Put A Warning On The Gospels

Posted byChaplainmikePosted inLaugh or else

Is it just me, or are some Christians putting too much emphasis on the Gospels?

There’s a lot of talk about the Kingdom of God in the Gospels. That gets many people off on the wrong track entirely.

Some people are always quoting the parables or Jesus’ sermons. All of these things need some further elaboration, footnotes or clarification, not to mention lots of additional verses from the rest of the Bible.

And what about all the things that Jesus keeps telling people to do? If you can’t do things perfectly, what are you supposed to do with them? Reading the Gospels could cause you to be deluded about the whole Christian life.

Then there’s all the things Jesus says are just true about his disciples. They ARE the salt and they ARE the light. All that. That makes some fans of good theology break into a cold sweat. Jesus can be all those things, but what’s the deal saying them about us?

Jesus seems to spend a lot of time accepting the unacceptable, elevating the oppressed, inviting the unwanted and including the excluded. Assuming that those things are just types and shadows of God accepting us, could someone explain exactly what we’re supposed to do with those kinds of commands and examples?

You could get a lot of wrong ideas reading the Gospels too much. You could start thinking that Jesus is in favor of some kind of social gospel where people give away lots of things, live in community, get in trouble for their radical compassion and stand outside of the religious establishment much of the time.

In fact, really….the Gospels have some good stories, but wouldn’t we be better off to study things like Romans 3 more often, so we really know what the Gospel is about?

Spending a lot of time in the Gospels could make you a person who is confused about discipleship as compared to grace. We should go to church, hear about grace, and leave much happier. If we read the Gospels too much, we’ll get the idea we’re supposed to do a lot of things that we really don’t have to do to be saved.

Let’s be careful with the Gospels. Don’t go overboard with them. They could mess up your whole religion.

I’m glad we talked about this. A lot of people could be easily confused.

53 thoughts on “Put A Warning On The Gospels”

  2. Apparently we did need Pauline Christology to understand the importance of Jesus, or else why did God give it?

    To understand *that* Jesus is important, all you need is the Gospels. But to make sense of it all, you either needed to have been on the Emmaus road or in the upper room with Him while He explained it all (and even then they had a hard time with it), or just read Paul’s, Peter’s, John’s, & Jude’s letters, in conjunction with the Gospels.

    If God hadn’t set apart Paul for the work he did, Christianity would have just devolved into a splinter sect of Judaism, a historical curiosity which we might have called the Ebionites.

    Like

  3. “That’s right. We don’t need all this theology. We should just realize that this is God in the flesh himself speaking to us. Oh, wait. That’s Christology. Can’t import that. Okay we need to realize that someone is standing before us, the Body of Christ, telling us how to live. Oh, wait. Pauline ecclesiology. Can’t import that one in, either. Okay, somebody is standing before a group of other people and telling them what they need to do if they want to follow him around while he’s teaching. And that should be enough for us to know it is of top importance.”

    You have a low view of the Gospels. We do not need Pauline Christology to understand why Jesus is important. As he says at the end of Matthew, “all authority on heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

    Like

  4. Lonleypilgrim – I guess I’m not seeing any real contradiction between what I wrote and what you did. Did you intend for their to be? After further discussion we might find that we differ on the specifics of what “all” Jesus commanded or the primary emphasis of the SOTM(for example). Or, maybe not.

    Steven – No, I do not think “more clearly” certainly implies better. Else, the Old Testament would be “worse” because the Gospel is not clearly revealed there. They are all “good” – O.T., Gospels, Epistles because they fulfill their specific task. And really, the timing of the writing isn’t what I had in mind. It was when the timing of the events reported occurred.

    Matt – I don’t think I said that the Gospels apply to the Old Covenant. And yes, the Gospels were produced post-Resurrection. But, the events within the Gospels and Jesus’ teaching ministry occurred while the Old Covenant was still in force – which is what we must keep in mind. This is why we understand that passages like Matt 23:23 do not teach that we should tithe. What Jesus said to the Pharisees in that passage was said realizing what law they were following.

