Two misinterpretations

There are two misinterpretations of Jesus and Paul, and the relationship between the two. They are two ways of looking at things that could not be more different:

• Jesus and Paul say the same thing
• Jesus and Paul have nothing to do with each other.

Both views are extremes. There is something to both views. As is so often the case, deeper understanding is about a process of differentiation. Where do Jesus and Paul say the same thing? And where don’t they? Such open questions can be challenging, because theological debates with far-reaching consequences run along the borderlines of these questions. To ask oneself such questions is to try to trace the statements of the New Testament. Getting into the questions and discourses of the time is just as exciting as then considering the relevance for church and community today.

Are Jesus and Paul saying the same thing?

That Jesus and Paul are saying the same thing is a view that is widely held in Christian circles. It sees the New Testament as a collection of reports and letters with only one message. There is no consciously perceived differentiation within the New Testament. Jesus and Paul are saying essentially the same thing, simply in different words.

Typical features of this first view are:

• Jesus already speaks to today’s church in the gospels
• Statements of the gospels are “spiritualized” (e.g. discipleship)
• Where Israel is spoken of, this is transferred without further ado to today’s congregation from all nations
• Paul is the missionary who takes the message of Jesus out into the world
• Paul simply adapts the message of Jesus for the gentile peoples a bit
• The demands of the Torah addressed to Israel are supposed to have partial relevance (10 commandments, tithes, etc.) also for the congregation from all nations
• Other demands in turn (circumcision) no longer have any relevance (unfounded and selective perception)
• Orientation for sermon and way of life is largely based on the Gospels
• etc.

This is a dramatic simplification of the New Testament. This simplistic view is problematic for many reasons. First, Jesus is removed here from the context of the time. Who He was, what His mission was, to whom He spoke – all this is not examined. Everything is uncritically related to one’s own situation, or to today’s community. There is no critical examination of the text in context, so to speak. What Jesus says in the Gospels is expected in the rest of the New Testament without further differentiation. It’s all the same, isn’t it? Thus, the development after resurrection and ascension is not taken into account.

Completely left out are questions like these: Why was Paul called to be the 13th apostle? Was that necessary? Were not the 12 apostles already sent out into all the world? Why didn’t the 12 implement this? What actually happened in the book of Acts? How are the letters of the apostle Paul to be classified? What happened to Israel? Does Israel have a future, and if so, where do we read about it in the New Testament? How do the 12 apostles relate to Paul?

Who among the 12 apostles ever implemented the Great Commission? None!

These and other questions are not asked because it is assumed a priori that the same message resounds everywhere in the New Testament and that everywhere it is only about today’s church.

That’s one way of looking at it. Now let’s look at the second view.

Did Jesus and Paul have a different message?

There are many contrasts between the Gospels and Paul’s letters. They always lead to disputes.

One recognizes supposed contradictions that are quickly swept under the rug by others. Among the various views, there is also a radical view that states that Paul abandoned the teaching of Jesus. With Paul, then, the biblical witness runs off the rails. Or to put it bluntly: The problems begin with Paul. Others describe it like this: Only with Paul the Christian church starts, because until and with Jesus everything was still purely Jewish. Christianity, then, was a reinvention of Paul. Jesus remained a Jew, with an expectation for Israel, while Paul moved away from this context.

Jewish New Testament scholars who study Jesus and Paul repeatedly note that Jesus was not associated with a particular Christian church, but He acted as a Jew, with a thoroughly Jewish message. He spoke of the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. Jesus never went beyond that. In churches, people are usually not aware of this. Among Christians, the majority has lost sight of this, because people have become too accustomed to the tint of their own eyeglass lenses to be able to recognize the original colors.

This Jewish expectation – only Paul deviates from it. Thus, according to this view, a dividing line does not run between Tenach (Old Testament) and New Testament, but between Paul and the rest of the Bible. In an extreme form, Paul, or the ancestral Christian identity or the ecclesiastical understanding of the congregation, is then rejected.

Typical features of this second view are:

• Jesus spoke as a Jew to Jews
• Jesus spoke about a Jewish expectation
• Paul spoke as a Jew to Gentiles
• Paul spoke about an expectation for gentiles
• Jesus remained firmly anchored in Israel and in the promises to the fathers
• Paul left Israel and the Jewish expectation and started something new
• Jesus’ concepts of faith and understanding of God were different from Paul’s (e.g. Martin Buber in “Two Types of Faith“, which is however presented in a more versatile way in David Flusser’s epilogue).
• Paul turns away from the message of Jesus
• Paul teaches a different image of God, worldview and humanity than Jesus (and Judaism)

Some of this is important knowledge. They are things that are concretely taken from the biblical text. However, other points are problematic.

