This article is right on!
Excellent.
I note that one of the things that so many miss in Paul's writings is that he did all of the logic and explanation to get the believers in each city to which he was writing to consider what they needed to do (read "live") differently. Be one with other races or classes. Live their life according to the Spirit. On and on the list goes. No matter how eloquently he made his long arguments, he almost always circled back to the underlying problem with the local believers’ lack of practical following. They thought they couldn’t do it — Paul told them why they could. They thought that freedom from the law meant they didn’t have to — he told them why they should anyway. It was not about the logic and argument. It was about following Jesus.
Yes! I've wondered about this for quite a while...I've also been teaching, whenever I get the chance, that we should study the gospels and then study them again and then again, as long as necessary, until we really get the feel of what Jesus had to say and THEN move on to other writings to help CLARIFY what Jesus had to say. Of the scriptures that seem to contradict any thing Jesus said, well, I think Jesus should be the ultimate authority and if something doesn't make sense, it is most likely because WE are looking at it with a perspective not intended by the authors of the other books.
Dear pastor, I read your very intresting article on Paul V Jesus and find it, provacative as well as facinating. Thank you for the magnifying of some of our struggles with intellect v the simplicity of comming to our friend, brother, saviour Jesus Christ.
nelly guerra
There is certainly some differences between their teachings - this is natural since Jesus was a democrat and Paul was a Republican (just kidding, but I like to use this comment to stir up discussion :-). Does anybody feel like I do about this, that we should study Paul's writings in the context of the teachings of Jesus? It seems to me that Paul's intention was to provide a practical model of what it looked like to follow Christ: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" 1 Cor 11.1. I don't see any indication that Paul had any intentions of upstaging Jesus or redefining what it meant to be a follower. In other words, the problem is with us, just as it was with the Corinthian church. We have a worm's eye view of scripture and can't see the big picture. I like to go back to the original mission statement, as announced by the angel: "peace on earth, good will toward men". This is God's announcement of coming attractions, so I try to interpret both Jesus and Paul in light of this larger theme.
Thank you for that article. I've noticed something similar myself.
I once had a young man set out to tell me how he would "disciple" a new Christian. He started, "First we would study through Romans ..."
In your article you give some good reasons why American's start with Paul to get to Jesus. I've looked at this from another perspective - I see this as being the fruit of the Reformation movement.
Possibly the major theological keys of the Reformation was the doctrine of Salvation by Grace (As borrowed from Augustine and expanded upon). Because of this the Reformers centered themselves around Paul's letter to the Romans (and Galatians to a lesser extent). The whole New Testament then began to be interpreted through this writing.
The radical-reformers, or anabaptists, of the time instead focused more on the Gospels and teachings of Jesus, even more narrowly at his sermon on the mount, though their movement never reached the popularity of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and the other sects that sprung from there.
Reading Jesus is amazing and interesting for me, because, often there is so much discovery and no easy answers. There are times when Jesus is chastises his disciples saying, "Didn't you understand the meaning of ..." and his words are hitting me because I'm thinking, "No I don't understand ...".
While Jesus explains some of his parables others he doesn't - leaving us to ponder. I think there is plenty of room for spiritual discovery there so long as you are ready to toss away hundreds of years of Bible commentaries telling you what Jesus meant.
I think Jesus also challenges us because his words are so radical you find yourself wondering - how could I possibly do this? Like with the rich young ruler - who is ready to give up EVERYTHING?
Paul is important - while Jesus certainly expressed that the way would be open to the Gentiles - it was left for his Apostle to the Nations, Paul to articulate the nuts and bolts of it. It is an important revelation that we can be thankful for.
Actually, by including the words of Paul in the Scriptures, Paul's words become Jesus' words, or else the Word of God is not the word of God. Attempts, and there have been many over the years, to remove Paul from a place of importance merely are attempts to remove doctrine from its place of importance.
Why do I always comment AFTER bobbobnabob?! :)
He brings up a good point...although I would let it illustrate a flip side. We should be humble about the gospels like we would about Paul. We are not getting uninterpreted access to Jesus in the gospels - they weren't written by Jesus after all, but by apostles like Paul.
I love your article, Keith. Especially the hypotheses why we seem to start with the letters instead of the gospels.
N.T. Wright wrote a great book called "Paul", which seems to build bridges where the protestant reformation might have created gaps.
