JESUS and PAUL

This issue is diversified into many areas within the debate itself. Many hold that Paul significantly departed from the
Message of Jesus and introduced an alien system of theology. The debate becomes more complicated when we find
instances in both directions within the Pauline theology.

VARIOUS THEORIES REGARDING JESUS AND PAUL DEBATE

➢ Theory of Wrede, Brückner and Pfleiderer: Paul effected a complete break with the original Christian
community, and founded a new Gentile Christianity independently, on the basis of his own theology.
➢ Theory of Feine, Resch and Titius: Paul agreed with Jesus’ teachings in every department of thought and his
system shows distinct dependence on the Jesus Tradition.
➢ Theory of Schweitzer, Spitta and Kabisch: Paul is explained chiefly on the basis of Judaism; that the dominant
influence in Pauline teaching was Jewish eschatology, and that he was not affected by Hellenic culture.
➢ Theory of Reitzenstein, Heitmüller, and Dieterich: Paul was influenced by the Mystery Religions in his
doctrinal forms and chiefly in the sacraments, in which he introduced a sacramental or physical significance.1

A BRIEF HISTORY ABOUT JESUS AND PAUL DEBATE

Jesus-Paul debate is the comparison between whether Paul is in continuity or discontinuity with Jesus. Wenham opines
that, “Paul is often accused of not being a faithful follower of Jesus, but a freelancer who did his own thing with the
Christian religion. He is accused of changing Jesus’ good ideas; and of introducing all sorts of bad ideas, and he is often
seen as an arrogant, self-opinionated man, with a rather complex theological mind. His failure to refer much to Jesus’
earthly life and teaching in his letters has been thought to confirm that he was not really interested in the real Jesus, only
in the quite different Jesus of his own theological imagination.”2 Among modern scholars Jeremias maximizes the
continuity between Jesus and Paul, Kummel proposes a more modest list of common features, Kasemann makes do with
a minimal link and Bultmann takes the more radical view that the search for continuity must be rejected in principle.3
The Jesus-Paul debate of the 21st century is conducted on the basis of verbal parallels between Jesus and Paul. 4 The
Jesus-Paul debate can be divided into two main stages: from Baur to Bultmann and from Bultmann to present.

FROM BAUR TO BULTMANN

In 1808 H. H. Cludius, set out to differentiate between the apparent and the fundamental forms of Christianity. He came
to the conclusion that Paul knew nearly nothing about the pre-Easter teachings of Jesus.5 Similarly, F.C. Baur published
an article in 1831 in which he held that Paul “had developed his doctrine in complete opposition to that of the primitive
Christianity,” and that the early church was divided into “Pauline” and “Petrine” wings. Later in 1853, in the first
edition of his study of the first three centuries of church history, he declared the reason for Paul’s indifference to Jesus
in his letters. He states: the “whole Christian consciousness is transformed into a view of the person of Jesus which
stands in need of no history to elucidate it.”6
However, Heinrich Paret reacted to Baur’s emphasis on Paul’s religious consciousness and his spiritual view of Christ
through his article in 1858. He studied the epistles to prove not only that the apostle knew and valued the historical facts
of Jesus’ life, but that he also quoted, used, and alluded to the teachings of Jesus. This was continued by George
Matheson in his series of responses titled The Historical Christ of St. Paul. He compared the four gospels with Paul’s
letters and found materials about the earthly Jesus’s teachings, character and the events of his life. Later in 1886,
influenced by Baur, Karl von Weizsacker published his work and held that Paul’s theology was guided neither by the
primitive church nor by the teaching of Jesus, but by his own thought and spiritual life. 7 The issue was taken into a new
level by Hans Hinrich Wendt in 1894. While acknowledging an essential integrity between the message of Jesus and the
preaching of Paul, yet Wendt asserted that Paul had re-formed it under the influence of his own Pharisaic
presuppositions.