When does this view become problematic? Differences are sometimes seen as separating Jesus and Paul from each other. There is a polarization that pits Jesus against Paul. The agreements are forgotten, as is Paul’s strong Christocentric preaching. However, those who present the differences as insurmountable conclude here that while Paul is centered on Christ, this Christ is a completely different one than the Messiah of Israel. From here it is only a small step to the assumption that Paul founded a new religion.

For Jewish readers of the New Testament, this is quite understandable, all the more so as the church has moved further and further away in tradition from the original context of the New Testament. Perhaps, however, one could draw parallels here to the Tenach and the Jewish traditions, which likewise move away from the origin. Wasn’t that what Jesus was criticizing over and over again? Nevertheless, there are differences between Jesus and Paul.

Recognize differences

The controversy over Jesus and Paul is an important controversy over the understanding of the Bible. Specifically, it is about understanding the New Testament. But it is also about the persons and groups that are mentioned there: Jesus, his disciples – the later apostles, in addition also Paul as an additional apostle – it is about the church and of course about Israel and Israel’s expectation. All these people are inseparably intertwined. Inseparable also means: We cannot simply divide Jesus and Paul. Without Jesus, there would not have been a Paul. Without Paul, however, the church would not have existed today.

Without Jesus, there would not have been a Paul. Without Paul, however, the church would not have existed today.

It is striking that not the 12 apostles, but Paul as the 13th apostle did the greatest evangelistic work(1 Cor. 15:10). Why did this happen? Why is one on the road all over the world while the others stayed more or less at home? But that’s not all. Certain expressions like “body of Christ” are found only in Paul’s letters. They became the basis of today’s understanding of the church. On the other hand, an expression like “kingdom of heaven” is found only in the gospels, there even only in Matthew.

So there are peculiarities that are found only in a group of reports or letters and have no meaning anywhere else. So some expressions appear only here, not there. They are in one context but not mentioned in another context. So it is by no means the case that everyone always talks about the same thing. And this justifies the question about the “differences and agreements between Jesus and Paul”.

Between cult and faith

One more problem wants to be mentioned here: our own view of the Bible. The images we make for ourselves of biblical figures can easily become cult figures. A cult figure is never what the person himself is, but only what the followers make of it. Not always can the images of Jesus celebrated today be found back in Scripture.

Again and again I observe something like a Jesus cult, when things are thought and said that are far removed from the biblical testimony. Jesus can become a cult figure, a religious projection screen that has little in common with the Bible. When the name of Jesus is mentioned in every other sentence, but never referenced to the context of the New Testament, I quickly suspect religious projection. Such things have little to do with the biblical testimony. Sobriety would be the pleasant contrast to this. Didn’t something similar happen with the person of Mary in the Catholic Church? We can quote things and people from the Bible without really being familiar with them (cf. Mt 7:21-23). It is not enough to simply quote things from the Bible.

According to the Bible, Jesus is not a projection screen and cult figure. Jesus is not to be demystified here, but merely considered in his own context. We have to decide for ourselves between cult and faith. As a principle, one could state here: What is written wants to be taken seriously. No more and no less. The same is to be done for Paul, for example. For Paul is not to be stylized as a founder of religion, but only to be recognized in his own context. Just as Jesus came with a mission, Paul also came with a mission.

A new approach

The testimony of the Bible, however, allows for a third approach that is well grounded in Scripture. We now want to give this a little more space here as an alternative consideration. The point is to read and understand the testimonies in their own context. Differences between Jesus and Paul are then the result of different situations, different missions and different audiences. Each message has value in its own context, but cannot be readily applied to another context. So it’s not “either Jesus, or Paul”, nor “do they both talk about the same thing everywhere”.

So it’s not “either Jesus, or Paul”, nor “do they both talk about the same thing everywhere”.

Simplified, one could say that the time before the cross is not equal to the time after the resurrection. This would already provide a great deal of clarity. Also, one could see that Jesus, as a Jew, spoke almost exclusively to Jews – leaving some encounters with proselytes. Paul, on the other hand, goes out into the world and speaks primarily to gentiles. This statement also already helps in the interpretation of the biblical story. But that is just the beginning. There is more.

But everything in turn.

Envoy

Jesus came forth from God (John 8:42). He came into the world for judgment to make – figuratively – the blind see and the seeing blind (Jn 9:39), He came not to call the righteous but sinners (Mk 2:17). Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1Tim 1:15). Jesus was recognized by others as the Son of God (Jn 1:34, Jn 1:49 and many more), which description would fit the expected Messiah according to the high priest (Mt 26:63, compare also Peter’s statement in Mt 16:16).

