The Kerygma: Recovering the Apostolic Proclamation

The basis for our confidence in what the earliest Christians actually preached.

---

This confidence is not without foundation. Behind nearly two millennia of creedal development, liturgical tradition, and systematic theology lies a prior reality: a public announcement, made by specific people in specific places, about something they believed God had done. The Greek word for that announcement is κήρυγμα (kērygma). Before there were creeds, before there were councils, before the New Testament documents were collected into a canon, there was a message. Apostles stood in synagogues and marketplaces and declared that God had acted decisively in Jesus of Nazareth. That declaration is the kerygma, and understanding it is essential for understanding everything that came after.

This article begins by examining the Greek word itself, its lexical roots and civic background, and then surveys how it is used across the New Testament. From there it turns to the landmark work of C.H. Dodd, who in 1936 set out to reconstruct the content of the apostolic proclamation and demonstrated that the kerygma of Paul and the kerygma of Luke-Acts represent not competing messages but convergent witnesses to a single apostolic tradition, rooted in a common source that reaches back to within a few years of the crucifixion itself.

---

I. Lexical Foundation

The Word-Family

The noun κήρυγμα belongs to a tight word-family in Greek:

• κῆρυξ (kēryx) — "herald," a public official who makes authoritative announcements on behalf of a king, magistrate, or assembly.
• κηρύσσω (kēryssō) — "to herald, to proclaim publicly," the verbal form.
• κήρυγμα (kērygma) — "that which is proclaimed," the content of the herald's announcement.

The distinction between the verb and the noun matters. κηρύσσω refers to the act of proclaiming; κήρυγμα refers to the substance of what is proclaimed. The kerygma is not the activity of preaching but the message that is preached.

The Civic-Rhetorical Background

In classical and Hellenistic Greek, the κῆρυξ occupied a recognized civic role. He was the authorized mouthpiece of the sovereign or the assembly, the one who stood in the marketplace or the public square and delivered an official announcement. The herald did not speak on his own authority; he spoke for someone. His message was not a philosophical argument to be debated but an authoritative declaration to be received: a new law, a summons to war, the terms of a peace treaty, the accession of a king.

This background is important because it shapes every New Testament use of the word-family. When the apostles κηρύσσουσιν ("proclaim"), they are not offering personal opinions or philosophical theses. They are functioning as heralds, authorized agents delivering an announcement on behalf of God. The kerygma carries the authority of the one who sends, not the eloquence of the one who speaks. Paul makes this explicit in 1 Corinthians 2:1–5, where he insists that his proclamation did not rest on rhetorical skill but on the power (δύναμις) of God.

Kerygma versus Didache

The New Testament itself suggests a functional distinction between κήρυγμα (proclamation) and διδαχή (teaching). The kerygma is what you announce to those who have not yet heard: the initial, public, missionary proclamation. The didache is what you teach to those who have already responded: the ethical instruction, liturgical practice, and theological elaboration that follow conversion. The kerygma is addressed to the world; the didache is addressed to the church.

This distinction is visible in the texture of the documents themselves. Paul's letters, for instance, are almost entirely didache. They presuppose the kerygma and work out its implications. They are written to people who have already believed. The kerygma itself must be inferred from hints, allusions, and occasional summaries embedded within the didactic material. Similarly, the Didache (a late first- or early second-century document whose very title means "Teaching") presents itself as post-conversion instruction, not initial proclamation; it assumes its audience has already received the kerygmatic message.

This distinction should not be pressed too rigidly. In practice, the categories overlap: Paul "teaches" outsiders, and the Acts speeches include instructional elements. But as an analytical starting point, it remains valuable. There is a real difference between the initial announcement ("God has raised Jesus from the dead; repent and be baptized") and the subsequent instruction ("Here is how you should conduct yourselves at the Lord's Supper"). The kerygma creates the community; the didache sustains it.

---

II. New Testament Usage of κήρυγμα

The noun κήρυγμα appears roughly eight to nine times in the New Testament, depending on textual variants. Each occurrence contributes something to our understanding of what the earliest Christians understood the term to mean.

The Pauline Occurrences

1 Corinthians 1:21. "It pleased God through the foolishness of the κήρυγμα to save those who believe."

Paul sets the kerygma in direct contrast to σοφία ("wisdom"). The world sought God through philosophical wisdom and failed. God chose a different mode of communication, a public announcement, a herald's cry, that the world regarded as foolish. The kerygma is not a sophisticated argument; it is an announcement of an event. Its power does not reside in its intellectual elegance but in the divine act it proclaims.

1 Corinthians 2:4. "My speech and my κήρυγμα were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."

Here Paul reinforces the distinction. His kerygma was not dressed in rhetorical finery. It did not rely on the persuasive techniques of the Greco-Roman orator. Whatever effect the kerygma had was produced not by Paul's eloquence but by the Spirit's power working through the proclamation. The herald is nothing; the message is everything.

1 Corinthians 15:14. "If Christ has not been raised, then our κήρυγμα is empty (κενόν)."

This is the most theologically significant occurrence. Paul ties the validity of the entire kerygma to a single claim: the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection did not happen, the kerygma is empty: not merely incorrect, but vacuous, without content. The resurrection is not one element among many; it is the load-bearing wall. Pull it out and the whole structure collapses.

The surrounding verses (15:3–7) provide what is widely regarded as the earliest kerygmatic formula in the New Testament: "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and he was buried, and he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." Paul explicitly identifies this as received tradition, something he was handed, not something he invented.

Romans 16:25. "...according to my gospel and the κήρυγμα of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery..."