Jesus wrote the music...then Paul and the other N.T. writers played the music (inspired variations, but variations on that theme).
By implication, we (Church) are now playing variations. Not variations in the sense of unfaithful re-writing (although that certainly happens), but variations in the sense that the Word is living and active and our Lord is still creating the music in and through us.
Thanks, Keith, for that reminder that going to the Source is preferable to even the best "translator." I think that attitude of going first to the Epistles -- and not just Paul's letters -- is a habit many have developed because, as you said, Jesus is (A) sometimes hard to understand, and (B) Jesus is just too radical for many folks to take at face value. When we find Jesus' words hard to grasp, we turn to Paul to lay it all out for us, to help us apply the Master's words. When Jesus' words get too extreme, then we back off and we try to justify saying, "Well, Jesus didn't really MEAN that, He was just speaking to Jews of the time or just speaking figuratively. Paul said it differently." But to say such things robs the Bible of inerrancy and robs the Lord of His wisdom and power to change lives.
I praise God that my senior pastor has a heart for going to the red letters first, and not shying away from Christ's "radical" lessons and examples. Even Paul gives deference to Christ. Shouldn't we?
Since it doesn't appear that you all believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, has it occurred to you that without it, even the "words of Jesus" are merely words that the writers said he said? How are the second-hand words of the gospels then more accurate than the first-hand words of the epistles in communicating the speaker's intent? And how could Jesus explain the significance of his death and resurrection before it occurred? He needed someone like Paul and the other apostles to give his followers the true meaning after the critical events. What you are saying is that you prefer to make up your own meaning rather than accept the one given to us by God himself.
My dear friend Bobbobnobob,
If you would re-read my article above I think you'll notice that I am not saying what you suggest I am saying. In fact, to quote myself:
"I want to be careful to say that, in our discussion about America's fascination with Paul, we are not down-playing the importance of Paul or his teachings. Both Paul and Jesus are authoritative and their words are meant to be taken as Scripture, we are not cutting the letters of Paul out of our Bibles."
What I AM saying is that we should major on Jesus and minor on Paul, not the other way around. Jesus is our Lord and Savior. He is our blue-print for living the Kingdom life. He is the One we are following daily by laying down our lives and petty kingdoms in order to love as He loved.
This article is not about the authority of Paul's epistles. The entire New Testament is inspired by the Holy Spirit. All of it. But if we are really following Jesus then we must become experts in the words of Jesus and begin to put His words into practice daily. We cannot do that if we don't know what the words of Jesus are...can we?
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete." - Jesus (Luke 6:46-49)
-kg
Greetings, Pastor Keith!
Once again your words encourage and stimulate. ALL of your words.... That said, one particular paragraph is confirmation to me that I'm on the right track: "I would encourage everyone who reads this to begin studying the red letters in Matthew. Let the words of Jesus nourish your soul like warm bread from the oven. Let the wisdom of Jesus refresh your life like cool water on the tongue."
These days I'm committed to a particular exercise: writing the words of Jesus in the order in which He said them. Using The Reese Chronological Bible as my guide and my New King James version as my reference, I'm working my way through the Gospels and will conclude with His farewell in the first chapter of Acts. It's taking quite a while but is well worth the effort, as the time it takes me to type what I read -- and verify I did so correctly -- is providing wonderful opportunities to ponder.
The last time I did something like this I wrote about David's life from when he was anointed until the Israelites accepted him as their king. It was fascinating to read all those passages in the order they were written, with the Psalms intermingled with Samuel and Chronicles. I look forward to an equally insightful study once this project is complete.
Thank you for your continued encouragement.
all of Heaven's best....
Hi bobbobnabob...it's me again!
Your comment about inspiration was probably meant for me, but I suspect that anyone making a distinction between the gospel-writers accounts of Jesus and Paul's letters to the churches blurs the line. "It's all the words of Jesus."
One of my biggest questions would be, "What do you mean by inspiration?"
The new testament says that all scripture is god-breathed and useful for teaching, correction, rebuke...
However, what would scripture mean to those hearers? Did they consider Paul's writings or the gospels scripture? Or just the old testament?
To what extent did the new testament church consider the gospels and the epistles "scripture"? Or was it only after 300 years that they considered it scripture?
To what extent did Paul think that what he was writing was 'scripture'? What do we do with a passage like Paul saying "I, Paul say this...not the Lord." It's in the Bible, so it IS the Lord, right? Or not? Maybe just that one phrase is not the Lord?