Two important works, representing the opposing camps appeared in the year 1904/5. W. Wrede’s Paulus and A.
Resch’s Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu. On the one hand, Wrede asserts that Paul’s Christ did not originate from
the earthly Jesus and on the other hand, Resch claims to have found more than a thousand parallels between Jesus and
Paul.8 Wrede’s position was taken up and strengthened by Martin Brückner (1906) who concluded that Paul’s letters
themselves reveal no influence of the personality of Jesus upon the apostle’s Christology, and the deep kinship between

1
Fred Gladstone Bratton, “Continuity and divergence in the Jesus-Paul problem,” JBL 48/3-4 (1929): 149.
2
David Wenham, Paul and Jesus: A True Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), ix.
3
S. G. Wilson, “From Jesus to Paul: The Contours and Consequences of a Debate,” From Jesus to Paul: Studies in
Honour of Francis Wright Beare, edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University,
1984), 2.
4
Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference to ‘Faith that can Remove
Mountains and your Faith has Healed Saved You’ (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 6.
5
Quoted in Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul, 5.
6
Quoted in Victor Paul Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann,” BJRL 47 (March, 1965): 342-43.
7
Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann, 343-44.
8
Cited in Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul, 5-6.
1|Page
Paul and Jesus in matters of theology, eschatology, and ethics, was not just an “accident,” but both shared the common
ground of Judaism and the common ideal kernel of religion. 9 Johannes Weiss claimed that there is one fundamental
difference between the religion of Paul and the type of religious life which Jesus was originally created: for Paul, Jesus
was also the object of veneration which is same with the primitive church. At the same time he asserts that it was
closely related with the historical figure of Jesus.10
C. A. A. Scott published his article; Jesus and Paul which challenged Wrede on his view of doctrine of faith and
contended against him that Paul’s thought represents a development of Jesus’ teachings but no contradiction of them.11
For Arthur Cushman McGiffert, the institution of Christianity originated from Jesus but the organizational doctrinal
developments came from Paul and others.12 Three major articles published in the year 1912. One among them was by
Wilhelm Heitmuller who proposed two points. One was Paul’s theology came not from revelation in the historical Jesus
but through the living, exalted Lord. Another was about Paul’s departure from the historical Jesus, which shows the
apostles’ dependence on the Hellenistic form of Christianity not the Palestinian Jewish form. There were no intense
discussions on the Jesus-Paul debate after the World War I. The English world took the leadership in the period
between 1920-45 in producing articles and books on the topic. Fred G. Bratton (1929) agreed with others on the basis of
his argument that the continuity and divergence in Paul and Jesus could be reconciled through a synthetic method. 13
Adolf Deissmann, emphasizing the Christ-centred Christianity of Paul, proposed that there is no breach or distortion of
the Gospel of Jesus in Paul.14

FROM BULTMANN TO PRESENT

The second phase of the debate began with the appearance of Bultmann’s article in 1929. With Heitmuller he argued
that Paul knew Christianity in its Hellenistic form and that in its essentials Paul’s teaching shows neither an interest in,
nor the influence of, the teaching of Jesus. Paul’s teaching is thus in no way dependent on that of Jesus even though in a
number of matters (law, humans’ sinfulness, God’s transcendence, and God’s rule) there is a material, and in some
cases even a verbal, similarity. Two things separate Paul from Jesus: first, when Jesus waited for (the kingdom) Paul
proclaimed as having beeb realized; and second, Paul showed no interest in the how or what of Jesus’ life but solely in
the death and resurrection, which constituted the saving events. It was Christ the living κύριος not the historical Jesus
with whom Paul was concerned.15 Bultmann in his later article, The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical
Jesus, furthered this argument. He argued for two facts: first, the only continuity between Jesus and the Kerygma is the
identification of the historical Jesus with the kerygmatic Christ, but the kerygma does not and need not go beyond the
mere facts of Jesus’ existence. Secondly, searching for the life and teaching of Jesus in the Kerygma or searching for
kerygma in the life and teaching of Jesus are unworkable due to the co-influence of faith and kerygma in the Christian
writings, and also they tempt us to look for legitimation of the kerygma in historical data. In essence, the disconnection
is that the Christ of the Kerygma does not teach about the historical Jesus, and vice versa. 16
Then Joachim Jeremiah, who believed that it, was possible to recover the central facts about Jesus and even, some cases
the “very words.” In particular, he detected a crucial point of similarity between the Jesus who gave a welcome to
sinners and outcastes and the Paul who preached the justification of the ungodly through the grace of God. Then,
Kummel, influenced by Bultmann and Schweitzer, argued that for Jesus the kingdom was not purely future but was
already breaking in during his ministry. Kummel saw both Jesus and Paul as conditioned by similar tension between the
presence of salvation and its fulfilment. He insisted that Paul’s theology represents no fundamental alteration of
falsification of the teaching of Jesus, but only a proper reformation of these fundamental ideas. 17

IS PAUL THE (SECOND) FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY?