    Question : If you take the SOTM(for example) we know that we cannot be all that Jesus talks about on our own. We need the empowerment of the Spirit. But what about the people who first heard that sermon? What would have been their first thoughts? Could they have possibly thought they could be “pure in heart” if they were being honest with themselves. I’m just afraid that we are reading our understanding back into the intention of what Jesus was saying. I am aware of the full implications of this? No, not really. And I fully admit I could be wrong about more than a few things. I’m just trying to work it out like the rest of you.

    Like

  6. I’m aghast! I just noticed I had some people questioning my brilliant comment. 😉 But as I’m still at work I’ll have to defend my honor at a later hour.

    And this is just an aside, but I was wishing that I could get together with a group of people locally to interact like we’re doing here. iMonk commenters are some of the best.

    Like

  7. “I’m glad we talked about this. A lot of people could be easily confused.”

    Yep. Especially me. Over at another blog recently, someone was absolutely flabbergasted that I said we couldn’t “go it alone” in reading and interpreting the gospels, that we needed what Paul, John, Peter, et al. said too. I thought this was pretty much Christianity 101, but I really put a torque on the noses of, I think, the majority of that blog’s readers. I was, and still am, completely confused.

    The problem with tongue-in-cheek posts like this is that I (being admittedly clueless, anyway) can’t always tell exactly what is being argued for and exactly what is being argued against. I think maybe I agree with you whole-heartedly. But maybe our opinions here are night and day different. I can’t tell. My apologies to the other readers who don’t have this problem. If you have the time and inclination in the near future for a more direct, less ironic post on what you mean, it would be helpful — to me, anyway.

    Like

  8. rampancy, NT Wright was not joking.

    He wrote: “And this, sadly, chimes in with other impressions I have received from elsewhere within the same theological stable – with, for instance, the suggestion that since Paul’s epistles give us ‘the gospel’ while ‘the Gospels’ simply give us stories about Jesus, we shouldn’t make the reading of the latter into the key moment in the first half of the Communion Service. (In case anyone should rub their eyes in disbelief, I have actually heard this seriously argued more than once in the last year or two.)’

    Here is a link:http://tinyurl.com/557kwb

    Like

  9. “They’ll argue who can sit next to the throne,
    And I cringe to hear them say, ‘Thy kingdom come’.
    They think they know what they’re getting into,
    But we both know that they haven’t got a clue.
    Because it’s not the same,
    It’s a different thing all together,
    It’s not the same,
    It’s another thing altogether…
    This is love.”

    – from “This is Love”, by Steve Bell,
    from his CD “Beyond a Shadow”

    Like

  10. Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give it to the poor and then follow Him. When the disciples asked Him “Who can be saved?” the Lord said all things are possible with God. Now there are cults, that without the revelation of the epistles, take that to mean you cannot be rich and be saved.

    The epistles are the further and explanatory revelation of the gospels.

    Like

  11. In our Lutheran Church, our Pastor preaches every Sunday The Law and Gospel to remind us that we are both Saints and Sinners at the same time. We are sinners and The Law kills and The Gospel raises us up in Christ. We also receive Christ’s very Body and his Blood in the bread and wine of his Holy Supper for the forgiveness of sins.

    Like

  12. That’s right. We don’t need all this theology. We should just realize that this is God in the flesh himself speaking to us. Oh, wait. That’s Christology. Can’t import that. Okay we need to realize that someone is standing before us, the Body of Christ, telling us how to live. Oh, wait. Pauline ecclesiology. Can’t import that one in, either. Okay, somebody is standing before a group of other people and telling them what they need to do if they want to follow him around while he’s teaching. And that should be enough for us to know it is of top importance.

    Like

  13. Brian,

    I am a dispensationalist, but I don’t think its right to say that the Gospels apply to the Old Covenant. While the Sermon on the Mount may have been delivered during the old dispensation, the Gospels are obviously post-resurrection documents. The purpose of the Gospels is not just “to inform you what happened,” they are theological documents–revelation even. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John thought that Jesus’ teaching was important enough for the resurrection community that they felt inclined to write it down.

