Reconciling Jesus and Paul

16 Responses to Reconciling Jesus and Paul

1. Jerry Starling says:

   December 9, 2010 at 8:58 am

   McKnight pointed out that while Jesus talks mostly about the kingdom of God, Paul talks mostly (in the view of the reformation theologians) about justification by faith. He goes on to say that some try to reconcile Jesus to Paul by showing that Jesus does talk about justification – in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee praying in the temple, in saying that He had come to give Himself as a ransom for many. OTH, others try to reconcile Paul to Jesus by showing that He does talk about how we are to live because of justification by faith. He himself chooses to look at Paul's definition of gospel in 1 Cor 15:3-4 as being Jesus' death and resurrection for our sins according to the Scripture. This, he takes to tie kingdom and justification together at the cross. His approach is better by far.

   Actually, Paul does talk about the kingdom more than McKnight acknowledged. In Acts, Luke the historian records several of Paul's sermons, in which his preaching is kingdom oriented:

   strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. Acts 14:22 ESV

   And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. Acts 19:8 ESV

   And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Acts 20:25 ESV

   When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. Acts 28:23 ESV

   He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. Acts 28:31-32 ESV

   Five of the eight mentions of the kingdom in Acts are in the preaching of Paul. The other three are in Acts 1 as Jesus discussed the kingdom with his disciples following His resurrection and Acts 8 when Philip preached the kingdom in Samaria. Of course, Peter's Pentecost sermon proclaimed that Jesus was on the throne of His father David as well, but he did not use the word "kingdom."

   Three of the five times Paul mentioned "kingdom" in Acts, Luke was in the company – in Ephesus and in Rome.

   There is a simple reason Jesus did not mention justification by faith. He did not even talk about the cross until 6 months prior to going to it. His focus was on what life in the kingdom of God looks like.

   In Paul's epistles, he (usually) begins with discussion of what God has done for us in Christ (including our salvation by grace through faith), and follows by describing what this is to mean in our lives.

   This is not stressing justification while ignoring kingdom. The failure was not in Paul; it was in the theologians who saw only one part of his teaching.

   Jerry
2. Royce Ogle says:

   December 9, 2010 at 9:29 am

   I agree with Jerry. I had never experienced the tension that many evidently have regarding Paul vs Jesus. That is until I started to interact with people who believed one can be saved, at least in part by what he does. Of course Paul destroys that theory. And, if misunderstood, Jesus seems to support it.

   I agree with Jay that we should submit to the authority of God's book. We must begin with the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. If our record is not to be trusted we have nothing but theory. There are perceived or supposed contradictions in Scripture, but not in fact. The best example is Paul vs James regarding faith. Many insist they taught two opposite views on the value of works when in fact there is no tension at all. What is needed is study. Context is king.

   The law pointed us to our complete inability to pull ourselves up to God's standard by our own resources in the energy of the flesh. We couldn't keep it. Jesus comes along and raises the bar even higher, saying unless your righteousness is better than the most righteous people you know you can't go to heaven. He raised the bar on the commandments, lust equals adultery, hating your brother equals murder, etc. He, like the law, made it clear that self righteousness would never be acceptable by God.

   Its almost like some people conveniently ignore the body of Jesus words that dove tail with Paul's teaching. Jesus taught salvation by faith, you have to read ALL he said to see that. You can't just cherry pick verses and build a theology of salvation on those selected passages. The Bible from beginning to end is in harmony, pointing to Jesus alone as the answer to our common sinfulness and the way to God and his acceptance.
3. Keith says:

   December 9, 2010 at 9:41 am

   Thanks for posting this link, Jay – the article is insightful! I think the main difference between what Jesus teaches and what Paul teaches can be chalked up to point-of-view … the difference between the Savior and one whom He has saved and chosen.
   ~ Keith Brenton
4. Anonymous says:

   December 9, 2010 at 10:16 am

   Fundamentally, I agree with Keith that the primary difference in point of view. To me, it's the difference between Jesus, the living embodiment of the new covenant, and Paul, the explainer.