Is Paul the founder of Christianity? This question is prominent among the scholars as the answer has direct connections
with the Jesus-Paul debate. An increased interest in the field of Christian origin caused scholars to notice the decisive
shift from Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom of God to Paul’s teachings about Christ. And the latter having nothing to
say about Jesus’ life and teachings “but speak of him as a divine pre-existent being, the Son of God, who by his death
and resurrection accomplished the atonement of God with human.” 18 An affirmative judgment points to Paul’s
discontinuity from Jesus and a negative judgement points to the continuity. This debate is closely related with the
debate of Paul’s Jewishness or his Hellenism. Bornkamm opines that, it revealed a deep gulf between Jesus and Paul
and ended by saying that Christianity was founded not by the Jesus of history who, in spite of all his uniqueness, is to be
understood in the light of Judaism, but by Paul who turned it into a religion of redemption, the influences on him being
Jewish modes of thought, but also, and especially Oriental pagan views and myths, as these had spread mainly in the

9
Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann, 352.
10
Johannes Weiss, Paul and Jesus, translated by H. J. Chaytor (London: Harper & Bros., 1909), 131.
11
Cited in Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann, 357.
12
Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Was Jesus or Paul the founder of Christianity?” AJT 13/1 (January, 1909): 20.
13
Bratton, “Continuity and Divergence in Jesus-Paul problem, 161
14
Cited in Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann, 362.
15
Wilson, “From Jesus to Paul,” 5-6.
16
Wilson, “From Jesus to Paul,” 6.
17
Cited by Barclay, “Jesus and Paul,” 496.
18
Wayne Meeks, ed., The Writings of St. Paul (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 274.
2|Page
Hellenistic mystery religions.19 According to David Wenham, “for all importance of his interpretation, Paul would have
been horrified at the suggestion that he was founder of Christianity. For him the fountain of theology was Jesus: first,
the Jesus whom he met on the Damascus road; second, the Jesus of the Christian tradition...Paul saw himself as the
slave of Jesus Christ, not the founder of Christianity.”20 N. T. Wright also supports such a view point.21

JESUS-PAUL PARALLELISM IN LUKE-ACTS

As an essential part of Jesus Paul continuity Luke stresses the Jesus-Paul parallelism. In this we can see some parallels
between Jesus and Paul in Luke-Acts regarding Law, synagogue, resurrection, Scripture, farewell addresses, trials, and
accusations before the Roman governors .22
JESUS AND PAUL ON THE LAW
From birth Jesus and Paul are genuine Israelites living under the Law. Jesus’ law-observing parents circumcise and
dedicate the infant. When he is twelve years old, his parents take him to the Feast of the Passover in Jerusalem,
according to the custom of the feast. Luke reproduces the Q-saying that the Law will never fall.23 Jesus is falsely
accused of changing the customs of Moses. Similarly, Paul from his youth followed the Law, even according to the
strictest sect of his religion. He was a Jew, brought up in Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the
strict manner of the Law. He exclaims: “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees”. By performing Jewish rites, Paul proves
that he walks “orderly, keeping the Law”. He is falsely accused of teaching against the customs of Moses24, and he
assures the Jews in Rome that he has done nothing against the Law or the customs of the fathers25.26

JESUS AND PAUL PREACHING IN SYNAGOGUES

Shortly after baptism the ministry of each begins in a synagogue and continues there.27 According to custom each goes
into synagogues on the Sabbath.28

AFFIRMATION OF THE PHARISAIC DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION

Both Jesus and Paul affirm the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection from the dead 29, thereby enlisting sympathy of the
Pharisees against the Sadducees (Lk. 20: 39; Acts 23: 7-9). Only Jesus (peculiar to Lk.) and Paul declare that all live in
God (Lk. 20:38; Acts 17:28), Jesus to prove the resurrection, Paul, the nearness of God. 30

FULFILMENT OF SCRIPTURE
The Jesus-Paul parallels are also anchored in Luke’s fulfilment-of-Scripture theology31. Of these passages, only Luke 8:
10; 18: 31-33 are not peculiar to Luke, though the fulfilment formula in 18: 31c is found only in Luke. In these passages
Jesus and Paul explain32 that God has now (Lk. 4: 17; Acts 13: 33, 40-41) fulfilled or accomplished33 the Scriptures34,
prophets35, and Psalms (Lk. 24: 44; Acts 13: 33). Both quote Isa. 6: 9-10 in connection with their preaching of the
Kingdom of God, thereby showing that the sending of Isaiah to the stubborn fold of Israel was repeated and fulfilled in
the work of Jesus and Paul among the Jews (Lk. 8: 10; Acts 28: 25-28). Both prove by Scripture that Jesus is the Christ,
the anointed one (Lk. 4: 18; Acts 9: 22; 17: 3), who must (Lk. 24:26; Acts 17:3) (Acts 26: 23) suffer36 and arise from

19
G. Bornkamm, Paul, translated by D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 228-9.
20
David Wenham, Paul Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 409-10.
21
N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997), 182.
22
Andrew Jacob Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered,” Novum
Testamentum 17/1 (January, 1975): 22.
23
Luke 2:21-24; 2:41-42; 14:17.
24
Acts 6: 14; 26: 4-5; 22: 3; 23: 6; (16: 3-4; 18: 18, 21; 20: 6, 16; 21: 21-26; 27: 9); 21: 24; 21:21.
25
Acts 28:17. Only in Luke-Acts is έθος used (8 out of 10 times) to express the Mosaic cultic legality which regulates
the lives of the faithful; 4 of these 8 instances appear in the Jesus-Paul parallelism (Lk. 2: 42; Acts 6: 14; 21: 21; 28:
17), and 3 of the other 4 (Acts 15: 1; 16: 21; 26: 3) are found in close connection with Paul.
26
Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts, 22-3.
27
Lk. 4:15; Acts 9:20. See also Luke 4: 16-30, 33, 44; 6: 6-11; 8: 10; Acts 13: 5, 14-43; 14:1; 17:1-4,10,17; 18:4,19,26;
19:8.
28
Lk. 4: 16; Acts 17: 1-2. See Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts, 23.
29
Lk. 14: 14; 20: 27-40; Acts 17: 18, 32; 23: 6-8; 24: 15, 21; 26: 8, 23.
30
Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts, 23.
31
Luke 4:17-21; 8:10; 18:31-33; 22:37; 24:25-27,44-47; Acts 9:22; 13:27,33,40-41,46-47; 17:1-3; 18:4; 26:22-23; 28:
25-28.
32
Lk. 24: 32; Acts 17: 3; διανοίγω-only in these two places in NT in sense of explaining Scripture.
33
Lk. 4: 21; 18: 31c; 22: 37; 24: 47; Acts 13: 27, 33.
34
αϊ γραφαί - Lk. 4: 21; 24: 27; Acts 17: 2; Moses Lk. 24: 44; Acts 26: 22.
35
Lk. 18: 31c; 22: 37; 24: 44; Acts 13: 27, 40; 26: 22; 28: 25.
36
Lk. 24: 26, 46; Acts 17:3; cf. also Lk. 4: 17-21; 18: 31-33; Acts 13: 27.
3|Page
the dead37. Both affirm on the basis of Scripture that the Gospel shall be preached to Jews (Lk. 24:47; Acts 26: 23) and
to Gentiles38 everywhere (Lk. 26:47; Acts 13:47).39