Here Paul uses "my gospel" and "the kerygma of Jesus Christ" as near-synonyms, suggesting that the kerygma is the core of what Paul means by "gospel." The genitive "of Jesus Christ" is most naturally read as an objective genitive: the kerygma about Jesus Christ, the proclamation whose content is Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

Titus 1:3. "...He manifested His word in the κήρυγμα with which I was entrusted..."

The kerygma is here presented as a trust, something deposited with Paul for safekeeping and faithful transmission. This language anticipates the παραθήκη ("deposit") terminology of the Pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14) and reflects a growing sense that the kerygma is a fixed body of content to be guarded, not a fluid message to be reinvented.

2 Timothy 4:17. "...so that through me the κήρυγμα might be fully accomplished (πληροφορηθῇ)..."

The kerygma is here envisioned as a task with a scope that can be "filled up" or "brought to completion." Paul sees his apostolic mission as the delivery of the kerygma to the nations, a task with geographic and temporal boundaries.

The Synoptic Occurrences

Matthew 12:41 / Luke 11:32. "The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the κήρυγμα of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."

Jesus himself uses the term here, and in its most basic sense: Jonah's kerygma was a public announcement demanding a response (repentance). Nineveh responded; "this generation" is failing to respond to a proclamation of even greater magnitude. The kerygma, whether Jonah's or Jesus', is a declaration that places the hearer under obligation.

Summary of NT Usage

Across these occurrences, a consistent profile emerges. The kerygma is:

1. A public proclamation, not a private instruction or esoteric teaching.
2. Event-centered, announcing something God has done, above all the death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. Authoritative, carrying the weight not of the herald's own credentials but of the God who sends him.
4. Demand-making, calling for a response: repentance and faith.
5. Distinguishable from didache, though related to it as foundation to superstructure.
6. Entrusted to specific heralds, who are responsible for its faithful transmission.

---

III. C.H. Dodd and The Apostolic Preaching

The Project

Dodd's The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, a slim volume based on three lectures delivered at King's College London in 1935, set out to answer one question: "How far is it possible to discover the actual content of the Gospel preached or proclaimed by the apostles?"

The question was pointed. German form criticism, led by Bultmann, had been treating the Gospel material as community creations, shaped by the liturgical and pastoral needs of early churches rather than by historical memory. Dodd did not contest the form critics' literary analysis, but he asked a different question. Rather than dissecting the Gospels into community creations, he asked: What was the message that created those communities in the first place? Before there were churches to shape tradition, there was a proclamation that brought those churches into existence. What was it?

The Method: Paul as Starting Point

Dodd began with Paul, not the Gospels or Acts, because Paul's letters are the earliest datable Christian documents. His method was to sift through the epistles for places where Paul refers back to what he originally preached, or cites formulaic material that crystallizes the kerygmatic content.

The key passage is 1 Corinthians 15:1–11. Paul uses the technical Jewish language of tradition-transmission: "I delivered (παρέδωκα) to you what I also received (παρέλαβον)." This is not casual language. It signals the passing on of authorized tradition, the same terminology used in rabbinic circles for the chain of Torah transmission. And Paul dates this tradition early: he received it, most likely during his visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians 1:18, within a few years of the crucifixion.

Dodd was careful to note that Paul's epistles are not themselves kerygma. They are didache, instruction for people who have already believed. "They presuppose the Preaching. They expound and defend the implications of the Gospel rather than proclaim it." But the kerygma can be inferred from the epistles, because Paul occasionally gestures back to what he preached when founding his churches.

From Paul, Dodd extracted a kerygmatic core: the death and resurrection of Christ, set within an eschatological framework (the transition from "this evil age" to "the age to come") and accompanied by scriptural attestation ("according to the scriptures").

The Method: Corroboration from Acts

Dodd then turned to the speeches in Acts, particularly those attributed to Peter (Acts 2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:29–32; 10:34–43) and to Paul (Acts 13:16–41), to test whether the kerygma extracted from the Pauline epistles matched the kerygma depicted in early Christian preaching.

He recognized the methodological difficulty: Luke, like all ancient historians, composed speeches with a degree of literary freedom. The speeches in Acts are not transcripts. But Dodd argued that they preserve genuinely primitive material, for several reasons:

1. Archaic christological terminology. The Acts speeches use titles for Jesus that were already falling out of use by the time Luke wrote: Jesus as God's "Servant" (παῖς, Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30), "the Holy and Righteous One" (Acts 3:14), and "the Author of Life" (Acts 3:15). These are not Lukan creations; they are fossils from an earlier stratum.

2. Adoptionistic Christology. The Acts speeches present Jesus' messianic status as conferred by God at the resurrection: "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). This "exaltation Christology," in which Jesus becomes Lord and Messiah through the resurrection, is more primitive than the Pauline and Johannine Christologies, which presuppose Jesus' lordship from the outset (or, in John's case, from before creation). Luke would hardly have invented a Christology more primitive than his own theology if he were simply composing freely.

3. Structural correspondence with Paul. The kerygma of the Acts speeches and the kerygma inferred from Paul's letters share the same basic structure: fulfillment of scripture → the death and resurrection of Jesus → exaltation to God's right hand → the offer of salvation → a call to respond. This convergence is too close to be coincidental and too fundamental to be the product of Luke's literary artistry alone.