I believe in the inspiration of the new testament. But I also believe that inspiration is more mysterious than we moderns like to think. God didn't use the apostles like a typewriter (or printing press). There's obviously some collaboration going on.
Whatever your views of inspiration, can we agree that we've got to understand the context of those writings and appropriate them to our own lives with humility? As Paul says "We see dimly...but then we will see face to face."
You're awesome. Thanks for your sharp questions.
No, Joey, I wasn't singling you out. Inspiration, at its base level, means that everything that appears in Scripture is meant to be there, and the words of each of the individual writers are to be taken as if they were written by God himself. It's as if God (or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit) had said at the very end, "This is God and I approve this message."
Therefore, when you say you favor the acts of Jesus over the words of Paul, you aren't really distinguishing between two people and prioritizing them, you are distinguishing between two aspects of the same message and prioritizing them. In this case, it is the visible works of Jesus over against the doctrine of Paul that explains the invisible significance of those works.
The church today desperately craves to follow the outward acts of Jesus, but could care less about what he was accomplishing behind the scenes, and criticizes the "traditional" church for focusing as it does on Paul's revelation. It only cares about half of the story--in the process demoting the importance of the half that gives the other meaning. Thus, it shows that it holds onto "a form of godliness, but lacks the power thereof."
Joey-- did the NT church consider the epistles to be Scripture? Yes, and we can see evidence of this when Peter refers to the writings of Paul as such. (Read 2 Peter 3:15-16 for example).
Bobbobnobob-- Can you please elaborate on what you mean when you refer to "what (Jesus) was accomplishing behind the scenes" ? What does that mean?
And if we're not all interested in following the outward acts of Jesus (caring for the poor, loving the lost, showing mercy and compassion to the sick, etc.) then who gives a rip about what Jesus was doing "behind the scenes"? I think this is a false dichotomy since Jesus Himself requires us to obey His words and to put them into practice. If we do that we'll have more than enough to keep us busy.
Love ya! kg
I think the Bible is a living Word and that no one part of it is more or less important than another. Whether a person studies the Torah, the Ketuvim, the Prophets, the Gospels, the midrash of Paul, or whatever, all of it is equally important. I really liked the article because for me it shows how Christians often think Paul's words have a sort of "updated" authority over the teachings of Yeshua before He died on the cross.
For example, Jesus clearly taught that the Torah was still in effect, and that if anyone broke the least commandments of the Torah and then taught others to break them, that person was the lowest. It seems that many Christians like to do away with that passage from Matthew by quoting something from Paul; unfortunately, Paul is greatly misunderstood by Protestants. He never taught the Torah is abolished, or that it was wrong to study Torah. I remember one lady asking me if the Torah was only in effect, "Until Paul came." -as if Paul was the Messiah!
On the other hand, we should not think that Paul ever contradicted Yeshua. He never did. Their teachings perfectly go together. Paul's writings make up the majority of the teachings to the gentile Christians and so they should be treated with utmost respect and importance.
I think the debate here in the comments section has strayed from what the article is aiming at.
It's not the Scriptures that we need to scrutinize, it is us. It is our attitude concerning whether or not we know who Jesus was and whether or not we know His teachings and if we are daily following Jesus.
Perhaps I failed to clarify this in the article, but let me do so now: I want to encourage all of us to examine our hearts and see if Jesus is our passion and role model. Is Jesus the Lord of your life? Have you committed yourself to daily take up your cross and die to yourself? Are you familiar with the teachings of Jesus? Do you wrestle with His awesome and convicting words?
This is really all I am asking us to consider because I often observe Christians (many of whom are my dear friends) who can quote Paul up and down but have little or no awareness of the words of Jesus.
Hope this helps. kg
I gotcha.
The tricky part is that making any distinction between Paul's writings and the gospels really does dip into those murky waters where we ask questions about what does it really mean to align ourselves with Jesus.
After all, aligning ourselves with Jesus is nearly always mediated through the church and culture...whether in its current incarnation or the first century version.
Scratch that. How we speak or think about our alignment with Jesus is mediated. The alignment itself is a gracious gift that can't be separated by something as silly as having the right answers!
At any rate, I loved the article and definitely feel that a certain understanding and preference for Paul's theology has been a natural fit for non-Catholic western people for centuries. Is the tide turning?
