the commands that Jesus gave to his true apostles with a set of commands Paul got from a stranger who lacked flesh -- who could not have the verifying evidence of scars and flesh-wounds that Thomas saw -- and who gave a direction to dispense Jesus's earthly ministry contrary to Christ's command in Matt. 28:20.

Thus, if Bultmann is correct in his scholarly interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:16, and we have little reason to doubt it is correct, Paul was a total dupe of some strange figure who did not reveal any flesh, and this is why Paul assumed Jesus had solely a spiritual body. This figure intended Paul not to see that he lacked the scars and nail-holes that would verify whether the blinding light and voice were from Jesus Himself. Jesus would have no reason to conceal these wounds from Paul if Paul had met the true Jesus. Someone other than Jesus, however, would have motive to conceal his true identity from Paul, and thus only appear as a "voice" and "light," leading Paul to think Jesus no longer had a body of flesh in His resurrected state. We need not speculate on who that figure was of blinding light; we only need to know who it was NOT. If Bultmann is correct in interpreting Paul, it could not be Jesus.