Dodd's Six-Element Kerygma

From the convergence of Paul and Acts, Dodd reconstructed the apostolic kerygma as follows:

1. The age of fulfillment has dawned. The "latter days" foretold by the prophets have arrived.
2. This fulfillment has taken place through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
3. By virtue of the resurrection, Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God as Messianic head of the new Israel.
4. The Holy Spirit in the Church is the sign of Christ's present power and glory.
5. The Messianic Age will shortly reach its consummation in the return of Christ.
6. An appeal is made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This reconstruction has been rightly called one of the most influential contributions to twentieth-century New Testament scholarship. As one commentator has observed, "No word among New Testament scholars has received a more affirmative response in the past thirty years than 'kerygma.' Since the publication of The Apostolic Preaching this word, representing a major idea, has captured the church." [1]

---

IV. The Harmony of Paul and Luke-Acts

Dodd's Case for Unity

Dodd's project was, at its heart, an argument for the fundamental unity of the apostolic proclamation. He was not naive about diversity. He acknowledged that different preachers emphasized different elements and that the kerygma developed over time. But he insisted that beneath the variations lay a common message, and he identified this common message by demonstrating the structural convergence between Paul's epistles and the Acts speeches.

His argument rested on a critical observation: Paul himself testifies to the unity of the kerygma. In 1 Corinthians 15:11, after rehearsing the tradition he received about Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances, Paul declares: "Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." The "they" refers to the Jerusalem apostles: Peter, James, and the others mentioned in the preceding verses. Paul is claiming, emphatically, that his kerygma and theirs are the same.

Dodd took this claim seriously. Paul had submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:1–2) and received their endorsement. The tradition he cites in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 was itself received, most naturally from the Jerusalem church during his early post-conversion visits. As Dodd observed, Paul's preaching "represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source." The date at which Paul received the kerygma cannot be later than about seven years after the crucifixion. It may be earlier.

This means that the kerygma Paul preached in the 50s, the kerygma we can extract from the epistles, is not a Pauline innovation. It is the common apostolic tradition, received from the Jerusalem church within a few years of the resurrection, and affirmed by Paul to be identical in substance with what Peter and James proclaimed.

The Convergence in Detail

When we set the Pauline kerygma beside the kerygma of the Acts speeches, the convergence is striking. Both proclaim:

• The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Paul insists that Christ died and was raised "according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3–4). The Acts speeches are saturated with scriptural citation: Psalm 16:8–11 (Acts 2:25–28), Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34–35), Psalm 118:22 (Acts 4:11), and others. Both Paul and the Acts preachers present the Christ-event as the climax of the scriptural narrative.

• The death of Jesus as part of God's plan. Paul proclaims that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3). Peter in Acts declares that Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). The specific theological interpretation of the death differs (Paul develops a more explicitly sacrificial/atoning theology), but the fundamental claim is the same: this death was not an accident; it was the fulfillment of God's determined purpose.

• The resurrection as God's vindication of Jesus. This is the absolute center of both kerygmata. Paul: "He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:4). Peter: "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32). The resurrection is not presented as a resuscitation or a metaphor; it is presented as God's definitive act of vindication, the event by which Jesus is installed as Lord and Messiah.

• The exaltation of Jesus to God's right hand. Paul: "He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25, echoing Ps 110:1). Peter: "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God..." (Acts 2:33). Both cite or allude to Psalm 110:1, the most frequently quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. Jesus is not merely alive; he is enthroned.

• The gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul: the Spirit is the "firstfruits" (ἀπαρχή) and "down payment" (ἀρραβών) of the age to come (Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). Peter: the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost fulfills Joel's prophecy about "the last days" (Acts 2:16–21). Both understand the Spirit as eschatological evidence, proof that the new age has dawned.

• A call to respond. Paul: "We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor 5:20). Peter: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). Both kerygmata terminate in a demand: the announcement is not merely informational; it calls for decision.

Accounting for the Differences

The differences between Paul and Acts have been catalogued many times, and some scholars (notably James Dunn) have argued that the differences are so significant as to constitute separate, even "incompatible," kerygmata. A closer examination, however, suggests that the differences are largely matters of emphasis and audience rather than substance.

1. "Son of God" versus "Servant." Dodd himself noted that the Acts speeches do not call Jesus "Son of God," a title central to Paul's Christology. Instead, the Acts speeches use the older title παῖς θεοῦ ("Servant of God"), drawn from the Servant Songs of Isaiah. But this is a difference of terminology, not of theological content. Both titles identify Jesus as God's uniquely authorized agent. The shift from "Servant" to "Son" reflects not a change in the kerygma's substance but a development in its vocabulary, as the church moved from a primarily Jewish to an increasingly Gentile audience. Significantly, Luke himself records that it was Paul who first "preached Jesus, that He is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20), suggesting that Luke understood the terminological shift as a Pauline contribution within the same kerygmatic tradition, not a departure from it.

2. The theology of the cross. Paul develops a detailed theology of Christ's death as vicarious sacrifice ("Christ died for our sins," 1 Cor 15:3). The Acts speeches present the death as part of God's predetermined plan (Acts 2:23) but do not explicitly interpret it as a substitutionary atonement. Dodd observed that the Jerusalem kerygma connects forgiveness to the whole Christ-event (ministry, death, resurrection, exaltation) rather than specifically to the death.

But this difference is best understood as a matter of theological development within the same kerygmatic framework, not as evidence of a different kerygma. Paul himself received the tradition that "Christ died for our sins" from the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 15:3). The "for our sins" clause is part of the received tradition; it is pre-Pauline. This means that the sacrificial interpretation of the death was not a Pauline invention but a feature of the Jerusalem tradition that the Acts speeches, for reasons of literary compression or audience adaptation, do not always foreground. Luke's Peter does not deny that Christ died "for our sins"; he simply does not always make that clause explicit. And when Paul preaches in a synagogue setting in Acts 13, the speech Luke gives him closely parallels the Petrine speeches, suggesting that Paul could and did preach in the Jerusalem mode when the context called for it.

3. The role of Jesus' earthly ministry. The Cornelius speech (Acts 10:34–43) includes a summary of Jesus' public career ("beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed" (10:37)), while Paul's kerygma, as reflected in the epistles, jumps from Davidic descent directly to the cross and resurrection with virtually no interest in the intervening ministry.