As penance for derailing your original point, let me share a personal story that may illustrate the point. Maybe others will see themselves in it.
In my faith tribe growing up, I was taught to share "the gospel" using verses almost entirely from the book of Romans.
But not until 20 years later did anybody attempt to help me understand what in the world Jesus was talking about when he said "the good news of the kingdom of God"...and it wasn't somebody from my faith tribe.
Joey,
Ok, now you're talking.
The Gospel that Jesus preached was not that you can go to Heaven when you die if you say a prayer and accept that He exists.
The Gospel is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the Gospels) and it comes from the mouth of Jesus:
"I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." - Luke 4:43
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" - Mark 1:15
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness." - Matt 9:35
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom.." -Matt 4:23
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” - Matthew 24:14
Do we know what the Gospel is? Do we obey Jesus in following Him the way He commands us to?
These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
Blessings, kg
What Jesus was accomplishing behind the scenes was nothing less than our atonement and the very means of our salvation. We aren't saved by imitating Jesus, or by having faith in God like the faith Jesus had, we are saved purely by the grace of God made possible by Jesus' work here on earth. Paul tells us what Jesus accomplished, and explains how the OT fits into the scheme, and this knowledge cannot be obtained by reading the gospel accounts alone.
Certainly following Jesus' example is important (does anyone really say it isn't, or is that just a straw man that we like to tear down?), but it is not our main purpose in life, nor is it the means of our salvation. We cannot have a proper relationship with the risen Jesus until we give doctrine its rightful place in our life. Furthermore, if we are looking for a role model to follow, wouldn't the example of Paul be more appropriate, as he showed us what faith in Jesus was all about?
Bobbobnabob - I had to read your response twice to be sure I understood you. Wow. I wish you and I could have coffee sometime and just talk.
Anyway, the part that jolted me was where you said: "...following Jesus' example is important...but it is not our main purpose in life."
Really? Jesus seemed to think so. In fact, I think if you read the Gospels you'll see that Jesus had a very high expectaton of "followership" from those who claimed to his disciples (what else does "disciple" suggest?).
I would just say that MY main purpose in life is to follow Jesus. I am a Jesus Follower. I believe that Jesus invited people to follow Him (not to join an organization or memorize a set of doctrines). I believe that it is impossible to follow Jesus without taking up your cross and dieing to yourself daily (which necessitates a daily dependence on Grace).
The ironic thing is, Bobbnobob -- your comment illustrates the point of my article perfectly when you say, "...if we are looking for a role model to follow, wouldn't the example of Paul be more appropriate..?"
I couldn't have asked for a better example of what I perceive to be a problem with Christianity today-- We call ourselves "Christians" but we have little or no apprecticeship to Jesus. We do not understand His Gospel. We cannot articulate the most fundamental message of our Lord. How then are we "Christians" if we don't understand Jesus?
-kg
Strong words, Keith.
I want to reiterate that N.T. Wright has a great book on Paul that deserves reading and can bridge this.
There is a gospel 'about Jesus' and then there is the gospel 'according to Jesus'.
Bobbobnabob - Paul iterates and reiterates that the expectation of our covenant (purchased, as you say, in Christ) is to be Christ-like. To be imitators of Christ.
This is not works righteousness. But salvation without it simply isn't salvation.
It is, as Stanley Hauerwas is prone to say, a 'truncated and idolatrous' version of Christianity.
Jesus command (Luke 9:23) is to take up our cross and follow him. Not to believe in universal, abstract principles about what he did on the cross.
Salvation isn't from your personal sins. It is nothing short of the beginning of New Creation, beginning with the New Adam and continuing through the New Israel until the New Heavens and New Earth.
Another suggested read: The Divine Conspiracy (Dallas Willard).
(5)
This article is right on! Posted by Van | Posted at 09/15/2008 8:48 AM
Excellent.
I note that one of the things that so many miss in Paul's writings is that he did all of the logic and explanation to get the believers in each city to which he was writing to consider what they needed to do (read "live") differently. Be one with other races or classes. Live their life according to the Spirit. On and on the list goes. No matter how eloquently he made his long arguments, he almost always circled back to the underlying problem with the local believers’ lack of practical following. They thought they couldn’t do it — Paul told them why they could. They thought that freedom from the law meant they didn’t have to — he told them why they should anyway. It was not about the logic and argument. It was about following Jesus.
