Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 5
The speaker says early Christians called Matthew/Mark/Luke/John “the gospels” and understood “the gospel” primarily as Jesus’ teaching (the “gospel of the kingdom”); how would a church’s discipleship, preaching, and assurance change if it consciously treated Jesus’ commands as the starting point for interpreting Paul?
Another way to ask: If a church started with Jesus’ teachings as the main meaning of “the gospel” and then read Paul through that, how might its preaching, discipleship, and assurance change?

Direct Answer Based on the speaker, the church would be trained to start with Jesus as “supreme teacher,” interpret Paul in a way that cannot contradict Jesus, and build assurance around ongoing faithfulness and obedience rather than a Romans-only framework that sidelines Jesus’ commands.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says early Christians labeled the four books “the gospels,” and when they spoke of “the gospel,” they meant “Jesus’ teaching, not Romans.”
  • He quotes Matthew: Jesus was “preaching the gospel of the kingdom,” and Jesus said “this gospel of the kingdom… will be preached in all the world.”
  • He insists “There are not two gospels… It is Jesus Christ, and it’s found in the gospels.”
  • He describes early Christian method: “Third, they began with the teachings of Jesus… and then they interpreted the rest of scripture in light of Jesus’ teaching.”
  • He uses Jesus’ words to correct Paul-centered reading: “you do not be called teacher… one is your teacher, the Christ.”
  • He says if an interpretation of Paul “contradicts Jesus, then we are misinterpreting the apostles.”
Discussion Follow-ups How might preaching plans change if churches intentionally began with Jesus’ commands (e.g., in Matthew) before addressing Romans 3-style questions about justification?