This is a genuine difference, but it is explicable by context. Peter was preaching to people who needed to know who this Jesus was: a concrete figure who had recently lived and acted in Galilee and Judea. Paul was preaching to people who already knew the basic narrative (or, if Gentiles, did not need the biographical detail to grasp the kerygmatic point). The sermon before Cornelius, which Dodd described as "the form of kerygma used by the primitive Church in its earliest approaches to a wider public," represents the full kerygmatic narrative, of which Paul's cross-and-resurrection summary is a concentrated extract. The relationship is abbreviation, not contradiction.

4. The Petrine speech at Pisidian Antioch. Acts 13:16–41 records a speech attributed to Paul in a synagogue at Pisidian Antioch. This speech follows the structural pattern of the Petrine speeches almost exactly: scriptural fulfillment, the ministry and death of Jesus, the resurrection as God's vindication, and an appeal for faith and forgiveness. Dodd observed that this convergence supports the conclusion that Paul could preach in the same kerygmatic pattern as Peter, and that when he did, the substance was the same.

As Dodd put it: "It seems clear that within the general scheme of the kerygma was included some reference, however brief, to the historical facts of the life of Jesus. These facts fall within the eschatological setting of the whole, no less than the facts of His death and resurrection. They are themselves eschatological events, in the sense that they form part of the process by which God's purpose reaches fulfilment and His Kingdom comes." [2]

Paul's Own Testimony to Kerygmatic Unity

The strongest argument for the harmony of Paul and Acts is Paul's own insistence on it. Three passages are decisive:

1 Corinthians 15:3. "I delivered to you... what I also received." Paul claims to be transmitting a tradition he was given, not creating a new one. The tradition includes core kerygmatic content: Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances.

1 Corinthians 15:11. "Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." Paul explicitly asserts that his kerygma is identical in substance to that of the Jerusalem apostles.

Galatians 2:1–2, 9. Paul submits his gospel to the "pillar" apostles in Jerusalem, and they add nothing to it. They extend fellowship. This is not the behavior of people who regard Paul's message as a different gospel; it is the mutual recognition of a shared kerygma.

Dodd's conclusion stands: "Anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof." [2]

---

V. The Kerygma and Mark 1:14–15

One of Dodd's most elegant insights was his observation that the apostolic kerygma is structurally rooted in Jesus' own proclamation as summarized in Mark 1:14–15: "Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has drawn near: repent and believe the Gospel.'"

Dodd showed that the Jerusalem kerygma expands each clause of this summary:

• "The time is fulfilled" → the kerygmatic reference to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
• "The Kingdom of God has drawn near" → the kerygmatic recital of Jesus' ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation, the process by which God's kingdom enters history.
• "Repent and believe the Gospel" → the kerygmatic appeal for repentance and the offer of forgiveness.

This structural correspondence is significant. It suggests that the apostolic kerygma is not a later construction imposed on the Jesus tradition but an organic expansion of Jesus' own preaching. The apostles did not invent a new message; they unpacked the implications of Jesus' own announcement in light of the cross and the empty tomb.

This also bridges the often-noted gap between "the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus" and "the Christ proclaimed by the apostles." The apostolic kerygma does not replace the kingdom proclamation; it fulfills it. Jesus announced that the kingdom was arriving. The apostles announced that it had arrived, through Jesus' death, resurrection, and exaltation. The content changes; the structure endures. [3]

---

VI. The Kerygma and "Realized Eschatology"

Dodd's kerygma reconstruction cannot be separated from his broader eschatological program. He coined the term "realized eschatology" to describe his conviction that Jesus, Paul, and the Jerusalem church all shared: the decisive eschatological event had already occurred. The kingdom of God was not merely approaching; it had arrived. The age to come had broken into the present age through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

In Dodd's reading, the main burden of the kerygma is precisely this: "The unprecedented has happened: God has visited and redeemed His people." The apostles were not predicting a future event; they were announcing a present reality. The prophecies were fulfilled. The Messiah had come. The Spirit, the eschatological gift promised by the prophets for "the last days," had been poured out. The age to come was here.

Dodd acknowledged that the kerygma included some reference to a future consummation (element 5 in his outline), but he argued that this element received less emphasis than scholars had assumed. Examining the Acts speeches, he observed that explicit reference to the second coming is relatively rare: "The apostolic Preaching as recorded in Acts does not, contrary to a commonly held opinion, lay the greatest stress upon the expectation of a second advent of the Lord. It is only in Acts 3:20–21 that this expectation is explicitly and fully set forth." The center of gravity falls not on what God will do but on what God has done. [3]

This aspect of Dodd's reconstruction has been both his most influential and his most controversial contribution. Later scholars, particularly George Eldon Ladd and Oscar Cullmann, argued for an "already/not yet" framework that preserves both the realized and the futurist elements of the kerygma. Even Dodd himself modulated his position in later works. In The Coming of Christ (1951), he conceded that the Johannine formula "the hour is coming and now is" (John 5:25) better captured the eschatological tension than a purely realized eschatology. Whether one follows Dodd's original emphasis or the later "already/not yet" consensus, however, the basic kerygmatic claim remains: the decisive act of God has already taken place in Jesus Christ. Everything else, including whatever remains to be consummated, flows from that accomplished reality. [4]

---

VII. Criticisms of Dodd and Their Limits

Dodd's reconstruction has been subjected to sustained criticism on several fronts. Honesty requires acknowledging these criticisms, but fairness also requires noting their limits.

1. Over-Reliance on Acts

The most common criticism is that Dodd relied too heavily on the Acts speeches as historical evidence for early preaching. If the speeches are Lukan compositions, then the "convergence" between Paul and Acts may simply reflect Luke's familiarity with Pauline theology, not independent testimony to a common kerygma.

