How the Bible's Spiritual Kindness Comforts

Scripture offers key promises that invite deep reflection. Luke 2:14 declares, "...and on earth peace, good will toward men," suggesting a peculiar cosmic intent for harmony and benevolence toward humanity.

Jeremiah 29:11 further emphasizes this: "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." This passage highlights a purposeful cosmic plan centered on inward tranquility.

Isaiah 66:13 evokes a nurturing image: "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you."

Together, these verses portray a compassionate living Mind over the individual and extending solace when needed.

The Challenge of Understanding Spiritual Fulfillment

While many who study the Bible know these passages, their deeper meaning can be elusive. John 4:24 states that "God is a Spirit," and Luke 24:39 clarifies that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones." This non-physical nature of “God” raises questions: How can an incorporeal Being provide tangible comfort, peace, or good will in a realistic way?

Consider these questions: How does a spirit, without a body, offer consistent human-like comfort? What kind of good will comes from an entity outside of humanity? Can peace stem from a source that doesn’t ultimately experience it physically? What thoughts can a non-physical being have for those bound by flesh?  

Often, interpretations lean on inherited teachings or cultural assumptions rather than the Bible’s own logic. Without grounding in its context, one might drift into speculation, forming beliefs that stray from its intent. This risks misrepresenting the "peace" and "good will" a spiritual (no-flesh-having) “God” provides.

How Does Such a God Provide Comfort?

This leads to a central question: If God is Spirit, and if a spirit does not have flesh and bones, how can or does a spirit comfort? Without a physical form, this Being’s comfort cannot rely on physical means. While traditional theology offers various answers drawn from various ecclesiastical perspectives, the Bible itself points to one solution.

 The answer is "righteousness"; not ritualistic practice, but a certain type of kindness. Titus 3:4 describes this as "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man." Titus 3:5 elaborates: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

It is through the regenerating of what is within, or the cleansing of what is within, that this living Mind comforts. In other words, that comfort is manifested as one executes the saying, “Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace...Receive...from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart” (Job 22:21,22).

Two Forms of Righteousness in Scripture

The Bible presents "righteousness" in two contrasting ways, each with significant implications for spiritual or devotional freedom.

The first is a rigid adherence to handwritten religious rules. This form of righteousness binds individuals to external dictates, suppressing genuine devotion and personal freedom. We learn about this from how it says, “That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). Beauty from religious law is the first form of “righteousness,” and this form is false.

In contrast, the manner of righteousness within the Hebrew Scriptures restores freedom. It liberates the conversation’s inner dialogue from external constraints, granting autonomy in thought, emotion, action, and behavior. This aligns with Isaiah 61:1: "To proclaim liberty to the captives." Here, “righteousness” is not obligation but emancipating grace, in that one says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10).

The Gospel: Liberty Through Kindness

The gospel, or "good news," is often misunderstood as a call to emulate, whether by ritual or by religious law, a divine literary figure’s nature. Instead, Scriptures frames it as a "good will,” a kindness aimed not really at individuals, but at their inner devotional culture. This liberation from false devotion is the essence of the Bible’s philosophy, which consistently states, “...through knowledge shall the just be delivered” (Proverbs 11:9).

By viewing the Bible in its cultural and philosophical context, one can pursue its intended peace, comfort, and good will. Our experiences extend beyond traditional teachings or assumed knowledge. Religious systems often shape our spiritual lens, obscuring the deeper reality. The "expected end" promised in Jeremiah 29:11 is freedom from these doctrinal constraints to personally know the character of the Bible’s Mind, encouraging a devotion reflecting its kind will for our personal and devotional self. When studying Scripture, this pursuit of authentic “righteousness” should guide our focus, leading to true spiritual fulfillment.

Jesus Vs. Christ: Did the Historical Jesus Even Matter?

When reviewing Paul’s overall mythology, one begins to question whether the historical Jesus even mattered, and particularly when comparing the Christ of Paul’s theology with the Jesus of the Gospel narratives. This debate touches on the very foundation of Christianity, raising concerns about whether its movement is rooted in a real historical figure or a theological construct that evolved independently of any specific individual.