Posted by Mike | Posted at 09/16/2008 3:15 PMYes! I've wondered about this for quite a while...I've also been teaching, whenever I get the chance, that we should study the gospels and then study them again and then again, as long as necessary, until we really get the feel of what Jesus had to say and THEN move on to other writings to help CLARIFY what Jesus had to say. Of the scriptures that seem to contradict any thing Jesus said, well, I think Jesus should be the ultimate authority and if something doesn't make sense, it is most likely because WE are looking at it with a perspective not intended by the authors of the other books. Posted by Alisha | Posted at 09/16/2008 8:13 PM
Dear pastor, I read your very intresting article on Paul V Jesus and find it, provacative as well as facinating. Thank you for the magnifying of some of our struggles with intellect v the simplicity of comming to our friend, brother, saviour Jesus Christ.
nelly guerra
Posted by nelly guerra | Posted at 09/17/2008 8:55 AMThere is certainly some differences between their teachings - this is natural since Jesus was a democrat and Paul was a Republican (just kidding, but I like to use this comment to stir up discussion :-). Does anybody feel like I do about this, that we should study Paul's writings in the context of the teachings of Jesus? It seems to me that Paul's intention was to provide a practical model of what it looked like to follow Christ: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" 1 Cor 11.1. I don't see any indication that Paul had any intentions of upstaging Jesus or redefining what it meant to be a follower. In other words, the problem is with us, just as it was with the Corinthian church. We have a worm's eye view of scripture and can't see the big picture. I like to go back to the original mission statement, as announced by the angel: "peace on earth, good will toward men". This is God's announcement of coming attractions, so I try to interpret both Jesus and Paul in light of this larger theme. Posted by Hugh | Posted at 09/18/2008 5:14 AM
Thank you for that article. I've noticed something similar myself.
I once had a young man set out to tell me how he would "disciple" a new Christian. He started, "First we would study through Romans ..."
In your article you give some good reasons why American's start with Paul to get to Jesus. I've looked at this from another perspective - I see this as being the fruit of the Reformation movement.
Possibly the major theological keys of the Reformation was the doctrine of Salvation by Grace (As borrowed from Augustine and expanded upon). Because of this the Reformers centered themselves around Paul's letter to the Romans (and Galatians to a lesser extent). The whole New Testament then began to be interpreted through this writing.
The radical-reformers, or anabaptists, of the time instead focused more on the Gospels and teachings of Jesus, even more narrowly at his sermon on the mount, though their movement never reached the popularity of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and the other sects that sprung from there.
Reading Jesus is amazing and interesting for me, because, often there is so much discovery and no easy answers. There are times when Jesus is chastises his disciples saying, "Didn't you understand the meaning of ..." and his words are hitting me because I'm thinking, "No I don't understand ...".
While Jesus explains some of his parables others he doesn't - leaving us to ponder. I think there is plenty of room for spiritual discovery there so long as you are ready to toss away hundreds of years of Bible commentaries telling you what Jesus meant.
I think Jesus also challenges us because his words are so radical you find yourself wondering - how could I possibly do this? Like with the rich young ruler - who is ready to give up EVERYTHING?
Paul is important - while Jesus certainly expressed that the way would be open to the Gentiles - it was left for his Apostle to the Nations, Paul to articulate the nuts and bolts of it. It is an important revelation that we can be thankful for.
Posted by Anthony | Posted at 09/18/2008 10:52 AMActually, by including the words of Paul in the Scriptures, Paul's words become Jesus' words, or else the Word of God is not the word of God. Attempts, and there have been many over the years, to remove Paul from a place of importance merely are attempts to remove doctrine from its place of importance. Posted by bobbobnabob | Posted at 09/21/2008 8:21 AM
Why do I always comment AFTER bobbobnabob?! :)
He brings up a good point...although I would let it illustrate a flip side. We should be humble about the gospels like we would about Paul. We are not getting uninterpreted access to Jesus in the gospels - they weren't written by Jesus after all, but by apostles like Paul.
I love your article, Keith. Especially the hypotheses why we seem to start with the letters instead of the gospels.
N.T. Wright wrote a great book called "Paul", which seems to build bridges where the protestant reformation might have created gaps.
Jesus wrote the music...then Paul and the other N.T. writers played the music (inspired variations, but variations on that theme).