This is a genuine concern, but it is mitigated by two factors. First, the Acts speeches contain archaic, pre-Lukan material: christological titles, theological patterns, and scriptural citations that are at home in the earliest Palestinian community, not in Luke's own theology. Second, even if Luke shaped the speeches literarily, the structural and theological parallels with Paul's letters are too deep to be explained by surface imitation. Luke would have needed access to genuinely primitive kerygmatic traditions to produce speeches with these particular features. The material may be transmitted by Luke, but it was not invented by Luke.

2. The Rigidity of the Outline

Some have argued that Dodd's six-point outline made the kerygma look more fixed and formulaic than it actually was, and that this encouraged an "inflexible understanding of the kerygma in terms of supposedly primitive and relatively stereotyped confessional formulae." [1]

But Dodd himself was less rigid than this criticism suggests. He wrote: "In this survey of the apostolic Preaching and its developments two facts have come into view: first, that within the New Testament there is an immense range of variety in the interpretation that is given to the kerygma; and, secondly, that in all such interpretation the essential elements of the original kerygma are steadily kept in view." Dodd did not claim that every sermon repeated the same six points in the same order. He claimed that the six points represent the structural framework within which the early preaching operated, a framework flexible enough to accommodate different emphases and audiences but stable enough to be recognizable across the tradition. [1]

3. The Preaching/Teaching Distinction

Dodd's sharp distinction between kerygma and didache has been challenged on the grounds that the New Testament itself does not maintain a clean separation. Paul "teaches" outsiders; the Acts preachers "teach" about Jesus' ministry. The categories overlap.

This criticism has force, but it does not undo Dodd's fundamental insight. The distinction between an initial announcement of saving events and subsequent instruction for the converted community is not artificial; it is a natural feature of any movement that expands through public proclamation. That the two categories bleed into each other in practice does not mean they are identical in principle. A wedding announcement is not the same thing as marriage counseling, even if the same person delivers both.

---

VIII. Dodd's Enduring Significance

Despite these criticisms, Dodd's contribution remains foundational. "However incomplete Dodd's assessment of the early kerygma may have been, it showed that there is a very high degree of uniformity running through the speeches or sermons attributed to Peter in the early part of the Acts. More recent studies have only served to underline this fact." [1]

More than any other scholar of his era, Dodd demonstrated that behind the New Testament's theological diversity lies a common proclamation, a message about what God had done in Jesus of Nazareth, rooted in Old Testament fulfillment, centered on the death and resurrection, and calling for the response of repentance and faith. This proclamation was not invented by Paul, nor was it a Lukan construction. It was the shared possession of the apostolic community from the earliest days, a community that included both Paul and the Jerusalem pillars, and that recognized, in Paul's own words, that "whether I or they, so we preach and so you believed."

The kerygma, in Dodd's hands, is not a creed to be recited but an announcement to be proclaimed: the herald's cry that the king has come, that the age has turned, and that a response is required. In a world cluttered with theological systems and denominational distinctions, Dodd's achievement was to cut through to the bedrock: What did the apostles actually say? His answer, careful, textually grounded, and remarkably persuasive, continues to shape how we read the New Testament nearly a century later.

---

References

[1] "Gospel Preaching in Acts: Analysis and Conclusions" (review of Dodd's contribution and its reception). https://loveintruth.com/amf-docs/gpia-conclusions.htm

[2] Dodd, C.H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. Preterist Archives, collection of excerpts and secondary commentary. https://preteristarchives.org/c-h-dodd/

[3] Dodd, C.H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. Excerpts and analysis, The PostBarthian. https://postbarthian.com/2012/10/15/the-apostolic-preaching-and-its-developments-by-c-h-dodd/

[4] "Dodd, Charles Harold (1884–1973), Biblical Scholar." Dictionary of Welsh Biography. https://biography.wales/article/s6-DODD-HAR-1884

[5] Dodd, C.H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936. Full text available at: https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org%20Books/Dodd,%20C.%20H.%20-%20The%20Apostolic%20Preaching%20and%20Its%20Developments.pdf

[6] "Realized Eschatology." Bible.org. https://bible.org/article/realized-eschatology

[7] Sanders, Fred. "C.H. Dodd and Realized Eschatology." The Scriptorium Daily. https://scriptoriumdaily.com/c-h-dodd-and-realized-eschatology/

[8] "Kerygma." Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

[9] "Kerygmata AO1." Educational summary of Dodd's six elements. http://resource.download.wjec.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/vtc/2016-17/16-17_2-19/_eng/_eduqas/kerygmata-ao1.html

[10] The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. Religion Online, chapter summary. https://www.religion-online.org/book/the-apostolic-preaching-and-its-developments/

[11] "The Unifying Kerygma of the New Testament." Cambridge University Press. https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/past-of-jesus-in-the-gospels/unifying-kerygma-of-the-new-testament/E81906D401E0080C1FE4B7B5B874DB0E

Luke–Acts and Paul vs. the Old Paradigm: Unveiling the True Character and Mission of God

 

Introduction: Wrestling with Two Visions of God

Christians often struggle to reconcile the Old Testament portrayal of God with the New Testament revelation in Christ. The Old Testament frequently depicts God through the lens of ancient Israel’s culture – sometimes as a warrior deity sanctioning tribal wars or a lawgiver enforcing strict rituals. In contrast, the apostolic witness of the New Testament paints a strikingly different picture: a God of universal love and grace who reaches out to all humanity through Jesus Christ. This tension raises a provocative question: Must we accept Israel’s old paradigm of an ethnocentric, legalistic God as fully accurate, or has God’s true character been clarified and redefined by the core apostolic testimony found in Luke–Acts and Paul’s writings? In this article, we will argue the latter – that the Luke–Acts narrative and the letters of Paul provide the clearest window into God’s intentions, one that surpasses and even corrects the older portrayals. Scripture itself gives us warrant for this bold claim. As the Apostle Paul taught, God’s plan, long hidden in ages past, “has been sent to the Gentiles” – to all nations – and “they will listen!” (Acts 28:28). In other words, through Christ’s apostles God has thrown open the door of mercy to the whole world, shattering the confines of the old worldview.