TRIALS OF JESUS AND PAUL

The four trials of each (as compared with three trials in Mt. and Mk.) begin in Jerusalem, and in the same sequence each
appears before the High Priest and Sanhedrin, the Roman governor (Pilate; Felix, Festus), and Herod (Antipas; Agrippa
II):40
JESUS PAUL
a) Luke 22: 54-71 Sanhedrin a) Acts 22: 30-23: 10 Sanhedrin
b) Luke 23: 1-5 Pilate b) Acts 24: 1-27 Felix
c) Luke 23: 6-16 Herod Antipas c) Acts 25: 1-12 Festus
d) Luke 23: 17-25 Pilate d) Acts 25: 13- 26: 32 Herod Agrippa

ACCUSATIONS BEFORE ROMAN GOVERNORS

The Jews make substantially the same accusations before Roman governors, Pilate and Felix 41: a) perverting the people
(Lk. 23:2; Acts 24:5); b) opposing Caesar’s decrees (Lk. 23:2; Acts 17:7); c) stirring up sedition (Lk. 23:5; Acts 24:5) ;
d) claiming sovereignty for Christ in opposition to Caesar (Lk. 23:2; Acts 17:742).43

JESUS-PAUL PARALLELISM IN ACTS AND GOSPELS EXCEPT LUKE

As close as the Lukan Jesus-Paul parallels are, they could have been a bit closer had Luke used every last detail in the
Gospel tradition: (a) Each is said to be out of his mind. (b) Each is bound. (c) Each is questioned about an alleged
disrespectful answer to the High Priest. (d) Each comes before a judge whose wife is mentioned. (e) The judges of each
wish to please the Jews. (f) Each is connected with an earthquake.44

JESUS TRADITION IN PAULINE PARAENESIS

There is a consensus among scholars that the life and teachings of Jesus influenced Paul’s thought.45 But these facts
about Jesus are always told with a purpose, and references to Jesus’ teachings are rare in Paul.46 Scholars are only in a
trying position to prove any clear cut relationship between Jesus’s teaching in Pauline paraenesis. Nevertheless, many
would maintain that a fundamental unity between Jesus and Paul can be discerned in a number of central themes which
would reduce the gap between them. First, similarity in their eschatological conviction: both Jesus and Paul preached
Already Not Yet tension of the kingdom of God. Second, Christology: both Jesus and Paul believed that peoples’
response to Jesus’ message has a prominent role to play in their fate in the kingdom of God. Third, their reaction to
Judaism and law: both of them sometimes affirmed the law and other times set it aside, rooting in the common
eschatological conviction and a belief that in the person and teaching of Jesus the law has been superseded. Fourth, they
were convicted in the mercy of God: the relationship between human and the divine rests solely on the character of
God-a stern judge at the same time gracious, loving and forgiving Father.47

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS IN PAUL

W.D. Davies ascribes much of Paul’s paraenetic traditions to the Jewish sources by placing the background of Paul in
the Judaism. Nevertheless, he concludes that “it was the words of Jesus Himself that formed Paul’s primary source in