   Paul, it seems to be, to constantly be explaining the application of Jesus teachings in specific situations to specific audiences. This is why "context" is so important to properly understanding Paul's writing.

   Effective communications begins with the idea that I can only communicate if you understand what I intended to say. This requires consideration of how the audience will hear the words I choose and how they will understand the examples I give.

   It is almost silly that any writer or speaker intends for individual sentences to be so completely analyzed and dissected the way we analyze and dissect the text of the New Testament, and especially the apostolic epistles.
5. Grizz says:

   December 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm

   I remember the first time I looked through a microscope. Oh the wonders of what it revealed. And I can remember the first time I looked through a telescope. Has there ever been such intense focus on points of light?

   When do you suppose I was seeing creation? Surely it was one or the other specifically and exclusively of the other, right?

   If the idea that I was seeing creation or wonder or beauty or focus or intensity exclusively in one or the other instance appeals to you, then you probably felt some disturbance in your world when you read that there is thought to be a tension between Jesus and Paul and what they taught.

   If, on the other hand, you understood that a microscope and a telescope are both specifically designed to specific intent, AND you also understood that neither the microscope nor the telescope are designed to do what our eyes are designed to do, then you probably were amazed to see seemingly intelligent people arguing over the dissonance between the views revealed by microscope and telescope.

   The biggest thing I wondered while reading McKnight's article was what I will be having for lunch. And then it came to me – this 'discussion' is like taking menus from various restaurants and comparing the presentations to wonder over how they differ and why. Which quisine will save me from starvation? Which is doing more socially or will have the most lasting effect on my hunger or the hunger of those who cannot afford to eat there or who choose one restaurant over another? How can we afford to eat before knowing whether the food prep is pre-packaged or made from scratch in the kitchen? Were any ingredients frozen or boiled or prepared without regard for internal temperatures?

   I hear the arguments. But frankly, I just ate lunch. And no, I will not be talking to you about where or why beyond this: I was hungry, so I got food and ate it.

   Oh yeah, I am a Christian – how about you? I follow Jesus, same way Paul did. Pass me a napkin, please.
6. Laymond says:

   December 9, 2010 at 1:42 pm

   I have never read a more convoluted attempt to reconcile, two things that the author himself said could not be reconciled.
   It all comes down to what the meaning of gospel is.? In other words it still comes down to the individual interpretation. (no it does not.)

   Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, ———
   Jhn 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
   Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
   Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.
   Jhn 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

   No Jesus did not come preaching Jesus.
7. guy says:

   December 9, 2010 at 3:00 pm

   Jerry,

   True about Acts–But Luke was the author. IOW, Luke got to choose what bits of Paul to emphasize or edit for his purposes. Seeing as how both his gospel and Acts are written to Theophilus, and seeing how his gospel record does reflect the Jesus/kingdom emphasis, perhaps Luke meant for the language between his gospel and Acts to be as seamless as he could make it.

   (Incidentally, that's why i think it's not a good idea to read Paul's epistles and try to read his words back into portions of Acts where Luke reports on Paul. i doubt Luke meant for Theophilus to have a clear and working knowledge of Paul's epistles as a prerequisite to understanding what Luke was writing to him.)

   –guy
8. Jay Guin says:

   December 9, 2010 at 10:21 pm

   All,

   It's important to note, as Guy has done, that Luke and Mark were both part of Paul's circle. It would be astonishing if they didn't see a consistency between their Gospels and Paul's understanding. After all, both Gospels were written well after much of Paul's work.

   Therefore, efforts to force a wedge between the Gospels and Paul have to be wrong, as a matter of history, long before you even get to the question of inspiration.

   Jesus preached the Kingdom because the Jews had been expecting the Kingdom and Jesus was the Messiah sent to usher it in.

   Forgiveness was part of the Kingdom message in the Prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus. The Kingdom is only for forgiven people.