By implication, we (Church) are now playing variations. Not variations in the sense of unfaithful re-writing (although that certainly happens), but variations in the sense that the Word is living and active and our Lord is still creating the music in and through us.
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 09/21/2008 8:00 PMThanks, Keith, for that reminder that going to the Source is preferable to even the best "translator." I think that attitude of going first to the Epistles -- and not just Paul's letters -- is a habit many have developed because, as you said, Jesus is (A) sometimes hard to understand, and (B) Jesus is just too radical for many folks to take at face value. When we find Jesus' words hard to grasp, we turn to Paul to lay it all out for us, to help us apply the Master's words. When Jesus' words get too extreme, then we back off and we try to justify saying, "Well, Jesus didn't really MEAN that, He was just speaking to Jews of the time or just speaking figuratively. Paul said it differently." But to say such things robs the Bible of inerrancy and robs the Lord of His wisdom and power to change lives.
I praise God that my senior pastor has a heart for going to the red letters first, and not shying away from Christ's "radical" lessons and examples. Even Paul gives deference to Christ. Shouldn't we?
Posted by Glenn | Posted at 09/23/2008 4:28 PMSince it doesn't appear that you all believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, has it occurred to you that without it, even the "words of Jesus" are merely words that the writers said he said? How are the second-hand words of the gospels then more accurate than the first-hand words of the epistles in communicating the speaker's intent? And how could Jesus explain the significance of his death and resurrection before it occurred? He needed someone like Paul and the other apostles to give his followers the true meaning after the critical events. What you are saying is that you prefer to make up your own meaning rather than accept the one given to us by God himself. Posted by bobbobnabob | Posted at 09/23/2008 6:49 PM
My dear friend Bobbobnobob,
If you would re-read my article above I think you'll notice that I am not saying what you suggest I am saying. In fact, to quote myself:
"I want to be careful to say that, in our discussion about America's fascination with Paul, we are not down-playing the importance of Paul or his teachings. Both Paul and Jesus are authoritative and their words are meant to be taken as Scripture, we are not cutting the letters of Paul out of our Bibles."
What I AM saying is that we should major on Jesus and minor on Paul, not the other way around. Jesus is our Lord and Savior. He is our blue-print for living the Kingdom life. He is the One we are following daily by laying down our lives and petty kingdoms in order to love as He loved.
This article is not about the authority of Paul's epistles. The entire New Testament is inspired by the Holy Spirit. All of it. But if we are really following Jesus then we must become experts in the words of Jesus and begin to put His words into practice daily. We cannot do that if we don't know what the words of Jesus are...can we?
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete." - Jesus (Luke 6:46-49)
-kg
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 09/24/2008 8:26 AMGreetings, Pastor Keith!
Once again your words encourage and stimulate. ALL of your words.... That said, one particular paragraph is confirmation to me that I'm on the right track: "I would encourage everyone who reads this to begin studying the red letters in Matthew. Let the words of Jesus nourish your soul like warm bread from the oven. Let the wisdom of Jesus refresh your life like cool water on the tongue."
These days I'm committed to a particular exercise: writing the words of Jesus in the order in which He said them. Using The Reese Chronological Bible as my guide and my New King James version as my reference, I'm working my way through the Gospels and will conclude with His farewell in the first chapter of Acts. It's taking quite a while but is well worth the effort, as the time it takes me to type what I read -- and verify I did so correctly -- is providing wonderful opportunities to ponder.
The last time I did something like this I wrote about David's life from when he was anointed until the Israelites accepted him as their king. It was fascinating to read all those passages in the order they were written, with the Psalms intermingled with Samuel and Chronicles. I look forward to an equally insightful study once this project is complete.
Thank you for your continued encouragement.
all of Heaven's best....
Posted by Margret B | Posted at 09/24/2008 3:10 PMHi bobbobnabob...it's me again!
Your comment about inspiration was probably meant for me, but I suspect that anyone making a distinction between the gospel-writers accounts of Jesus and Paul's letters to the churches blurs the line. "It's all the words of Jesus."
One of my biggest questions would be, "What do you mean by inspiration?"
The new testament says that all scripture is god-breathed and useful for teaching, correction, rebuke...
However, what would scripture mean to those hearers? Did they consider Paul's writings or the gospels scripture? Or just the old testament?
To what extent did the new testament church consider the gospels and the epistles "scripture"? Or was it only after 300 years that they considered it scripture?