Paul’s Christ Without a Historical Jesus

Paul’s letters, the earliest Christian writings, present a Jesus who is overwhelmingly mythological and theological; a cosmic Christ, whose death and resurrection define Christian theory. Unlike the Gospel narratives, Paul rarely references the life and teachings of Jesus. Instead, his Christ is the sacrificial atonement, a divine mediator between God and humanity. The implications are significant: if Paul’s Jesus was primarily theological and not based on an earthly figure, does Christianity even need a historical Jesus?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul states:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."

This passage, one of the few instances where Paul presents an early Christian creed, does not focus on Jesus’ earthly life or teachings but on his death and resurrection. This emphasis suggests that for Paul, the significance of the Jesus character lay not in his historical actions, but in his theological function. Paul’s Jesus is universal, transcendent, and salvific—not a rabbi or social revolutionary, but a divine intermediary.

The Gospel Jesus: A Narrative Counterbalance?

In contrast, the Gospels somewhat anchor Jesus firmly in Jewish tradition. They depict him as a prophet, a teacher of ethics, and a proclaimer of the philosophy of the Kingdom of God. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John interacts with his disciples, debates with religious authorities, and preaches about justice and the inward work of God the Father. His teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, emphasize morality and social ethics in ways that Paul does not.

Given that the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters, were they attempting to correct his vision of the Jesus character? Some within the field argue that the Gospel writers sought to ground the theological Christ in history, providing a biographical framework that Paul had ignored. Others suggest that Paul’s vision was the original, and the Gospel narratives were a later mythologization, an effort to make a cosmic savior more relatable to a broader audience.

Paul’s Theology: A Jewish Evolution or a Radical Departure?

Pamela Eisenbaum, in Paul Was Not a Christian, argues that Paul remained fundamentally Jewish and was not “converting” to a new religion, but rather reinterpreting Jewish messianic expectations in light of his revelations. Paul’s Jesus was not a moral teacher but, according to Paul’s perception, a fulfillment of divine prophecy, a necessary sacrifice for the redemption of humanity.

This perspective further complicates the issue of the historical Jesus. If Paul’s vision was the earliest and most influential, then the Gospel Jesus might be a theological innovation rather than a corrective. That is, Jesus the rabbi and ethical teacher may have been a later narrative construct to appeal to Jewish and Greco-Roman audiences.

Christianity Without a Historical Jesus?

If Paul’s Jesus was primarily a theological concept, can Christianity function without a historical Jesus? Some in the field argue that it already does. Christian faith, as articulated by Paul, depends not on the deeds or words of an earthly Jesus but on belief in his death and resurrection. Paul himself claims that his Gospel was received “through revelation” rather than human tradition, suggesting that historical veracity was secondary to theological truth.

Yet, the absence of a historical Jesus would create existential challenges for Christianity. Without a tangible figure to ground its beliefs, Christianity risks being seen as a philosophical or mythical system rather than a historical faith. The tension between Paul’s cosmic Christ and the Gospel’s Jewish teacher reflects an ongoing struggle within Christian thought: is faith rooted in theological necessity or historical reality?

The Question

The question of whether the historical Jesus even mattered ultimately hinges on what one considers essential to Christian theory. If Christianity is about faith in a figure of salvation, then Paul’s theological Jesus is sufficient. If Christianity seeks historical legitimacy, then the imagined narrative of the Gospel Jesus becomes indispensable for a mythological historical framework (I realize that a “mythological historical framework might sound odd, but Greek epic writers, this was literary culture, namely, to make epic appear historical). The divergence between Paul’s letters and the Gospel narratives suggests that early Christianity was simply a lively and evolving belief system—one that continues to have a losing battle with the balance between history and theology.

 References:

Bedard, S. J., J. (n.d.). Paul And The Historical Jesus: A Case Study in First Corinthians. In McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry (Vol. 7, pp. 9–22).

Matthew, D. & Pamela Eisenbaum. (2009). PAUL WAS NOT a CHRISTIAN: the original message of a misunderstood apostle. In HarperCollins.

Taylor, N. (2003). Paul and the historical Jesus quest. Neotestamentica, 37(1), 105-126.

The Evolution of Jesus: Did the Gospels Alter Paul’s Original Christ?

Paul’s writings were the first to introduce Jesus to the mainstream, predating the Gospels by decades. His letters present a cosmic Christ, emphasizing salvation through faith in his death and resurrection. In contrast, the Gospel Jesus is depicted as a Jewish teacher proclaiming the Kingdom of God. This raises the critical question: Did the Gospel writers reshape Paul’s Jesus, or did they seek to reclaim a more authentic version of the historical figure?

