> You say that the words of Christ from the four gospels concern the time prior to the crucifixion, but is Jesus really laying down teachings that will only be applicable in the few months before his death? I understand that the gospels *take place* before the crucifixion, but they were written after it, for poeple living in a post-Resurrection world. I don't see how the writings of Paul, which, in the scheme of things, are hardly predated by the Gospels at all, could be a better source.
> [...]
> Maybe you can clarify your original point a little?

Absolutely. These are excellent questions. To answer, I think I must first paint the picture and THEN follow it up with the supporting biblical evidence, so please bear with me to the end.

When Jesus made himself known in the world and started preaching, he was preaching something repeatedly called in the Bible "the gospel of the kingdom." By doing so, God was beginning the fulfillment of a promise to Israel. This gospel was given to the nation of Israel, and had things gone properly, the Jews would have accepted this gospel, and the period of effect for this gospel would have continued. But Israel rejected the gospel of the kingdom by crucifying Christ and, later, as told in Acts, executing several of those Christ told to preach this gospel.

When Israel rejected the gospel of the kingdom, the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel was deferred to a date still in our future (the transition marked by the tribulation and the second coming of Christ), and what we have in the middle is something no one saw coming: the gospel of grace, given to Paul, to be preached to Jew and Gentile alike. This gospel is distinguished from the gospel of the kingdom by comparing various points of doctrine in addition to being distinct in the facts about it (which I'll try to explain later).

Consequently, while all Scripture is given for our learning, it is important to understand that the New Testament contains two distinctly different gospels, and whenever they diverge, we have to follow the one meant for us.

If you're with me so far, I'll now try to justify all this biblically. This is a large subject and goes far deeper than the references I'll give now, but this is a start.

- In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul said that his gospel is "not after man," and he explains what he means: he didn't receive it of man nor taught it of man; he was given it by the relevation of Jesus Christ.

- In Galatians 2, Paul goes to Jerusalem to preach his gospel. He goes first "privately to them which were of reputation," (Gal. 2:2) which we later discover includes James, Peter, and John (Gal. 2:9, also see John 1:42), and in that meeting the others in the conference could not teach Paul anything he didn't already know (Gal. 2:6), while when Paul preached, the others present learned that "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (2:7).

- A broader illustration of Galatians 2, see Romans 16:25-26, in which Paul says that "my gospel" was made known to him by revelation of Christ by "revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest." If it was a secret beforehand, no one else could have been preaching it. Paul reiterates that his gospel was a mystery in times past in Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1.

- In the book of Matthew, the Jesus and the apostles had been preaching what was called the gospel of the kingdom for quite some time before Matthew 16:21, the first time Jesus talks about him being crucified. This comes as a shock to the apostles, and Peter starts to rebuke him for it, and Jesus cuts him off with a rebuke of his own. The gospel given to Paul, the gospel of the grace of God, is *defined* by the fact that Christ died for our sins and rose again (I Cor. 15:3-4). The gospel that had been preached by Peter and the other apostles before Matthew 16 could not have been the same gospel if the central principle of Paul's gospel were not only unknown to them but something that shocked them. (A parallel account is given in Mark.)

- Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (When the Bible says "the end" in reference to a time, it refers to the end of the tribulation period. I can justify that later if you can bear with me for now.) The fact that "the end" has not yet come indicates that the gospel of the kingdom has not yet been preached in all the world unto all nations. But here's the thing: Paul's gospel *was* preached in all the world and to all nations -- by the first century A.D., no less. In Colossians 1:5-6, Paul says, "...whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world." In Romans 16:25-26, mentioned before, Paul says that "my gospel" (verse 25) is "made known to all nations" (verse 26). So, by virtue of the fact that "the end" has not yet come, Paul's gospel cannot have been the same gospel.

- When Paul preached his gospel to the Jews at a synagogue at Antioch in Acts 13, Paul's message was at first accused of being "contradicting" (verse 45) -- an odd complaint for them to make unless Paul's gospel was not the same gospel they were accustomed to hearing.

- There are differences in who these gospels were intended for. The gospel of the kingdom concerns Israel. Jesus and the apostles only preached to the Jews. The kingdom ("repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand") concerns the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel. It was Paul's gospel that preached that Christ died for EVERYONE, that there is no difference between Jew or Gentile, for all are inheriters of the grace of God (Eph. 3:3-6,

--

Having established that the two gospels are different, it becomes easier to look at doctrinal differences. Many seek to look at doctrinal differences by treating them as "apparent contradictions" and trying to find a way to make one verse or another say something it does not. One denomination might subscribe to one gospel and try to show how the other really says something it doesn't, and another denomination might do the vice versa. But they're both wrong. The gospel of the kingdom REALLY DOES teach that baptism is something you have to do to be saved, and the gospel of the grace of God REALLY DOES teach that it is not.

On the matter of how one must be saved, compare the following two passages. In Matthew 19:16, someone comes up to Jesus and asks what he can do to have eternal life. Jesus answers to keep the commandments (verse 17), give his riches to the poor, and follow him (verse 21). But in Acts 16:30, a man asks Paul "what must I do to be saved?" and Paul says that if he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he shall be saved. Other differences between the gospels can be found in the rules about Sabbath Day observance and, I *think* though I am not positive, rules concerning divorce and remarriage.

I believe it is with only a decidedly dishonest interpretation of Scripture can one say that Jesus's answer and Paul's answer are really somehow the same thing. Especially in light of the other scriptural reference already given to illustrate how these two gospels are different anyhow. Almost the whole book of Romans is devoted to illustrating how one cannot be saved by the Law (following the commandments), and Paul says time and again how good works do not play a part in salvation ("Not by works of righteousness which we have done..." in Titus 3:5 and "Not of works" in Ephesians 2:9), when Jesus is asked, "keep the commandments" is the sum total of his answer until the inquirer presses Jesus for more information. Doesn't make sense if these two are somehow the same gospel.

For further reading, see the book of Acts, which chronicles the transition between the periods of effect of the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. The transition happens right around the middle of Acts, throughout chapters 8-10. (There is overlap, probably to give time for news of the gospel of grace to spread.) Also see Romans 9-11, particularly 11, which concerns among other things the future restoration of Israel, when Israel will get a second chance to accept the gospel of the kingdom.

--

For as much as I've said on the subject, I've seriously only done an brief overview of a chunk of it. This is a tenant of Bible study that pervades the New Testament (with prophecies concerning it in the Old). Ultimately the question looming above this subthread is "What does the New Testament say and who does it say it to?" and I'm sure you can appreciate that that is not a question I can fully address in a forum post. I've touched upon many, but not all, of the biblical references that explicitly discuss the disparity between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. But in that discussion are raised numerous expansive questions. We could spend a long time discussing doctrinal differences. We could spend a long time justifying the chronology of the New Testament (birth of Christ, in our past, to millennial reign, in our future). We could spend a long time talking about the prophecies concerning Israel. Something so basic as "what gospel(s) does the New Testament preach?" pretty much leads into everything.

Hopefully, however, I have at least established a basis for justifying the hypothesis that there are two distinct gospels in the New Testament and provided a jumping off point for further study.

---

(*Regarding "the end" referring to the end of the tribulation period, see Daniel 11:27 - 12:13. A full discussion, particularly if it involved the larger context of the book of Daniel, would take up a post as long as this one, but hopefully it is sufficient to mention this passage as one to study. Note that Matthew 24:14-15 discusses "the end" in the same context as in Daniel.)