Jesus Himself says that He came “in the name of His Father” (John 5:43). Paul, on the other hand, came as a “slave of Jesus Christ, called apostle” (Rom 1:1). Immediately after Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and his life received a new foundation, he began to proclaim in the synagogue in Damascus that “Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20).

So Jesus came on behalf of God, who sent Him. Paul came as a messenger of Jesus Christ.

Two orders

Let’s listen to what Jesus said about His own mission:

“I was sent merely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Mt 15,24

Jesus came to save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). In the context, this people does not mean the church, but clearly the people of Israel. Paul confirms this later when he writes:

“For I say, Christ became the minister of circumcision for the truthfulness of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers.”
Rom 15:8

Paul, however, received a completely different assignment. Of this commission Jesus said to Ananias in Damascus:

“This one is a chosen device unto Me, to bear My name before the eyes of the nations, as well as of kings and the sons of Israel.”
Acts 9:15-16

Although Israel is also mentioned here, what is quite new is that Christ Jesus was called an apostle specifically for the non-Israel peoples. Paul was the apostle of the nations (Rom 11:13) and he writes:

“Therefore I, Paul, am the bound of Christ Jesus for you who are of the Gentiles.”
Eph 3:1

Thus, two orders stand side by side here:

1. Jesus’ mission was first and specifically to Israel,
2. the apostle Paul was called by Jesus (!) especially for the rest of the nations.

With this, differences in the statements of Jesus and Paul could now be well justified and presented in an understandable way.

Paul and the 12 Apostles

Paul’s calling deserves a closer look. In fact, there were already 12 apostles who had received the command to go out into the whole world. This was the so-called “Great Commission” (Mt 28:19) that Jesus gave to His disciples. Why then is Paul still needed, who is additionally sent to the nations? Paul is not even part of the 12 apostles.

Already the calling of Paul in Acts 9 is a departure from the situation Jesus set up in the Gospels. When Judas’ place was replaced, the rest of the apostles indicated there what was needed for the office of apostle: it had to be someone who had already gone along with the rest from the time of John’s baptism until the Ascension (Acts 1:21-22). This is how it was handled by the apostles in Jerusalem. But this was obviously not the case with Paul. What was actually going on here?

Something else is thought-provoking: who among the apostles ever implemented the Great Commission? None! Not only did the 12 apostles never obey the Great Commission, but there is a clear difference between the wording of that Great Commission and Paul’s ministry. Jesus spoke of making disciples of whole nations. Paul, on the other hand, calls people “from” all nations.

Whether whole nations are made disciples or individuals from the nations are called into the church is just not the same. Whatever else might be said about this, one thing is clear: Paul never implemented the Great Commission either. He never speaks of it in the way Jesus spoke of it. Paul does not make disciples of nations. Nor does he teach them to “keep commandments” as Jesus explicitly stated in the “Great Commission.”

Believers from the nations, called through Paul’s ministry, are never called “disciples.” This term belongs entirely in the Gospels. In summary: The apostles did not carry out the Great Commission – neither the Twelve nor Paul. The burning question here would be why is that?

The apostles did not carry out the Great Commission – neither the Twelve, nor Paul. The burning question here would be why is that?

While Paul was far more active than any of the other apostles (1 Cor. 15:10), his travels were not “missionary journeys,” even though they like to be called that. Paul was on his way with a different message and did not make disciples of nations. Paul does not have the same in mind as the twelve in Jerusalem. The Epistle to the Galatians describes in detail how the circumstances take place.

After his beginning of faith, Paul reports that it “seemed good” to God to reveal His Son in him, that he might preach Him as the gospel among the nations. He did not present this gospel to the other apostles, but went first into the Arabian desert (Gal 1:15-17). It was not until 3 years later that Paul went to Jerusalem, first as a personal visit, and then again, 14 years later, to present the gospel he preached to the 12 apostles as well (Gal 1:18 to Gal 2:2).

My Gospel

What is “the gospel preached by him [Paulus] “?

