Compare and contrast some of the elements of Paul’s theology with the information found in the four Gospels.  How are their contents similar or different?  What areas of incidental contact are in your opinion most interesting?  Give a summary of one element of contact and how it can be applied to Christians today.

After conversion, Paul became one of the most influential apostles in the early church but his message was not learn for the earthly ministry of Jesus.  While the focus of the four gospels Jesus ministry mostly to the Jews, Paul’s ministry was majorly to the Gentiles which saw him travel far and wide in the colonies of the Roman Empire preaching Christ and growing the churches. The book of Acts shows a man who had initially purposed to annihilate the church but after being apprehended by Jesus he turned around and championed for the same cause he was trying to exterminate[1].  In his letters, Paul spoke largely with certainty a theology focused on Jesus and expressed an authority from his apostolic calling. He focuses on training he underwent through after directly encountering Christ where he received the revelation that offered a great insight from the Jerusalem based apostles some time after the conversion. Galatians 1:12.

A major theological element common to Pauline theology and the four gospels is the work of the Holy Spirit in the development of the church.  In the Paul’s letters, he speaks highly of Christ direct revelation to him and part his teachings focused on the need to depend on the Holy Spirit in development of discipleship and Christian Character[2].  In the book of Roman, he presents the real implications of Christ’s message in believers’ lives and a look at the Sermon on the Mount indicates the extent to which Paul understood the teachings of Jesus Christ, his Master[3]. The theology presented by the apostle was founded on the fact that Christ was born, he died and rose again after which he sat at God’s right hand to indicate His assumption of the Throne.  However, in the four Gospels, Jesus had not yet assumed the heavenly throne.  His theology stems from his understanding of the revelation and from the various prophesies in the Old Testament. His meeting at Jerusalem with the apostles gives him a historic and eyewitness account of the gospel[4].   The teaching of Paul about the life of Jesus and his teachings is in line with the other teachings that can be found in other books of the New Testament and specifically in the four Gospels. At times, Paul has to insist to other believers that the message he is preaching is based on the same facts as the teachings of other apostles[5].  James and Peter agree with him after his visit to Jerusalem.

 

According to Paul, was Christ the “goal” or the “end” of the law?  Be sure to offer reasons for your answer.  Briefly discuss the various interpretations Bruce offers for the statement that “Christ is the end of the law.”  How is this statement understood in the various traditions?  Which understanding do you think is best explanation?  Why?

Paul’s initial perception of Christ was as a strong threat to his religion then, Judaism, and the reason for persecuting the church.  The conversion brought forth a drastic different view of the message of cross of Christ who had been foretold and declared in the scriptures as a mighty and powerful heavenly king. Yet Paul theology speaks of humble Christ and meet, sacrificial savior, elements which are also highlighted in the four gospels. The apostle had a personal understanding of Christ and his teachings.  The theology by Paul also focuses on the ministry of Jesus on earth and his accomplishment through death and resurrection that were the foundation of the Church. This is similar to the gospel by Apostle John. John’s Gospel places its focus on the ministry of Jesus especially in Jerusalem when He periodically visited the city[6].

“Christ as the end of the law” is a profound theological expression in Romans 10.4, written by Paul.  Interpretation if this phrase requires  a person to first understand the terms end and law in the context of Paul’s teachings.  There have been for definitions of law defended by academia within the context of Paul’s writings that comprises of a law’s system, Old Testament reference, legalism and Mosaic Law reference[7]. Most of these scholars lean towards the definition of law as being close Mosaic Law.  The definition of the term end is likely to mean a goal, result or termination. If the word end would be defined s termination, Paul suggestion of the meaning would be strictly transient. This means that the relevance of Mosaic Law was terminated by coming of Christ[8]. In this case, the Mosaic Law would no longer be used to establish a person’s own righteousness. Otherwise, if the goal was the right definition of the term end, then Paul assertion would involve an interrelationship between Christ and law so that it by some means teleological lead to Messiah[9]. While not completely abandoning the teleological aspect, various reasons can show the basically that end refers to termination.   The term’s temporal definition can have predominant meaning in the New Testament, and the context in which Romans 10-34 is written shows that the apostle was trying to disassociate Christ from the law and refuting Jews attempt to use the law as the basis of their righteousness[10]. Moreover, the apostle also validates the Christ- law relationship as being discontinuous in nature Romans 3:20, 10:5-8. In regard to the phrase “Christ is the end of the law”, Bruce’s initial assertions focus on Rabbi Leo Baeck claim that the cultural influence by Paul facilitated an idea of “a doctrine of three Epochs”, that involved the assumption that the culmination of the law was in Messiah even though this argument is not conclusive[11].

 The suggestion is that the term “end” refers to both the termination and the goal.  He views the goal of the law as being a transitory to lead people to Christ Galatians 3:24.  The emphasis by Bruce relates to the continuity between Christ and law, where he closely relates the reason of the law with its termination[12]. The author arrives at a conclusive suggestion that God’s righteousness is not obtained through obedience to the law but by having faith in Jesus Christ. Bruce’s interpretation stems from the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, with the latter suggesting three elements of the law.  These includes:  the purpose of the law was to dissuade malicious behavior an aspect not found in gospel; it encouraged repentance but the preaching by Paul emphasized on freedom but not using the law in this manner; the view of Lutheran was that the law was a guide to the church but he cautions the use of law to govern the church[13].  Under reformed tradition, Bruce refers to Calvin where he claims that even though obedience to the law does to lead to salvation; people are always under some rules in real life[14]. In my view, he idea of discontinuity in understanding of the phrase in that the law and Christ are disjoined and Christ being the “end” but not the goal seems quite logical. This is because the notion of continued connection between the law and Christ increases the chances of human self-reliance on his or her effort for salvation.

References

Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

Still, Todd D., and Bruce W. Longenecker. Thinking through Paul: a survey of his life, letters, and theology. Zondervan, 2014.

 

Moo, Douglas J. The letter of James. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

 

 

 

[1] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[2] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[3] Still, Todd D., and Bruce W. Longenecker. Thinking through Paul: a survey of his life, letters, and theology. Zondervan, 2014

[4] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000

[5] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000

[6] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000

 

[7] Moo, Douglas J. The letter of James. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[8] Moo, Douglas J. The letter of James. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[9] Moo, Douglas J. The letter of James. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[10] Moo, Douglas J. The letter of James. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[11] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[12] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

[13] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

 

 

[14] Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Paul: Apostle of the heart set free. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.