37
Lk. 18: 33; 24: 46; Acts 13: 33; 17: 3; 26: 23; Lk. 24:46; Acts 17:3.
38
Lk. 24:47; Acts 13:47; 26:23; 28:28.
39
Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts, 24.
40
Lk. 22: 54-23: 16; Acts 22: 30-26: 32; Lk. 23: 6-16 only in Luke. See Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of
Luke-Acts, 33.
41
Lk. 23:1-5 [Lk. 23:2, 4-5 only in Lk.; cf. Jn. 19:6]; Acts 24:1-5 and Roman authorities at Thessalonica-Acts 17:7; Lk.
23:2; Acts 24:2.
42
Jesus and Paul are accused of opposition to the Temple and to the Law, but the charge against Jesus is transferred to
the Stephen narrative (Acts 6:14; 21:28).
43
Mattill, “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts, 33.
44
a. (Mk. 3:21; Acts 26:24; not found at Lk. 11:14-16); b. (Mk. 15:1; Acts 21:11, 33; 24:27; not found at Lk. 22:66.); c.
(Jn. 18:22; Acts 23:4; not found at Lk. 22:70); d. (Mt. 27:19; Acts 24:24; not found at Lk. 23:17-18); e. (Mk. 15:15;
Acts 24:27; 25:9; not found at Lk. 23:24); f. (Mt. 27:51; Acts 16:26; not found at Lk. 23:45-46). See Mattill, “Jesus-
Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts, 36.
45
Some of the facts Paul mentions about Jesus are: Jesus was born (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4), had a brother (Gal 1:19) and
some disciples (1Cor 15:5), celebrated the Last Supper (1Cor 11:23f.), was crucified (Gal 3:1: 1Cor 2:2; etc.) and was
resurrected (1 Cor 15) and the meekness (2Cor 10:1) and humility of Jesus (2Cor 13:12 Rom 15:2-3); See in Wilson,
“From Jesus to Paul,” 7.
46
Some of the references to Jesus’s teaching in Paul are: 1Cor 11:23-25, which is paraenetic in nature: 1 Thess 4:14-15
could be referring to historical Jesus and also to risen Jesus as well; 1Cor 9:10: 9:14; 13:12: Rom 12:14; 13:9; 14:14 etc.
See in Wilson, “From Jesus to Paul,” 8.
47
Wilson, “From Jesus to Paul,” 9-12.
4|Page
his work as ethical διδασκαλος. He argues it on the basis of his findings on the parallels between Pauline exhortation
and the teachings of Jesus as they are preserved in the synoptic Gospels. Pauline epistles are reminiscent of the Synoptic
Gospels. He sets forth number of examples from Pauline epistles such as Romans, 1 Thessalonians and Colossians
where Paul is clearly depended up on the words of Jesus. 48 He also finds out explicit references to words of Jesus which
refer back to a collection of sayings of the Lord to which Paul appealed (1Cor 7:10, 25; 9:14; 11:23ff; 1 Thess 4:15;
Acts 20:35; 1Cor 14:37).49

THE LIFE OF JESUS AND HIS EXAMPLE

Though Paul was the contemporary of Jesus and was in Jerusalem at the same time as Jesus, there is no pertaining
evidence that he met or heard Jesus. And his first contact with Christianity is at Stephan’s martyrdom. It must be
admitted that direct citations in the Pauline epistles of words and deeds of Jesus, and direct references to the details of
Jesus’ life, are surprisingly few.50 Furnish admits that Paul shares the belief of the earliest Christians that Jesus is the
Messiah.51 Paul’s attestation of the character of Jesus also gives us his impression about Jesus’ life and ministry. He
appreciates the sacrificial death of Jesus for the salvation of the humanity. The unselfishness of Jesus in Phil 2:3; love as
the basis on Christ’s death in Gal 2:20 are few examples. In 2Cor 10:1 and in Rom 15:2&3, he refers back to the
gentleness and meekness of Jesus. Paul frequently reminds his readers to imitate Christ (1Thess 1:6; 1Cor 11:1; 10:32-
11:1).52 Though it is obvious that Paul knew about Jesus far more than he expressed in the epistles, he never employs a
traditional saying of Jesus to help present or support his own most basic affirmation about the gospel. 53 It was not
necessary for him to write down about the life of Jesus as he addressed to Christians.

TEACHINGS ON KINGDOM OF GOD

Kingdom of God is seemingly one theme that provides a clear difference between the theology of Jesus and Paul. If
Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as breaking in through his ministry, he pointed primarily to the effects of his
preaching and healing. But Paul focused on the rule of God through the effect of the cross and resurrection. 54
Nevertheless, Dunn argues that kingdom of God was already being experienced in and through Jesus’ own ministry
(Mark 1:15), and the kingdom message was good news to the sinners (Mk 2:17) and the poor (Matt 5:3 cf. Luke 6:20). 55
In a similar way Paul also talked about God’s justification of the ungodly now, good news for the gentile sinners (Gal
1:16) and obligation to help the poor (Gal 2:20). Jesus spoke of God’s kingly rule effective in and through his ministry.
Paul saw Jesus’ death and God’s act of raising Jesus as similarly enacting. Jesus broke through the boundaries within
Israel, Paul broke through the boundary round Israel.56 Another point deserves out notice in the teachings of kingdom of
God in both Paul and Jesus the eschatological tension and the Spirit. Both of them speak of living in the light of the
coming kingdom and spirit as the present power of the kingdom. This is clearly expressed in the ‘already not yet’
concept in Paul.57 In Paul’s letters Kingdom of God is referred to as a state of a life or a blessedness into which the
faithful can expect to enter at the End as an inheritance (2 Thess 1:5-12; 1 Thess 2:11-12; Gal 5:21; 1Cor 6:9-10;
15:50).58