At the end of the Epistle to the Romans , Paul speaks of “his gospel” which was “according to the revelation of a mystery that was hidden in eonian times , but now has been revealed “ (Rom 16:25). Not only does the apostle here speak explicitly of a gospel belonging to “him,” that is, of something that characterizes his preaching, but likewise he speaks of this gospel coming by revelation. Revealed was a secret, something that was unknown until then. And this is what happened:

“For I make known unto you, brethren, that the gospel which I preach is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it; rather, it came to me by a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Gal 1:11-12

So Paul did not receive the gospel he preached from the 12 apostles. He received it directly through a revelation from Jesus Christ. It was new because what had been hidden until then was revealed. Perhaps he received details during the time he was in the Arabian desert? In any case, he was to proclaim Jesus as God’s Son among the nations (Gal 1:16). Let’s keep in mind that this was about a good news of Jesus Christ. Jesus is central here. It is about His person. That is the unifying factor between different expressions. This establishes the realization that others recognized, “He who once persecuted us now proclaims as gospel the faith he once followed. And they glorified God in view of me” (Gal 1:23-24).

Nevertheless, there were differences. Then, according to a new revelation, when he went up to Jerusalem, it was to present “his” gospel to the other apostles in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2). He met with James, Cephas (Peter) and John (Gal 2:9).

“… I went up after a revelation and presented the gospel to them (especially to those in authority), which I preached among the nations, so that I would not have run into the void.
Gal 2:2

Two Gospels and two target groups

If Paul had preached exactly the same thing as the 12 apostles, there would have been no need to present it specifically. While both the 12 apostles and Paul spoke of Jesus, they each did so in their own context.

• Context of the 12 apostles: The good news that the 12 apostles proclaimed stems from the same expectation and proclamation as Jesus’ proclamation. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, for (primarily) Israel.
• Context for Paul: Paul was proclaiming previously unknown things and was specifically addressing the non-Israelites.

“But of those who are respected (whatever reputation they once had, as if they were something, does not matter to me, since God does not think anything of a man’s external reputation), these respected ones did not submit anything else to me, but on the contrary, because they saw that I was not to be trusted with the I am entrusted with the gospel of uncircumcision, as Peter was entrusted with that of circumcision (for the one in Peter for the Apostleship of the circumcision works, he also works in me for the nations), and recognizing the grace given to me, James, Cephas, and John, who are considered pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we worked for the nations, but they worked for circumcision…”
Gal 2:6-9

Two things are at stake here: the scope of the order and its effect on the one hand, and the content of the order on the other. Paul was entrusted with the gospel of uncircumcision , just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel of circumcision. Likewise, Peter was entrusted with the apostleship to the circumcision, just as Paul was entrusted with the apostleship to the nations. They recognized each other’s mission and gave each other the brotherly hand.

Furthermore, it was stated that the 12 apostles had their own gospel for the believers from Israel, as well as Paul had his own gospel for the nations. What Paul proclaimed was due to new revelations of Jesus Christ. This was certainly challenging for the other apostles to understand, as Peter also reported later:

“Wherefore, beloved, in this expectation, to be found spotless and immaculate before Him in peace, consider the patience of our Lord for salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also wrote unto you according to the wisdom given unto him, as also in all the epistles, when he cometh in them to speak of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unfortified distort unto their own destruction, as also the rest of the scriptures.”
2Pet 3:14-16

The same gentleman, different goals

So although we get clear indications in this passage as in others that all the apostles were in contact with each other, it was also obvious that their messages and audiences were different. They built on the one Lord, Jesus Christ, as well as on the same knowledge that He was the Son of God. The same cross and the same resurrection are the foundation. However, the target groups are different and the outlook is also different.

Peter and the rest of the apostles of the 12 had in mind the establishment of the kingdom for Israel after 3 years of instruction from Jesus (Acts 1:6). Jesus had spoken about this in the Gospels. In the same line of Old Testament promises, Peter spoke to the believers from Israel as from a spiritual vanguard: “But you are a chosen race, a ‘royal priesthood,’ a ‘holy nation'” (1Pet 2:9, Ex 19:6). This was the outlook of the prophets, that first Israel should repent to its God, and only afterwards, through the “royal priesthood of the now sanctified nation of Israel,” would the rest of the nations be blessed. It is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. As the prophet Micah writes, for example:

“And it shall come to pass at the end of the days, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall stand firm as the head of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills. And nations shall flow unto it, and many nations shall go, saying, Come, and let us go up unto the mountain of the LORD, and unto the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us in his ways. And we will walk in his ways. For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
Mi 4,2

The prophets, Jesus and the 12 apostles all speak of the establishment of the messianic kingdom for Israel. Israel’s salvation is the turning point. Then the word will go out from Jerusalem and the nations will be discipled, as the Great Commission describes.

In Paul, however, the nations are not blessed by Israel’s obedience, but by Israel’s disobedience (Rom 11:11-15). So what Paul writes is on a different page of history than the prophets had ever seen. That’s the way it is with secrets – they were unknown before (Rom 16:25). What we call the church today, the “ekklesia” or called out from all peoples, is not a “reinvention of Paul,” but it is a “revelation of a mystery.”

