Loading...I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his gospel, that by Christ’s death and resurrection a person is put into a restored relationship with God. He had several ways of explaining how it worked (the “judicial” model; the “participationist” model; and the other models I described). But in all of these ways, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that mattered. It was not keeping the Jewish law. It was not knowing or following Jesus’ teaching. It was not Jesus’ miracles. It was not … anything else. It was Jesus’ death and resurrection.
I then summarized in my previous post, the teaching of Jesus himself, about the coming Son of Man and the need to prepare by keeping the Law of God, as revealed in the Torah, as summarized in the commandments to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
Do these represent the same religion?
I see this as one of the most fundamental and important questions in all of early Christianity. I’m not asking if Paul invented Christianity, for reasons that I have explained: he inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors. But I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different.
The way I used to try to get to this in my undergraduate class was by having my students write a short paper with the following instructions.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Emphasizing the apocalypticism of Jesus, as you do, makes their messages more similar than is seen to be the case by those who do not accept or emphasize that Jesus was an apocalyptic. Jesus, believing that he was (or would be) the Messiah spoke in terms of the coming Son of Man, while Paul speaks of the coming of Jesus, who is now the Messiah and of the kingdom of God. He does not only speak of believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection but he teaches of the law of Christ, of the love of others fulfilling the law, of the law itself being holy, righteous, spiritual, and good, and his gospel says that God will judge the secret thoughts of all, and that the conflicting thoughts of one’s conscience can excuse one on that day of judgment. Even with respect to the law, Paul remained a good Jew, following in the footsteps of Antigonus of Soko.
OK, see my views in today’s post!
Dr Ehrman
Do you see any connection between Mt 5:19
“Therefore, whoever breaks one of the LEAST of these commandments , and teaches others to do the same, will be called LEAST in the Kingdom of Heaven….”
And
1 Cor 15:9
“For I am the LEAST of the Apostles, unfit to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the church of God”
I stress the word LEAST. Does it appear that Matthew was aware of Pauls writing and 5:19 was in direct reference to it?
They seem to be saying pretty different things about what “least” thing is important, so I’m not so sure. (It was a common word)
Hi Bart,
I’ve always wondered about the, “follow me”, comments written in Matthew that Jesus made to the rich young ruler.
Assuming Jesus actually said this, do you think he meant, “follow me” as in, ” go and do as I do”, or was he perhaps literally asking the rich young ruler to join him and travel with Him as a disciple?
Any thoughts?
John
I think he was asking him to follow him around as one of his close followers (though not one of the twelve). (Otherwise he wouldn’t have said “come”)
No doubt here that there is a difference. Evangelicals often explain it by a theology of dispensations. That theology of course requires adding another narrative to what ultimate ends up being a house of cards, when the trinity and dispensations and other things are all mixed into the hopper. The house stands only supported by a variety of complex theologies (theories) some of which are admittedly mysteries not meant to be understood by man.
Regarding the rich young ruler, doesn’t the giving away of wealth have everything to do with “urgency”? If the world is ending soon, why NOT go the extra mile, give it all away and gain extra favor from God? Presumably one could find favor with God by giving 50% thinking you require some cash for retirement, but would that express doubt in Jesus’ coming apocalypse?
Same with the sabbath violations (gathering grain, healing). Isn’t this an issue of urgency more than defiance of the Law? Too much to do and not enough time? Presumably Jesus could have respected the Law and told a sick man to come back the next day. What’s another day if you’ve had an affliction your entire life?
Interesting idea…
My students often simply never saw the difference, which I found rather amazing.
With all due respect,
Well, it is the Southern Baptist Bible belt; and I do suppose that many of them are suffering from apologetics overload, meaning, it isn’t so much what Jesus actually said, more than it is what he meant to say – never mind that he didn’t.
Not everyone who goes to one of the Big Four schools around here is from the South. That’s especially true of Carolina and the University of New Jersey in Durham…..err, I mean Duke University.
Wilow, you have a point. I too live in the bible belt and it’s almost impossible to have a rational discussion about the actual message of Jesus in this atmosphere. Instead to those with that mind set, It’s all about “me” and my “personal salvation”. I am asked continually if I am “saved”.