JESUS AND PAUL ON THE LAW

For both Jesus and Paul, the Law had ceased to have an absolute significance; it was of secondary importance and was
to be reinterpreted in the light of the higher, divine law. A comparative study reveals three points of divergence. Jesus’
opposition to Judaism was practical and ethical rather than theoretical and formal. Paul’s antagonism to the Law was
theoretical and systematic, since he was compelled by the missionary character of his work to prove the secondary
nature of the Law by his philosophy of history. Another difference was that Jesus’ quarrel with Pharisaism was more
radical than Paul’s; it arose spontaneously upon occasion and was direct and uncompromising. Paul’s antagonism to
legalistic Judaism was deliberate and conciliatory. No attempt was made by Jesus to reconcile the Judaistic system with
his own Gospel; Paul, on the other hand, believed that Israel was destined to have a contributory significance in the
achievement of the world’s salvation. The third difference lay in the background of their opposition to Pharisaism. Paul
knew Pharisaism more accurately than Jesus because of his rabbinical training, while Jesus was brought up in a rural,

48
Rom 12:14 cf. Matt 5:44; Rom 12:17 cf. Matt 5:39ff, Rom 12:21 cf. Jesus’ teaching on non-resistance. Rom 13:7 cf,
Mark 12:13-17; Matt 22:15--22: Luke 20:20-6. I Thess. 4:8 cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Thess 4:9b; I Thess 5:2cf Luke 12:39:
Matt 24:43; Col 3:5 cf. Matt 5:29, 30); Mk 9:43. 47; Matt 18; 8, 9; Col. 3:12 cf. Luke 6:38; Col 4:2 cf. Matt 26:42: Mk
14:38, Luke 22:40, 16; See W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (2 ed. London: SPCK, 1955), 136.
49
Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 140,
50
1 Cor 7:10; 9:14, 15:37: 11:231f. etc. are few examples for Paul referring back to Jesus’ words.
51
Furnish, Jesus According to Paul, 39.
52
J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1925), 150-1,
53
Furnish, Jesus According to Paul, 64-65.
54
Barclay, “Jesus and Paul,” 500.
55
James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 99, 101.
56
Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 103-6.
57
Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 106-10.
58
George Johnston, “Kingdom of God Sayings in Paul’s Letters,” From Jesus to Paul, edited by Peter Richardson and
John C. Hurd, (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University, 1984), 145-8.
5|Page
un-intellectual environment. Consequently, Paul’s anti-Pharisaism was intellectual and argumentative; that of Jesus was
practical and pietistic.59

JESUS AND PAUL ON ESCHATOLOGY

There is an undeniable dependence of Paul on the Jesus tradition in Eschatology. Both draw heavily on Jewish imagery
and traditional Jewish apocalyptic in their conception of the parousia, the judgment, and the future life. Paul’s
conception of the last things was more Christocentric than that of Jesus on account of the apostle’s Christological ideas.
But, in both, it must be conceded, the spiritual message transcends eschatology. 60

JESUS AND PAUL ON SACRAMENTS

The analysis of both sets of teaching relative to Sacraments offers a self-evident divergence. The best textual evidence
in the Synoptic tradition indicates that Jesus in his last supper with the disciples desired to impress upon their minds in a
symbolic manner the significance of his approaching death, a death for others, for all human, representing it by the
broken bread and the poured wine. That he intended to leave with his followers a memorial institution is doubtful, much
less a sacrament for ritualistic use among his followers. Paul regarded the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament, in which the
believer, by partaking of the elements, was united with Christ in mystic fellowship. It is not necessary to see in his
conception of the Lord’s Supper a magical or physical efficacy; it is merely a figurative participation in Christ’s death.61