    Like

  15. Hello Brian,

    How do you square the statement that;

    “The Gospels and Epistles are both revealing Christ to us – albeit in slightly different ways. One is not better than the other”

    with the statement that;

    “Paul is writing after the resurrection event. The New Covenant has been inaugurated and so I don’t see any problem with expecting the Gospel to be presented more clearly after this point.”

    More clearly certainly implies better, does it not? And weren’t the Gospels written after the resurrection event too? So I do not quite understand how the timing of Paul’s letters would make them clearer than the Gospels. Perhaps there is a better way to describe it?

    Do the teachings of Jesus before the institution of the New Covenant transfer over to those under the New Covenant when Jesus commands the disciples to teach all nations “to obey everything I have commanded you” in Matthew 28:20? If not, which commands am I supposed to obey, and which ones are just pointing out that I need a Savior?

    I see that I need both Jesus as Savior and to obey what He taught in the Gospels, out of love for Him, not by my ability alone but with the help of the Holy Spirit.

    Peace and blessings
    Stephen

    Like

  16. I can’t get the idea that the life and teachings of Christ were part of the old covenant, I seriously need scripture to back up that point of view. Paul himself (well maybe Paul) in the beginning of Hebrews that the in these last days God has spoken to us through His Son. The Son is the exact representation of the Father. John mentions in the beginning of his Gospel that the Son has made the Father known. He is the Word of God. Jesus’ mission was not only to atone for ous sins but also to reveal to the world who God is. How can we dismiss His life & teaching as part of an all to soon (considering the timing) antequated covenant?

    Like

  17. Brian,

    Part of the Great Commission is “teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you.” Which Jesus said AFTER His resurrection and after He said “all authority is given to Me.” In other words, it was said AFTER the establishment of the New Covenant, people were no longer under the Old Covenant’s authority and Jesus had risen from the grave.

    I must admit I have over the past few years been realizing that there is more to the New Testament than just the epistles of Paul, more to the epistles of Paul than just Romans and more to Romans than just the first 11 chapters.

    Like

  18. The gospels are indeed the account and proof of Jesus as God’s Son and His gospel passion, but Christ Himself said He could not say things to the disciples until the Holy Spirit would come and guide them. It is tragic to discount the life and teachings of Christ.

    But if we are to actually believe the account in Acts of Paul’s conversion, and Paul’s own account in Galations that Jesus taught Paul face to face with no apostolic influence which Peter seems to substantiate, we must consider the Pauline epistles as the ecclesiastical foundation for doctrinal structure.

    Some denominations insist on foot washing, why? Because Jesus said to the disciples He was providing an example for them to follow. Why then do most evangelical churches ignore that or just do it at some occasion? Because Paul never mentions it. Why do we not expect someone’s shadow to heal people? Because Paul doesn’t teach it.

    As Moses was to Israel so is Paul to the church. A few similarities would be:

    *Both were thoroughly trained in wisdom and dialectics, both were well educated
    *Both were chosen before birth for a special ministry. Moses was preserved from Egyptian slaughter, and Paul states he was “separated from birth”.
    *Both had supernatural initial encounters with God. Moses at the burning bush and Paul on the Damascus Road.
    *Both were taught their ministries not by man but “face to face” with God as it were.
    *Both had been murderers
    *Both carried a supernatural burden for their flock and both counted the lives of their people more important than their own. Moses asked God to kill him instead of Israel, and Paul wished himself accursed in place of Israel.
    *Both warned of damnation to anyone who would add or subtract from their revelation.
    *Both were very humble, Moses the meekest man on earth and Paul “less than the least of all the saints”.