The New Testament writers themselves did not shy away from vigorously challenging the status quo. Luke–Acts and Paul present a forceful critique of any theology that would limit God’s grace to a single ethnicity or bind believers under the yoke of the old Law. We seek to illuminate how the Gospel radically transforms our understanding of God. Luke–Acts and Paul together constitute the core apostolic witness of the Christian faith, and they unapologetically draw a contrast between the new reality in Christ and the old religious paradigm that preceded it. By exploring that contrast – Matthew’s traditionally Jewish-Christian perspective vs. Luke’s and Paul’s universal, grace-centered Gospel – we can appreciate why the apostolic testimony must guide our view of who God truly is.

The Old Paradigm: Ethnocentrism and Legalism in Scripture

To understand the breakthrough of the New Testament, we first must grasp the “old paradigm” that dominated much of the Old Testament and even echoes in parts of the New. This old paradigm is characterized by two key features: ethnocentrism (a focus on Israel’s special status above other nations) and legalism (a focus on strict adherence to the Mosaic Law as the path to righteousness). In the Old Testament, God’s identity was tightly intertwined with Israel’s national story. God is often portrayed as a tribal protector – fighting Israel’s battles, favoring Israel against her enemies, and commanding Israel to uphold a detailed law code to remain in His favor. For example, the Israelites believed God sanctioned and even participated in their wars; victory or defeat was seen as a direct sign of divine favor or displeasure (ivpress.comivpress.com). Many texts describe God as ordering the conquest of Canaan and the defeat of Israel’s foes. Such depictions, however, reflect ancient cultural assumptions about gods and war. Scholars note that when Israel claims “God wills, ordains, sanctions, or otherwise blesses war,” this likely represents a “culturally conditioned explanation” of events – the people’s attempt to interpret their history through the only framework they knew (ivpress.comivpress.com). In other words, the Old Testament writers sometimes attributed violence to God in ways that do not fully capture His ultimate character. Just as ancient Israelites assumed many things we no longer hold (a flat earth, the necessity of animal sacrifice, the acceptability of slavery), they also assumed “God is a warrior” on their behalf – an idea that we are not required to affirm uncritically as Christians (ivpress.com). The old covenant worldview was a partial shadow of the truth, awaiting a greater revelation.

Ethnocentrism in the old paradigm meant that Israel understood itself as God’s chosen people – which, in a sense, was true (God did elect Israel for a purpose) – but this often devolved into viewing Gentiles as outsiders to God’s love. The Law reinforced a separation: Israelites had dietary laws, purity codes, and rituals that set them apart from other nations. God’s holiness was seen as tied to Israel’s distinct identity and strict obedience. The result was that mercy and inclusion took a backseat to boundary-keeping. The legalism of the old paradigm is epitomized by the Torah’s detailed commandments. Righteousness was measured by law-keeping, and failure brought curses. While the Law of Moses had gracious purposes (to teach justice, humility, and the need for atonement), over time many in Israel came to believe that only by meticulous observance of commandments could one please God. This mindset carried into the New Testament era among groups like the Pharisees and other legalists whom Jesus and Paul would later confront.

Crucially, elements of this old paradigm are evident even in one of the Gospels – the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s Gospel is widely recognized as the most “Jewish” of the four Gospels. (sephizo.com). It was likely written for a community of Jewish Christians and emphasizes continuity with Jewish law and tradition. Matthew quotes the Old Testament frequently and portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and the new Moses, giving a law from a mountain (the Sermon on the Mount). Notably,  Jesus’ saying according to Matthew reflects an initial ethnocentrism. For instance, when Jesus sends out the Twelve disciples during His earthly ministry, Matthew records Him strictly limiting their mission to Israel: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 10:5–6). And when a Canaanite (Gentile) woman begged Jesus for her daughter’s healing, Matthew relates that Jesus answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) (biblehub.combiblehub.com). Such statements align with the old covenant understanding that the Messiah’s work was first and foremost for Israel. Matthew’s Jesus eventually does show mercy to Gentiles (He healed the Canaanite woman’s daughter after testing her faith) and the Gospel ends with the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Yet the overall tenor of Matthew’s account is deeply rooted in a Jewish worldview, sometimes to the point of upholding the Law’s demands in a way that sounds “legalistic.”

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus insists that “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law”, and “whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom” (Matthew 5:18–19). He even tells His followers that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees to enter the kingdom (Matthew 5:20). This is a stark call to intensified Law observance. According to Matthew, Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled and deepened it – requiring not only outward compliance but inward purity of heart (see Matthew 5:21–48). Thus, a reader of Matthew could come away thinking that faithful Christians are still very much under the yoke of the Law, obliged to keep even “the least of the commandments” meticulously. Matthew’s view of the Law appears so strict that it flatly conflicts with Paul’s teaching on grace. “Matthew thinks that the followers of Jesus need to keep the law – and do so even better than the most religious Jews. Yet Paul thought that followers of Jesus who tried to keep the law were in danger of losing their salvation. In Matthew’s perspective, failing to keep the Law could cost one eternal life, whereas Paul warned that relying on keeping the Law could cut one off from Christ! The contrast is jarring: Matthew advocates an intensified form of Jewish law-keeping for believers, while Paul preaches freedom from the Law’s yoke in the name of Christ.