To what extent did Paul think that what he was writing was 'scripture'? What do we do with a passage like Paul saying "I, Paul say this...not the Lord." It's in the Bible, so it IS the Lord, right? Or not? Maybe just that one phrase is not the Lord?
I believe in the inspiration of the new testament. But I also believe that inspiration is more mysterious than we moderns like to think. God didn't use the apostles like a typewriter (or printing press). There's obviously some collaboration going on.
Whatever your views of inspiration, can we agree that we've got to understand the context of those writings and appropriate them to our own lives with humility? As Paul says "We see dimly...but then we will see face to face."
You're awesome. Thanks for your sharp questions.
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 09/24/2008 8:25 PMNo, Joey, I wasn't singling you out. Inspiration, at its base level, means that everything that appears in Scripture is meant to be there, and the words of each of the individual writers are to be taken as if they were written by God himself. It's as if God (or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit) had said at the very end, "This is God and I approve this message."
Therefore, when you say you favor the acts of Jesus over the words of Paul, you aren't really distinguishing between two people and prioritizing them, you are distinguishing between two aspects of the same message and prioritizing them. In this case, it is the visible works of Jesus over against the doctrine of Paul that explains the invisible significance of those works.
The church today desperately craves to follow the outward acts of Jesus, but could care less about what he was accomplishing behind the scenes, and criticizes the "traditional" church for focusing as it does on Paul's revelation. It only cares about half of the story--in the process demoting the importance of the half that gives the other meaning. Thus, it shows that it holds onto "a form of godliness, but lacks the power thereof."
Posted by bobbobnabob | Posted at 09/25/2008 6:06 AMJoey-- did the NT church consider the epistles to be Scripture? Yes, and we can see evidence of this when Peter refers to the writings of Paul as such. (Read 2 Peter 3:15-16 for example).
Bobbobnobob-- Can you please elaborate on what you mean when you refer to "what (Jesus) was accomplishing behind the scenes" ? What does that mean?
And if we're not all interested in following the outward acts of Jesus (caring for the poor, loving the lost, showing mercy and compassion to the sick, etc.) then who gives a rip about what Jesus was doing "behind the scenes"? I think this is a false dichotomy since Jesus Himself requires us to obey His words and to put them into practice. If we do that we'll have more than enough to keep us busy.
Love ya! kg
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 09/25/2008 8:45 AMI think the Bible is a living Word and that no one part of it is more or less important than another. Whether a person studies the Torah, the Ketuvim, the Prophets, the Gospels, the midrash of Paul, or whatever, all of it is equally important. I really liked the article because for me it shows how Christians often think Paul's words have a sort of "updated" authority over the teachings of Yeshua before He died on the cross.
For example, Jesus clearly taught that the Torah was still in effect, and that if anyone broke the least commandments of the Torah and then taught others to break them, that person was the lowest. It seems that many Christians like to do away with that passage from Matthew by quoting something from Paul; unfortunately, Paul is greatly misunderstood by Protestants. He never taught the Torah is abolished, or that it was wrong to study Torah. I remember one lady asking me if the Torah was only in effect, "Until Paul came." -as if Paul was the Messiah!
On the other hand, we should not think that Paul ever contradicted Yeshua. He never did. Their teachings perfectly go together. Paul's writings make up the majority of the teachings to the gentile Christians and so they should be treated with utmost respect and importance.
Posted by TK | Posted at 09/25/2008 11:07 AMI think the debate here in the comments section has strayed from what the article is aiming at.
It's not the Scriptures that we need to scrutinize, it is us. It is our attitude concerning whether or not we know who Jesus was and whether or not we know His teachings and if we are daily following Jesus.
Perhaps I failed to clarify this in the article, but let me do so now: I want to encourage all of us to examine our hearts and see if Jesus is our passion and role model. Is Jesus the Lord of your life? Have you committed yourself to daily take up your cross and die to yourself? Are you familiar with the teachings of Jesus? Do you wrestle with His awesome and convicting words?
This is really all I am asking us to consider because I often observe Christians (many of whom are my dear friends) who can quote Paul up and down but have little or no awareness of the words of Jesus.
Hope this helps. kg
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 09/25/2008 11:32 AMI gotcha.
The tricky part is that making any distinction between Paul's writings and the gospels really does dip into those murky waters where we ask questions about what does it really mean to align ourselves with Jesus.