Madmargie,
🙂 Oh how well I can relate! There are hoards of irrational people (I came out of church of near 15,000 that’s grown to near 20,000) praying for my soul, who won’t only not listen to reason, they won’t be directed to “reason” within their own Bibles! Present passages of Scripture to them, and in particular Jesus’s own words, and they go off on a tangent, refusing to see.
And the message of the Old Testament, God is upset with humans and kills them, despite having made humans the way they are, is still different than the message of either Jesus or Paul.
Ronald,
Not that it is of any importance, or will mean much of anything to anyone other than me, myself: It is my belief that God made us “that” which we are – flesh, blood, bone and breath – His breath that brings forth life in all its forms. He didn’t make us the “way” we are. Our ways are our own.
That being said, the greatest of all killings, slaughterings, is yet to occur, according to the New Testament, when God Jesus returns to the earth, with all of his heavenly host, and slaughters ALL who do not bear his mark. ALL whose names are not written in the book. ALL who do not believe in him. ALL, which include, but not limited to, all Jews, all Hindus, all Buddhists, all Muslims, all other non-Christians, and even some Christians, such as the Mormons and the Catholics, according to some Christian teachings that denounce Mormonism, Catholicism and Jehovah Witnessism, etc, if you will. That’s billions of people, which isn’t to negate the absolute hundreds of millions already slaughtered in the name of Jesus, or for the cause of Islam, or even the spread of the ancient Roman empire. I find that stunning, and actually contrary to Old Testament teachings and the mercies of God that abound throughout, such as in the Psalms.
It is my absolute belief that at any given point in time WE, we the people of the earth, can bring about heaven on earth, and I even suspect that’s no less than what God expects from us – to just truly and wholly love not only Him, but one another, which is no less than that which Jesus taught.
Mark 12: 28-31
One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ “The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Keeping them would bring such peace to this world and so well abate God’s anger spent over a self-centered people who fail, time and time again, to simply and wholly, love.
It seems obvious to me that the historical Jesus never told anyone that he would have to die and to resurrect in order to perform some sort of cosmic ritual that would allow people to gain ‘eternal life’ under certain conditions.
If his followers had expected him to resurrect then why would they a. have been sad about him ‘dying’, b. have gone to the tomb to perform the funeral rites and c. then be surprised that it was empty (according to the story)?
That makes no sense. What happened was that Jesus got executed, to his surprise and that of his followers (although they might have thought that would trigger the coming of ‘the Son of Man’, which it didn’t). His followers returned to Galilee, crushed, where then at least one of them had an epiphany and reinterpreted the defeat as a cosmic victory. And the rest is history.
Dr Ehrman, in addressing the second argument people bring up about the Matthew passage compared to Paul’s thought, you said: “If Jesus really thought that a person could have eternal life by following the law and could have treasures in heaven by giving away all his property, why would *he* think it was necessary for him to die?”
Would your view about Jesus’ coming death, as portrayed by the Synoptics, be that he didn’t know he was going to die, but got in trouble in Jerusalem due to the Temple episode and was executed to prevent any political revolt? If that is the case, do you believe Christ’s statement in Mark about his death being a “ransom for many” (describing the purpose of his foreseen future death) were not statements Jesus actually said but were added by the Gospel writers? What about the Last Supper with the broken body and blood poured out…did this actually happen or was it probably added as part of the Passion narrative?
Thank you for your helpful posts!
In my view Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels *does* know that he is going to die, and why. But also in my view, that is not a historically accurate assessment.
I’ve heard some pastors argue that Paul did not refer to literal belief as a requirement for salvation. Rather, he meant some sort of implicit belief in Jesus, which leads people to live righteously. (This argument is usually made to cope with the fact that Jesus taught that moral actions lead to salvation whereas Paul taught that belief leads to salvation.) Is there any truth to this argument? If not, are there any logical ways to cope with this disagreement (without turning to far-fetched arguments)?
I’d say it’s almost impossible to get that out of Paul’s letters, but it makes sense for someone who wants to reconcile Paul’s views with Jesus’.