Now here is the differentiation: God calls out more than just one church. The church in Jerusalem was the vanguard, the firstfruits from Israel. This church was called out of Israel (Mt 16:18) so that the people as a whole might be saved (cf. Peter’s call at Pentecost, Acts 2:36). The church from all nations, however, was called out because of a new calling, for which Paul was chosen as an instrument. He spoke of secrets that were now being revealed.

That is why there are differences between Jesus and Paul, or between Peter and Paul. They are not diametrically opposed, nor do they talk entirely of the same thing. The differences, however, should be recognized and appreciated.

The expectation for Israel foresees a blessing and a future on earth, while Paul is the only apostle to speak of a heavenly citizenship. This is like a key to understanding the New Testament. The key can now be easily applied to the reading of the New Testament. The statements are clear: they are indications of correlations. We should find the courage to interpret biblical passages in their own context.

The story continues

Within the New Testament there is a development. The story continues. In Ephesians, the apostle describes the situation for the Gentile believers as follows:

“But now, in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have become near by Christ’s blood. For He is our peace, who made the two [Glaubende aus Israel und solche aus den Nationen] one and broke down the middle wall of enclosure (the enmity in His flesh) … to create the two in Himself into one new humanity.”
Eph 2:13-18

Paul is not writing to unbelievers here. He writes to believers from the nations. “You who were once afar off,” these were the Gentile believers who did not have the same access as the children of Israel at the beginning of the proclamation. Remember the Canaanite woman who comes to Jesus because of her demon-possessed daughter (Matt. 15:22-28). She addresses Jesus as “Son of David,” and refers as a foreigner, a non-Jew, to the expectation of Israel. Jesus answered her, “It is not nice to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” The Jews, they are the children. The little dogs, these are the nations that include the Canaanite woman. This woman was aware that she actually did not quite belong. But she had faith and answered, “Yes, Lord! For even the little dogs eat of the refuse that falls from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, your faith is great; let it be done to you as you wish! And from that hour her daughter was healed.”

In this short story, in which Jesus limits His task to Israel, He does know a blessing for non-Jewish people, but it is comparable to the breadcrumbs that fall from the table. It is not much. This changes only hesitantly elsewhere, for example when Peter gets involved with proselytes. He had to be persuaded by visions to let a proselyte like Cornelius come closer to him (Acts 10).

This hesitant attitude toward the gentiles changes only with Paul. With Paul, grace becomes great. That, too, took time. Only in the Epistle to the Ephesians, written from his imprisonment in Rome at the end of His life, does He come to speak of the mystery. No more mediator function of Israel, no differences between believers from Israel and from the nations, but all have access to the Father in one Spirit (Eph 2:18). This, Paul writes, was the mystery of Christ, which was unknown before. But there – in one of his last letters – he makes this known:

“In the Spirit, [highlight] those from the nations [/highlight] are common lot-shareholders and a common body and common partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the gospel, of which I have become a minister, according to the gift of God’s grace…”
Eph 3:6-7

Together with the believers from Israel – that was the secret. That was new. What we call church today is essentially built on this realization. This is the characteristic of the church from all nations, called by the gospel of grace, that in it Jew and Gentile are one, and that they both have direct access to the Father – completely without mediation from a priestly ministry of Israel. This is a defining characteristic of the new humanity in Christ Jesus. In the Gospels, however, nothing of this was known.

So there is a development taking place in the New Testament. Tracing them helps to better understand the biblical story in the New Testament. A better understanding of the statements of Jesus, as well as of the statements of Paul, gives clarity for preaching.

Deepening

• What is more formative for you: the accounts of Jesus from the Gospels, or the accounts of the Risen Lord in the letters of the Apostle Paul? What input did this article give you?
• Paul reports at the end of His life that all in Asia Minor have forsaken him(2 Tim. 1:15). This was his greatest area of activity. Has Paul also been forgotten many times in preaching today?
• Not only was Paul largely left at the door, but Peter was chosen in his place by church tradition to be the apostle to the church from the nations. This is how the Roman Catholic Church sees the Pope as Peter’s successor. Can that be questioned now?
• The Reformation was triggered by Martin Luther when he understood the message of the Letter to the Romans (a Pauline letter!). With that came the liberation. Could it spark a reformation again today if we go back to Paul? What would a more differentiated reading of the New Testament then have to look like?
• Where in the New Testament do we find church doctrine?
• Where in the New Testament do we find outlook and fulfillment for Israel?