Why does Matthew reflect this old paradigm? It’s important to remember the context: Matthew’s community was likely wrestling with how to integrate Jesus’ teachings with their Jewish heritage. The Temple was still standing or only recently destroyed; Judaism and the young Christian movement were intertwined. Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who upholds the Torah. There is a certain ethnocentric loyalty to Israel and the Law in Matthew’s approach – a conviction that God’s promises to Israel remain central, and that Jesus’ followers, though believing in Him as Messiah, must still honor the ancient commandments fully. In many ways, Matthew’s Gospel “couples” the Old Testament worldview with the story of Jesus, as if bridging the two. It does not radically break from the old paradigm so much as extend it into the messianic age. This explains why Matthew’s emphases can feel conservative and traditional, even “legalistic,” compared to what we find in other New Testament writings.

As we turn now to Luke–Acts and the letters of Paul, we will see a new paradigm emerge – one that fulfills and far exceeds the old. This new paradigm, championed by the core apostolic witness, is universal rather than ethnocentric, and based on grace rather than law. It does not negate all that came before, but it overshadows it with clearer display of God’s character.

The New Paradigm in Luke–Acts and Paul: Grace and Universality

Where Matthew leans toward the old, Luke–Acts and the Apostle Paul unveil the true paradigm of God’s dealings with humanity. The Gospel of Luke (together with its sequel, Acts of the Apostles) and Paul’s epistles together form a cohesive testimony from the heart of the early church’s mission. These writings proclaim a God whose intent was always to save all peoples and who, in Jesus Christ, has inaugurated a new covenant that transcends the boundaries of ethnicity and Mosaic Law. The tone of Luke–Acts and Paul’s letters is triumphantly universal and rigorously anti-legalistic. This is not a minor shift in emphasis – it is a revolutionary development in biblical revelation, tantamount to God doing “a new thing” (cf. Isaiah 43:19) that was hinted at in prophecy but fully unveiled only after Christ’s resurrection.

Consider first the Gospel of Luke. Even on a literary level, Luke’s Gospel signals a broader outlook. As one biblical scholar notes, “People have often thought of Luke’s Gospel as a Gentile Gospel, in contrast to, say, Matthew’s much more Jewish Gospel.”(psephizo.com) Luke explicitly portrays Jesus as the Savior not only of Israel but of the entire world: early in Luke, the aged Simeon in the Temple rejoices that the child Jesus is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to [God’s] people Israel” (Luke 2:32). This dual emphasis – salvation for Gentiles as well as Jews – runs throughout Luke’s narrative. 

Furthermore, Luke alone records certain teachings of Jesus that champion outsiders and rebuke exclusivity. In Luke 4:25–27, Jesus reminds His fellow Nazareth Jews that in Elijah’s time God bypassed all the Israelite widows to miraculously feed a Gentile widow in Sidon, and the prophet Elisha healed a Syrian (Gentile) leper but no Israelites. This enrages his hometown audience – a dramatic indication that God’s grace to the Gentiles was a scandal to ethnocentric mindsets. Likewise, only Luke gives us the beloved Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37), in which a Samaritan (a people despised by Jews) is the hero who fulfills the law of love, unlike the pious Jewish priest and Levite who passed by the wounded man. Through this story, Jesus subverts the racial and religious boundaries of His day, implying that compassion trumps ethnic identity in God’s eyes – a very non-legalistic, non-ethnocentric message! Luke highlights Jesus’ outreach to other marginalized people too: tax collectors, sinners, Samaritans, Roman centurions, women, the poor and sick. In Luke, Jesus is constantly crossing barriers to show God’s mercy.

The Book of Acts then continues this trajectory with unmistakable force. Acts, also written by Luke, chronicles how the Gospel exploded outward from Jerusalem into the Gentile world. Jesus’ final instruction in Acts is programmatic: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Thus from the outset, the risen Christ sets an agenda of geographical and ethnic expansion – far beyond the confines of Israel. The early chapters of Acts show the Gospel first taking root among Jews (Acts 2-7), but soon crossing into Samaritan territory (Acts 8) and then, in a watershed moment, to the Gentiles (Acts 10). In Acts 10, the apostle Peter receives a vision from God declaring all animals clean, symbolizing that the old purity distinctions are being removed. Peter then preaches to a Gentile, Cornelius, and his household, and the Holy Spirit falls upon these uncircumcised Gentiles just as He did on Jewish believers – a clear divine sign that they are accepted as-is, by faith. Peter’s astonished exclamation captures the new paradigm: “In truth, I understand that God is not a respecter of persons, 35 but in every nation, the one who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34–35, AICNT). Here is a direct repudiation of ethnocentrism: God has no favorites, no ethnic favorites, but welcomes anyone from any nation who turns to Him. This was a revolutionary realization for a Jew like Peter, who earlier would not even enter a Gentile’s home. God Himself had to correct Peter’s old paradigm thinking (Peter says, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean,” Acts 10:28).