    And here are a few of the teachings distinctive to Paul:

    The Universal Headship of Christ (Eph.1:9-10)
    The Headship of Christ Over the Church (Col.2:16-19)
    The Emphasis of the Cross (Gal.6:14)
    The Revelation of the Mystery (20 times only Paul)
    The Teaching of the Rapture (I Thess.4 & I Cor.15)
    The Body of Christ (Rom.12:5)
    The Bride of Christ (II Cor.11:2 & Rom.7:4)
    The Gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12 & 14)
    The Offices of the Church (Ti.1 & I Tim.3)
    Justification by Faith (Rom.5:1)
    The Contrast of Law and Grace (Gal. 4)
    The Contrast of the Old and New Man (Eph.4 & Col. 3)

    Neither the gospels or the epistles exclude each other, they are perfectly complimentary.

    Like

  19. @PamBG: “NT Wright notes that he has heard people saying that the Epistles contain ‘the gospel message’ and that The Gospels simply contain stories about Jesus.”

    …he was just joking…right?

    Like

  20. I find it interesting when people treat the epistles as commentary on the gospels even though the gospels were typically written after the epistles. In other words, it just won’t work to dismiss the gospels as early teaching that is supplanted by the later epistles.

    Like

  21. I’ve gotta go along the same lines as Kyle above. The Gospels and Epistles are both revealing Christ to us – albeit in slightly different ways. One is not better than the other(and I’m not saying anyone in here said this).

    And, as has been said on this blog before, we have to remember the context that each occurs in. The Gospels occur while the Old Covenant is still in force and Jesus is preaching/teaching/talking to those under its authority. I believe a lot(not all) of what Jesus does is for the purpose of driving the people to see their need for a Savior. Paul is writing after the resurrection event. The New Covenant has been inaugurated and so I don’t see any problem with expecting the Gospel to presented more clearly after this point.

    Like

  23. Great post!

    But don’t hate on Romans 3!

    I don’t think the Epistles are in any way inferior to the Gospels (not that you implied this). Remeber, Jesus didn’t write the Gospels. The Gospels are theological reflections on the significance of the Christ event, just like the Epistles are–only they are packaged in narrative form rather than propositional. Further, the Gospels post-date Paul’s work, and the authors were probably saturated in Pauline thought (especially Luke).

    You don’t get a “naked” picture of Jesus in the Gospels, you get the story of Jesus as presented by people who knew the ideas behind Romans 3. That’s why we have a whole canon to work with!

    Like

  24. I like this idea!!! Now we can switch tactics all over the place with people who say, “Yeah, Paul says that, but Jesus didn’t talk about [fill in the blank]. If Jesus didn’t say it, I don’t have to listen to it.”

    Now I can just respond, “Who cares what Jesus said!”

    (With the same tongue planted in my cheek that you had in yours..)

    Like

  25. The focal point of the Gospels is not the life of Christ (as important as that is), but the death and resurrection of Christ. That’s why so much of the material details the passion week.

    In some cases in modern evangelicalism, the life of Christ comes through loud and clear, while the death and resurrection of Christ is only mentioned in passing.

    And why did God find it necessary to give us the rest of the NT, if not to explain and expound upon the message found in the Gospels?

    I’m certainly no “red-letter Christian.” I take comfort in the fact that neither was Jesus (Luke 24:44-49) and neither was Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    Like

  27. serious, kyle? i’d probably read the whole thing before putting a sign like that on it. there is some icky stuff in there. icky

    Like

  29. Hi Kyle,

    I see the 4 gospels as the heart of Scripture, these 4 books reveal God Himself: His personality, His ideals, His heart. The epistles seem to me like the specifications of His plan, the schematics of what He is doing. So it is wrong to elevate the gospels over the epistles or any other part of Scripture, but there are tensions and nuances that we should take into account. Personally, my spiritual life opened up when I decided to focus solely on the Gospels for a time period. It was as if I used to read only about God and now I finally met Him.

    Like

  30. Don’t you realize that all of Jesus’ talk about the Kingdom was about the future millenial Kingdom that will happen after the Tribulation? 🙂

    Like

  31. I for one am glad that Jesus made an Osama bin Laden exception for the command to love your enemies.

    Like

  32. Michael,

    I loved this post particularly as I had decided months ago that I would spend this year only in the Gospels and just for this year, imagine they were the only text available to me in regards to Jesus and Christianity. It’s been quite the four months…

    Like

  33. I almost forgot (silly me) about the most important part of the gospel stories.(as well as almost all the other books in the Bible)

    Even though we are not up to it(God’s demands)…we are forgiven!