   Of course, the impact of the resurrection on theology was only taught after the resurrection of Jesus. And the resurrection had a huge impact. It didn't repeal Kingdom theology by any means, but it did create a whole new way of understanding it — a different perspective that also opens the door for a richer understanding.

   I readily concede that the Protestant churches (and the Churches of Christ) have emphasized Paul to the near exclusion of Jesus and the Kingdom. But that hardly means that the two are opposed or even different.

   It would take too long to demonstrate (maybe another day), but I believe the element both sides miss is the Law and the Prophets. The picture of the Kingdom they paint is deepened and fulfilled by both Kingdom and justification-by-faith theology. The Law and the Prophets show that it absolutely cannot be one or the other.

   Both Jesus and Paul drink deeply from the Old Testament well. They speak at different times to different audiences — but about the same thing.

   Final note: I'm really bothered by those who want to elevate one over the other — even among very conservative commentators and ministers. Lately, Jesus is all the rage — which is good, unless we try to interpret Jesus without the benefit of the rest of the New Testament. After all, I've got to figure Paul, Peter, and John are better interpreters of Jesus than whoever wrote the latest hot book.

   I'm about to start a series on baptism. After I get done, someone remind me to write something more about Jesus and Paul. But not now.
9. Laymond says:

   December 10, 2010 at 8:14 am

   "It's important to note, as Guy has done, that Luke and Mark were both part of Paul's circle. It would be astonishing if they didn't see a consistency between their Gospels and Paul's understanding. After all, both Gospels were written well after much of Paul's work."

   Jay, when you get back to the reconciliation of Jesus to Paul, please address what relevance this sentence has to the subject. As I remember Paul was not mentioned in either of the versions of the gospel written by these two men, as a matter of fact I don't even see where Mark got along very well with Paul. Yes Luke spoke of Paul in Acts, as would be expected of a protege of one to do. but as I understand it Mark learned from Peter, not Paul. As a matter of fact it is said that Mark"s choice to not work with Paul, caused Paul to reject the company of Mark, as Paul was said to to when one disagreed with him. so Mark is not a witness I would call to defend Paul.
10. aBasnar says:

    December 10, 2010 at 11:14 am

    As I have read the article, I got the impression that the author still clings to the idea that justification is the focus of Paul's message, while Jesus focus was the Kingdom. In trying to show that both talked primarily about Jesus, he actually bypasses the problem.

    The cause of this tension lies in Protestant theology making justification (almost or completely?) and end in itself. Yet it is (only) a maens to an end: The end is: Entering the Kingdom of God where Christ reigns.

    In fact every time Jesus is mentioned with His titles Christ and/or Lord, every author (be it Paul or anyone else) builds on Acts 2:36 where Christ is seen at the right hand of the Father – a central Kingdom-theme!

    The reason justification is such a big issue in Paul's (and only in Paul's) writings lies in the debate whether Gentiles could be saved without being circumcised and keeping the Mosaic Law. Although answered once and for all in Acts 15, the debates still went on until the destruction of the temple. After that the Jerusalem Church of Christ could no longer keep the Law in the ways they were used to, and the Jews couldn't either. Pauls discourses on justification by faith were an answer to this debate – and only to this debate.

    Protestant theologians misused Paul's writings in their debates against Roman Catholicism. And Evangelicals misused them as an answer to the "Social Gospel". But Paul never taught that obendience was not nesessary for salvation! In fact he calls such ideas deceiving (Eph 5:5)!

    Paul taught the kingdom in many places:

    Using Christ's titles as Christ and Lord is one.
    The title "Son of God" or David's Son" is equally messianic.
    And "messianic" texts are kingdom-texts.
    His expectaion to reign with Christ after we have suffered with Him (mentioned frequently) kingdom-theology!
    His teaxchings on non-resistance and separation are kingdom-oriented.
    In fact: Paul's letters are full of the kingdom – it is a wrong approach to just count how often he used the word "kingdom".
    "Obedience of faith to all nations" = Kingdom of God = the fitst and last topic in Romans = central theme of Paul's message

    I'll close with a central Kingdom-Passage from Philippians:

    Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
    Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
    Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
    Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
    Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    To bow our knees and to confess Him as Lord is Kindom-language. Christ is King, let's bow our knees and obey His Word!

