How do we read the Gospels and Epistles together?[1] This is the question I want to address. Too many times we dichotomize the Gospels and the Epistles, thus a kind of either-or reading, when what we need is a both-and.
1. Readers will likely point out that Paul isn’t the only letter writer in the New Testament. I’m choosing to focus on Paul for two reasons. First, due to the length of this article, a comprehensive consideration of all the authors is impossible. Secondly, most questions about the compatibility of the Gospels and Epistles arise between the Gospels and Paul.
Obviously, the two genres are different due, to a substantial degree, to the difference between narratives and letters, but these differences can be overstated too much. Sometimes people argue that the distinction between them is that the “letters tell, but narratives show.” In one sense this is true, but it is also false. Narratives, specifically the Gospels, may contain a lot of discourse (e.g., teaching) but they also tell just as much as the letters do. We often speak, like Peter, of how difficult it can be to interpret Paul (2 Pet. 3:16), but practically I think the Gospels give us more trouble because we too often pit them against the letters, so then we turn quickly to the Epistles, instead of the Gospels for our preaching and teaching. In fact, students constantly ask me, “How does Romans 3 fit in with Matthew 5,” or more commonly, “How does Matthew 5 fit in with Romans 3?” In what follows, let me offer some brief comments how we need a both-and in terms of the Gospels relation to the Epistles, not an either-or by focusing on some examples.
For example, Mark emphasizes faith as necessary for healing, like with the paralytic and his friends in Mark 2:5, or the woman in Mark 5:34 to whom Jesus says, “Daughter, your faith has made you well.” In Matthew 18:35, Jesus tells his followers that unless they forgive from the heart, God the Father will not forgive them. He says it twice, the first time in the Lord’s Prayer: “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12). On the other hand, Paul says that salvation is by grace through the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8–9). Whoever has faith in Christ is justified by God, full stop (Rom. 3:22–24). Even if these examples don’t seem difficult to you, the question remains: how do we read them together? A pastor preaching the parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18:21–35 might say, “Jesus isn’t saying forgiveness is conditional,” then go on to quote Paul’s confidence in God’s salvation (e.g., Phil. 1:4). The problem isn’t citing other texts to help explain the text at hand, but we tend to reach immediately for other texts or for biblical and systematic theology, rather than let an author speak for himself and interpret it in context. Perhaps someone would say that citing a “clearer” text to help with a “harder” text is an application of Augustine’s interpretive principle, found in his famous treatise On Christian Teaching—but using Paul to show what a text in the Gospels means or, in many cases, doesn’t mean, isn’t what Augustine had in mind in On Christian Teaching. I don’t think Augustine meant for us to use Paul as a bail-out for theologically sticky texts in the Gospels. The solution, however, is not that complicated, though it does mean hard work, and more thorough knowledge of the Bible. We can read in close context, taking of first importance what the Gospel writers say, but recognize that all the books of the Bible share a canonical context. We can, and should, also read theologically. In other words, we can follow in the steps of Christian readers throughout the history of the church. We should not choose and either/or, but a both/and approach to reading the Gospels and Epistles.
An Example of “Both/And” Reading
Consider again Matthew 18:35. When Peter asks Jesus, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” (Matt. 18:21). Jesus rejects the idea of quantifying forgiveness and responds with the parable of the Unforgiving Servant. In the parable, a king forgives a servant who owes an astronomical debt. The servant then goes out and refuses, with extreme prejudice, to forgive a fellow servant who owes him a relatively minor amount of money. In response, the king condemns the servant and orders that he be “thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.” In other words, the servant will never come out of prison. Jesus warns his followers that this is exactly what God the Father will do to anyone who refuses to forgive others. A teacher or preacher knows the inevitable question that follows: “Is my forgiveness conditional?” One way to answer is, “That’s not Matthew’s concern here.” True enough, but unlikely a satisfying answer. On the other hand, responding by only citing Paul, or referring to the larger doctrine of salvation, doesn’t really answer the question either.
In Matthew, the parable is set in a larger context where Jesus focuses on teaching his disciples what it means to be his followers. In this case, his followers will be forgiving in light of the unimaginable forgiveness they receive. It is a warning. The idea being that the true followers will hear the warning and respond as his disciples. They are reminded not only to forgive as they have been forgiven, but that Jesus calls them to a life of discipleship, a life defined by taking up the cross and following him. Refusing to forgive others is a refusal to take up one’s cross and follow Jesus in the way of forgiveness. Anyone choosing that path is not worthy of Jesus (Matt. 10:38). The warning in Matthew 18 is meant to shape and form Jesus’s followers. This fits perfectly Matthew’s context. The Sermon on the Mount ends with a warning (Matt. 7:26–27). Whoever hears but does not practice Jesus’s teaching is like a man who builds his house on sand. When the storm comes, the house will fall to ruins—a warning on par with Matthew 18:35.
We need to read this text in its biblical and theological context, not least including that of Matthew’s Gospel. The goal is not simply so we can answer a question, but so we can become faithful readers and interpreters of the Bible. The warning in Matthew 18:35 is not a friendly reminder that we need to be more forgiving. Of course we need to be more forgiving, but how exactly do we become forgiving? Certainly not by resolving to do so, or out of fear for what happens if we refuse. The warning exposes our unforgiving hearts. That is the path to learning forgiveness. The warning flows from the command to forgive in Matthew 18:22. Warnings are inherent to commands, and this warning cannot be separated from the parable itself. We are like the unforgiving servant. We look for loopholes, or that point at which we can suspend forgiveness and turn to retribution. No amount of reminding ourselves how much we’ve been forgiven, or fear of punishment alone, will change that. It is not unfaithful to Matthew if we then turn to Paul’s teaching on the power and primary purpose of commands to condemn by exposing sin (Rom. 3:20–21; 5:20; 7:9, 13).
The commands of Jesus, who is the fulfillment of the law, also work to expose. This is not simply an application of the commands, but the purposed work of the commands themselves; and example of the Word doing its own work. If we don’t take that seriously, recognizing that if we are in the flesh we need the dark places of hearts exposed, then hope is hard to find. We’ll opt instead for more pious resolutions to do better (even adding “by the Spirit”), or use grace as a safety net, resulting finally in delusion and/or despair. Commands heard without exposure of sin essentially leave the cross behind. Commands, including Jesus’s commands, should drive us to forgiveness in the cross of Christ. Only in the cross, God’s justifying word of forgiveness and reconciliation, through which the Spirit is poured out in our hearts (see Rom. 5:1–10), can we follow Jesus in the way of showing forgiveness and grace to others.
One final thought. I am not suggesting that a sermon on Matthew 18 turn into a Bible lesson on Paul’s teaching and theology. Such a sermon would not be faithful to the inspired, revealed word of God in Matthew, nor could it pass even remotely as expository preaching. What I’m suggesting is that we ought to read the Gospels and Epistles (and all of Scripture) in concert, giving careful attention to both the divinely inspired teaching of each author and, together, as God’s revelation of himself in Christ.[2] In other words, in thinking about the relationship between the Gospels and the Epistles, we need a both-and and not an either-or. Scripture, as God’s inspired and authoritative word, is a unified revelation, despite its diversity of literature. We need to read both the Gospels and the Epistles as God’s word that reveals to us the glory of Christ and the truth of the gospel.