    That’s the good news! Isn’t that just like a sinner…to almost forget about that?

    Thanks for the reminder!

    – Steve

    Like

  34. I’m not sure why we have to see the Gospels and the epistles as in some dichotomy. The biographies of Jesus and the instructional letters to churches (not to mention the prophetic, poetic, and narrative writings in the OT) are all breathed out by God, and all shed interpretive light on the other parts. It seems ridiculous that we should elevate either the epistles or the gospels over the other, as if some things God says are more right or true than other things God says.

    Maybe a warning sign on the whole Bible that says, “Anything you read in here is real, right, and true. You’re expected to obey.”

    Like

  36. It’s all about dying… and being raised…

    over and over and over again. (living in baptism)

    Reading the gospels shows us what God demands from us. Passages like Romans 3 show us that we are not up to it. Any honest examination of our own hearts and performance will verify that.

    Like

  37. In his article, ‘The Cross and the Caricatures’, NT Wright notes that he has heard people saying that the Epistles contain ‘the gospel message’ and that The Gospels simply contain stories about Jesus. So your original post is quite on target, I think.

    Like

  38. Golly, that makes me think of how many times I’ve heard Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 quoted during sermons in the past, oh, 10 months I’ve been at that particular church. You might come away thinking no sermon was complete without them.

    ~Anna

    Like

  42. Marcion lives. haha.

    To paraphrase Shane Claiborne from his book Irresistible Revolution, a lot of people talk about how Jesus made their lives wonderful, but Jesus really messed mine up. What if he really meant all those things he said?

    Like

  43. “Let’s be careful with the Gospels. Don’t go overboard with them. They could mess up your whole religion.
    I’m glad we talked about this. A lot of people could be easily confused.”

    So, I am confused now 🙂 Were you poking fun of those who are not ready to get their religion challenged by the content of the Gospels?

    Or, were you serious about looking at the Apostles’ epistles as a way of understanding of what the Gospels are all about?

    Like

  48. So that’s what my problem is! I’ll have to lay off those gospels in future. Thanks for the heads up. 😀

    Like

  49. Plus they forget that Jesus’s teachings in the Gospels happened before His death, and that automatically puts them in the Dispensation of the Law. Since we’re in the Dispensation of Grace, we can ignore all that. Why try to understand the parables at all, or memorize any of Jesus’s teachings, since they’re in a defunct dispensation?

    In fact, we’re sort of obligated to… otherwise we’re disregarding God’s free gift of grace, and undoing our own salvation.

    Wait… didn’t I stop being a dispensationalist years ago? Scratch all that then.

    Like

  50. Michael, at first I thought you were going one direction, but as I read on I detected the sarcasm. You said, “All of these things need some further elaboration, footnotes or clarification,”. God apparently thought this was true, otherwise why the Epistles?

    For what it’s worth, here’s what I think: living in the grace of God (which we do by faith, which is a verb) makes us able to do the great things modeled by Jesus in the Gospels. If we’re not doing these things (loving God and loving neighbor) the solution is not to try harder, but to turn on more faith, and God will put His character into us more and more.

    Like

  51. In an episode of the Simpsons, when Marge is accused of being a witch and Lisa tries to defend her mother with “judge not lest ye be judged,” a character pauses for a moment and answers with “the bible says a lot of things.” This could not be a truer statement. But there is something special about words attributed to God the Son, walking around on earth speaking to other images of God and there is a reason that, in many churches, the congregation stands when the Gospel is being read.

    If a theology is not firmly based in the Gospels, it is just another gospel.

    Like

  52. nice. Well said.
    I think about this constantly. And it seems we’ve invented some sort of “Paulianity”. We love to see the words of Jesus through the eyes of Paul, not the ministry of Paul through the eyes of Jesus.

    Like

Leave a comment