    Alexander
11. guy says:

    December 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    i agree with a lot of the critiques made against those who choose one over the other in the dichotomy. But it seemed to me that even McKnight's solution still have too much legitimacy to there being a tension or dichotomy. i think it may be a lot simpler than that.

    (1) i'm not sure why we think anytime a word comes out of a person's mouth in the Bible, that person's use of the word must be *identical* to every other person's use of that word. That just seems entirely unrealistic to me. Perhaps "gospel" just doesn't have a univocal meaning throughout the NT.

    (2) More importantly i think, Paul just wasn't dealing with the same issues or audiences that Jesus was. Paul's major work in his career was the Jew/Gentile problem. i believe that raging problem in the first century church would've (and did) dictated much of what Paul would choose to say and how he would choose to phrase it.

    i think this may be why Luke represents a great deal more "kingdom" talk on the part of Paul, because Luke was not primarily attempting to convince Theophilus why he should accept Gentiles. Luke does touch on this as an important issue. But his presentation of it is different than Paul's epistle-approach. Luke's volume on the subject is quite a bit less than Paul's. And when presenting the Jew/Gentile problem, Luke focuses a great deal more on Paul's interaction with the other apostles and leaders, while Paul focuses on addressing prejudice Jews and vulnerable Gentiles directly. Luke does spend a great deal more time recording Paul's missionary preaching–Paul trying to convert nonbelievers. None of Paul's epistles are written to that end. A great number of them are written to churches that are now trying to weather the Jew/Gentile problem (among other issues).

    Anyway, i think this matter of immediate purposes of the documents we have does far more explanatory work in showing that the tension is more contrived than real. McKnight's solution, to me anyway, suggests the tension is quite real.

    –guy
12. Jay Guin says:

    December 10, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Laymond,

    Col 4:10, 2 Tim 4:11, and Phm 1:24 all reflect that Mark later rejoined with Paul. The fact that he's mentioned in three separate epistles, spanning several years, demonstrates that they had an extensive relationship.
13. Joseph says:

    December 11, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    "The question is not whether Jesus and Paul contradict but why they do not."

    In bizarro land after you've snorted a few kilos of crack maybe.
14. Jay Guin says:

    December 11, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    [Comment from "Joseph" deleted for violating blog comment guidelines. URL blocked for use of a false email address.]
15. Comyndoc says:

    December 26, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    I do not see Jesus and Paul at separate poles. Paul had a throne vision at his conversion and saw Jesus on the throne and received the Gospel he preached from Jesus. Also, I do not think we should restrict the meaning of the Gospel as just "how to be saved". The Good News is that we can live (in some measure) the life of the Kingdom of God now, and also experience the righteousness of God (which Paul calls the essence of the Gospel in Romans).
    The Gospel means everything for the follower of Jesus: salvation,orthodoxy, and orthopraxy (true belief and true acts of faith).The Gospel is the whole paradigm of the Way of Jesus.
16. Theophilus says:

    September 8, 2012 at 1:15 am

    I learned a lot from reading this page. I was impressed with the wisdom and wit, the analogy and perception displayed by many brothers in Christ. I also learned that there are still among us today those who say, “I’m glad I’m not like other men,” while there are still others out here that stand at a distance and beat their chests. I’m pleased for those who have always had it right. I’m concerned for those who’ve come to this place by a different path–same Guide, but different path, who, like me, struggle around the fringe where much that is flawed is taught as Truth. I challenge you, brothers, to come out and see what it means to be one who was formed in the image of the Stranger–who stands alone waiting for someone to invite us in and befriend us. When you get twenty handshakes and a good number of pats on the back, do you notice the quiet brother who slips away, not because he is lazy or refuses to commit, but because he feels there is no way you could possibly relate to him, that you would never welcome him in, that you would never call him friend or brother in Christ? Do you consider the least of these at all?

Comments are closed.