JESUS AND PAUL ON SALVATION

The subjects of Soteriology involve first the meaning or content of salvation, and second the means of its acquirement.
There is clear agreement between Paul and Jesus as to the actual nature of salvation: it is the God-like life, the life of
fellowship with the divine. Repentance, faith, and pardon are for both the prerequisites for the state of salvation. In the
case of soteriology, however, we see the first serious difference between Paul and Jesus. Jesus’ attitude toward sin was
practical and unphilosophical whereas Paul’s attitude was speculative and psychological. The divergence occurs, not in
the religious conception of salvation, but in the explanation of its accomplishment. They agree in their definition of
faith, but Paul differs from Jesus in making the latter himself the object of faith and communion in his description of the
saved life. In regard to the relationship between the death of Jesus and salvation, Jesus viewed his approaching death as
an integral part of his life, a necessary climax to his mission in establishing God’s kingdom, self-imposed, and not a
necessary condition for the securing of God’s pardon of human’s sin. Paul, on the other hand, regarded the death of
Jesus as securing human’s deliverance from sin, as redeeming human from this evil world, as accomplishing
reconciliation between human and God, and as an instrumental element in the accomplishment of human’s salvation.62
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barclay, J. M. G. “Jesus and Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin Ralph P. Martin
and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1993.
Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1955.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Furnish, Victor Paul. Jesus According to Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993.
Johnston, George. “Kingdom of God Sayings in Paul’s Letters.” In From Jesus to Paul. Edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd, Waterloo:
Wilfred Laurier University, 1984.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Origin of Paul’s Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923.
Meeks, Wayne. Ed., The Writings of St. Paul. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972.
Weiss, Johannes, Paul and Jesus. Translated by H. J. Chaytor; London: Harper & Bros., 1909.
Wenham. David. Paul and Jesus: A True Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
______. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Wilson, S. G. “From Jesus to Paul: The Contours and Consequences of a Debate.” In From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright
Beare, Edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1984.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Yeung, Maureen W. Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference to ‘Faith that can Remove Mountains’ and ‘Your Faith has
Healed/Saved You.’ Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
JOURNALS
Bratton, Fred Gladstone. “Continuity and Divergence in Jesus-Paul problem.” Journal of Biblical Literature 48/3-4 (1929): 149-61.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47 (March, 1965): 342-80.
Mattill, Andrew Jacob. “Jesus-Paul parallels and the purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H. Evans Reconsidered.” Novum Testamentum 17/1 (January, 1975):
15-46.
McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. “Was Jesus or Paul the Founder of Christianity?” The American Journal of Theology 13/1 (January, 1909): 1- 20.
Sweeney, James P. “Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An Explanation of Some Patterns of Continuity.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
46/4 (December, 2003): 605-31.

59
Comparative references: Rom. 3:31 and Mt. 5:17; Gal. 3:17-19 and Mk. 10:5-9; Rom. 14:14 and Mk. 7:15; Gal. 5:14
and Mk. 12:31; Rom. 2:17-23 and Mk. 7:8-13. See Bratton, “Continuity and divergence in the Jesus-Paul problem, 152.
60
Comparative references: 1 Thess. 4:15, 16 and Mk. 9:1; 1 Thess. 4:17 and Mk. 13:26, 30; 1 Thess. 5:2 and Mt. 24:43;
2 Thess. 1:7 and Mk. 8:38; 2 Thess. 2:1 and Mt. 24:31 ; 2 Thess. 2:2,3 and Mt. 24:6 ; 2 Thess. 2:4 and Mt. 24:15; 2
Thess. 2:8, 9 and Mt. 24:24; Rom. 2:5, 6 and Mt. 10:32, 33; 2 Cor. 5:10 and Mt. 25:31 ff.; Rom. 2:6 and Mt. 16:27;
Rom. 14:12 and Mt. 12:36. See Bratton, “Continuity and divergence in the Jesus-Paul problem, 151.
61
Bratton, “Continuity and divergence in the Jesus-Paul problem, 154-5.
62
Bratton, “Continuity and divergence in the Jesus-Paul problem, 152-3.
6|Page