Who Was the Real Jesus?

Paul’s letters, written between 50-60 CE, present a Jesus as a divine figure whose crucifixion and resurrection define the Christian faith. Paul speaks little of Jesus' earthly ministry or ethical teachings, focusing instead on his role as a risen Lord. The Gospels, appearing later, ground Jesus in Jewish tradition, portraying him as a prophet and moral teacher. The shift in emphasis suggests that either the Gospel writers were correcting Paul’s theological vision, or that Paul’s Jesus was already a theological innovation distinct from a historical figure.

Paul’s Jesus is fundamentally theological. He emphasizes justification by faith and salvation through grace, a departure from the Gospel Jesus, who calls for repentance and righteousness in preparation for the Kingdom of God. While Jesus in the Gospels preaches ethical living and social justice, Paul frames faith in his Christ’s death as the sole path to salvation. This distinction highlights the possibility that the Gospels sought to counterbalance or reinterpret Paul’s influence.

Theological vs. Narrative Jesus: A Major Shift

Ethical teachings play a significant role in the Gospels but are largely absent from Paul’s letters. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount advocates love, humility, and nonviolence, while Paul constructs a Christ-centered theology with little reference to these teachings. Scholars like N.T. Wright argue that Paul’s vision of Jesus shaped early Christian doctrine, setting the foundation upon which Gospel writers later built. The work of Oropeza further emphasizes that Paul’s use of the term “gospel” (euangelion) was influenced by Roman imperial and Jewish traditions, reinforcing the idea that Paul’s portrayal was already a reinterpretation of either an already familiar Jesus character or figure.

Despite these differences, both Paul and the Gospels emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s writings insist that without the resurrection, faith is meaningless, making it the cornerstone of Christian belief. The Gospels also build toward this climax, portraying the crucifixion as a fulfillment of prophecy. However, because Paul’s letters predate the Gospel accounts, it is possible that the Gospel writers adapted their narratives to align with the theology Paul had already established.

Did the Gospel Writers Correct Paul’s Theology?

If Paul’s letters represent the earliest theological reflections on Jesus, the Gospels may have been an attempt to reshape or refine his vision. It is academically suggest that Paul’s Jesus came first as a cosmic savior, and the Gospel writers later grounded him in history. Others propose that the Gospels intentionally corrected Paul’s theology, reestablishing the Jesus character as a Jewish messiah rather than the universal figure Paul preached. Paul himself claims in Galatians that his gospel was received through revelation, rather than human tradition, reinforcing the idea that his Jesus was the first “official” Jesus, later modified by Gospel writers. This would actually mean that no actual “Jesus” existed, as Paul only refers to his Jesus in theological terms.

Rather than Paul deviating from Jesus, it may be that the Gospel Jesus deviated from Paul’s theological framework. If Paul’s Jesus was the first to dominate Christian thought, then the Gospel narratives represent an evolution—whether to align with Jewish traditions, expand Christian theory’s appeal, or clarify aspects of Jesus’ life that Paul had not defined. The contrast between Paul’s cosmic Christ and the Gospel’s moral teacher reflects either a dynamic or divergent development of early Christian belief.

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

The question of whether Paul invented Christianity remains a topic of debate. His letters set the foundation for Christian theology, and the Gospel writers may have responded by creating a narrative to go along with it. Yet, the apparent deviation in the Gospel Jesus from Paul’s Jesus might also show a shift in understanding. The gospels don’t really portray the Jesus character as a cosmic figure; such perceptions exist due to a carrying over of Paul’s insights into those narrative. If Paul’s Jesus never existed, and if letters of more anonymous writers surfaced, breaking own to gospel Jesus as Paul breaks down his cosmic Christ, would we even think of the Jesus character in the way that Paul does? Whether Paul’s Jesus was the first true version or the Gospel Jesus was a necessary re-write, their relationship remains one of the most intriguing aspects of early Christian history.

References:

Oropeza, B. J. (2024). The Gospel according to Paul: over a hundred years of interpretation. Religions, 15(12), 1566. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121566

Wright, N. T. (1978). The Tyndale New Testament Lecture, 1978. TYNDALE BULLETIN, 29, 62–64. https://tyndalebulletin.org