After all, aligning ourselves with Jesus is nearly always mediated through the church and culture...whether in its current incarnation or the first century version.
Scratch that. How we speak or think about our alignment with Jesus is mediated. The alignment itself is a gracious gift that can't be separated by something as silly as having the right answers!
At any rate, I loved the article and definitely feel that a certain understanding and preference for Paul's theology has been a natural fit for non-Catholic western people for centuries. Is the tide turning?
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 09/25/2008 1:00 PMAs penance for derailing your original point, let me share a personal story that may illustrate the point. Maybe others will see themselves in it.
In my faith tribe growing up, I was taught to share "the gospel" using verses almost entirely from the book of Romans.
But not until 20 years later did anybody attempt to help me understand what in the world Jesus was talking about when he said "the good news of the kingdom of God"...and it wasn't somebody from my faith tribe.
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 09/25/2008 1:04 PMJoey,
Ok, now you're talking.
The Gospel that Jesus preached was not that you can go to Heaven when you die if you say a prayer and accept that He exists.
The Gospel is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the Gospels) and it comes from the mouth of Jesus:
"I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." - Luke 4:43
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" - Mark 1:15
"Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness." - Matt 9:35
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom.." -Matt 4:23
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” - Matthew 24:14
Do we know what the Gospel is? Do we obey Jesus in following Him the way He commands us to?
These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
Blessings, kg
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 09/25/2008 1:20 PMWhat Jesus was accomplishing behind the scenes was nothing less than our atonement and the very means of our salvation. We aren't saved by imitating Jesus, or by having faith in God like the faith Jesus had, we are saved purely by the grace of God made possible by Jesus' work here on earth. Paul tells us what Jesus accomplished, and explains how the OT fits into the scheme, and this knowledge cannot be obtained by reading the gospel accounts alone.
Certainly following Jesus' example is important (does anyone really say it isn't, or is that just a straw man that we like to tear down?), but it is not our main purpose in life, nor is it the means of our salvation. We cannot have a proper relationship with the risen Jesus until we give doctrine its rightful place in our life. Furthermore, if we are looking for a role model to follow, wouldn't the example of Paul be more appropriate, as he showed us what faith in Jesus was all about?
Posted by bobbobnabob | Posted at 09/25/2008 5:55 PMBobbobnabob - I had to read your response twice to be sure I understood you. Wow. I wish you and I could have coffee sometime and just talk.
Anyway, the part that jolted me was where you said: "...following Jesus' example is important...but it is not our main purpose in life."
Really? Jesus seemed to think so. In fact, I think if you read the Gospels you'll see that Jesus had a very high expectaton of "followership" from those who claimed to his disciples (what else does "disciple" suggest?).
I would just say that MY main purpose in life is to follow Jesus. I am a Jesus Follower. I believe that Jesus invited people to follow Him (not to join an organization or memorize a set of doctrines). I believe that it is impossible to follow Jesus without taking up your cross and dieing to yourself daily (which necessitates a daily dependence on Grace).
The ironic thing is, Bobbnobob -- your comment illustrates the point of my article perfectly when you say, "...if we are looking for a role model to follow, wouldn't the example of Paul be more appropriate..?"
I couldn't have asked for a better example of what I perceive to be a problem with Christianity today-- We call ourselves "Christians" but we have little or no apprecticeship to Jesus. We do not understand His Gospel. We cannot articulate the most fundamental message of our Lord. How then are we "Christians" if we don't understand Jesus?
-kg
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 09/26/2008 8:25 AMStrong words, Keith.
I want to reiterate that N.T. Wright has a great book on Paul that deserves reading and can bridge this.
There is a gospel 'about Jesus' and then there is the gospel 'according to Jesus'.
Bobbobnabob - Paul iterates and reiterates that the expectation of our covenant (purchased, as you say, in Christ) is to be Christ-like. To be imitators of Christ.
This is not works righteousness. But salvation without it simply isn't salvation.
It is, as Stanley Hauerwas is prone to say, a 'truncated and idolatrous' version of Christianity.
Jesus command (Luke 9:23) is to take up our cross and follow him. Not to believe in universal, abstract principles about what he did on the cross.
Salvation isn't from your personal sins. It is nothing short of the beginning of New Creation, beginning with the New Adam and continuing through the New Israel until the New Heavens and New Earth.
Another suggested read: The Divine Conspiracy (Dallas Willard).
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 09/27/2008 6:53 PM