After Peter’s encounter, Acts 15 records the Jerusalem Council, where the early church officially addressed whether Gentile converts must keep the Mosaic Law to be saved. Certain Jewish Christians (sometimes called Judaizers) were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5). This was the ultimate clash between the old legalistic paradigm and the new grace paradigm. Luke’s account makes it abundantly clear where God stood: Paul and Peter testify how God worked among the Gentiles apart from the law, and Peter pointedly asks, “Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). He concludes that “We believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we [Jews] are saved, just as they [Gentiles] are” (15:11). The council agrees not to impose the law (aside from a few basic guidelines for fellowship) on Gentile believers. The Law, as a binding covenant, was not to be enforced in the new community – Christ’s grace was sufficient. This was a monumental shift: the early Christian leaders formally recognized that adherence to the Jewish Law was not a prerequisite for belonging to God’s people. God’s family was no longer defined by circumcision or kosher diets or ethnic lineage, but by faith in Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It is in the letters of Paul, however, that the theological underpinnings of this new paradigm are most fully articulated. Paul – formerly the zealous Pharisee Saul who had lived the old paradigm to its extreme – became the chosen instrument to explain the Gospel of grace to Jews and Gentiles alike. In Paul’s writings, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, we see a relentless emphasis on salvation as God’s free gift to all people through faith in Christ, and an equally relentless denial that obeying the Law of Moses can justify anyone. To Paul, the coming of Christ was the decisive turning point in history that renders the old religious distinctions obsolete. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Paul declares (biblehub.com). All are one – what a sweeping statement! Ethnic, social, and gender divisions are superseded in Christ’s new family. The Jew/Gentile divide in particular, which had loomed so large for ages, is abolished in terms of spiritual status. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and gives riches to all who call on Him” (Romans 10:12). God is no longer dealing primarily with one chosen ethnicity; He is dealing with humanity as a whole, offering salvation on equal terms. Paul even says that in Christ the ancient barrier of the Law itself has been removed: “For [Christ] Himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in His flesh the law with its commands and regulations” (Ephesians 2:14–15). That “dividing wall” was the Law that separated Jews from Gentiles – and Paul asserts Christ abolished it on the cross, creating one new people of God.

In Paul’s view, the Law of Moses had a temporary role in God’s plan – it was a tutor or guardian to lead us to Christ, but now that Christ has come, we are no longer under that tutor (Galatians 3:24–25). Righteousness and membership in God’s covenant are no longer defined by the works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus. “A person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ,” Paul writes, “because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). He goes so far as to warn that if anyone, having come to Christ, then tries to be justified by the Law, they have “fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4). These are fighting words – Paul’s polemic against legalism is intense. He accuses the legalists of preaching “another gospel” and wishes that those insisting on circumcision would mutilate themselves (Galatians 1:6 7, 5:12)! Clearly, Paul saw the old paradigm of Law observance as incompatible with the new era of grace and Spirit-filled living. In his mind, to go back to the Law after Christ’s coming was to regress from adult maturity to spiritual infancy, to go from freedom back to slavery (Galatians 4:9–10, 5:1). The contrast could not be sharper.

It is also important to note how Paul’s polemical tone and Luke’s narrative of Acts reinforce each other. The Book of Acts shows us Paul in action, fiercely debating those who wanted to impose circumcision (Acts 15, and implied elsewhere), and ultimately carrying the Gospel to Rome itself, the heart of the Gentile world. Acts concludes with Paul’s declaration to the resistant Jews in Rome: “I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent out to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” This final pronouncement by Paul (Acts 28:28) serves as Luke’s climactic affirmation that the Gentile mission is God’s will – effectively, the Gospel has outgrown the old Israel-centric container. The reader of Acts is left with Christianity on the verge of a global explosion, no longer an offshoot of Judaism but a universal faith for all peoples. Meanwhile, Paul’s letters written during and after those events provide the doctrinal explanation: Israel’s role was special but temporary, to usher in the Messiah; now in Christ, the promises to Abraham (“all nations will be blessed through you,” Genesis 12:3) are being fulfilled as all nations come to the blessing. Paul does wrestle with the question of Israel’s place (Romans 9–11), affirming God’s continued love for the Jews, yet he insists that God’s mercy is now shown to both Jew and Gentile on the same basis – mercy that depends not on lineage or law but on God’s calling in Christ (Romans 9:24-26, 11:30-32).

In summary, Luke–Acts and Paul present a cohesive new paradigm: God’s true character and redemptive plan are revealed as radically inclusive and gracious. No nation or tribe has a monopoly on God anymore – if they ever did. The Holy Spirit is poured out on Gentiles and Jews alike with no distinction. The Law that separated people is fulfilled in Christ and thus no longer the governing covenant. And the core of how we relate to God is not by adhering to regulations, but by entering into a trusting relationship through Jesus, empowered by the Spirit. This is the apostolic Gospel. This is what the earliest Christians – those who knew Jesus or, like Paul, encountered Him in glory – unanimously preached: that in Christ, God has reconciled the world to Himself, not counting people’s sins against them (2 Corinthians 5:19), and that now “there is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28).

Who Is God? The Character of God Clarified in Christ

What do these two contrasting paradigms tell us about the character and intentions of God? The Old Testament (and Matthew’s more Old Testament-flavored Gospel) often leave us with a picture of God that is partial and perplexing. In those writings, God can appear exclusivist (choosing one nation and seemingly spurning others), legalistic (demanding absolute adherence to rituals and exacting punishment for failure), and even wrathful to the point of violence (ordering wars, floods, and judgments). There are, to be sure, profound revelations of God’s mercy and love in the Old Testament as well (the compassion described in Psalms and prophets, for instance). Yet the overall impression for many readers is that the Old Testament God is “angry” or harsh, whereas the New Testament God (revealed by Jesus) is loving and gracious. This simplistic dichotomy troubled believers for centuries – one early church figure, Marcion, even went so far as to claim the God of the Old Testament was a different, inferior deity than the God revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church rightfully rejected that extreme view as heresy, affirming that there is only one God who authored both Testaments. However, we need not swing to the opposite extreme and assert that every Old Testament depiction of God is a full and final revelation of His heart. Instead, the key is to recognize the progressive unfolding of God’s self-revelation, culminating in Jesus and the apostolic witness. The New Testament itself gives us this hermeneutic: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2). The implication is that God’s message and character have been communicated in a variety of partial ways before, but now, finally, we have the ultimate communication in the person of Jesus. Jesus, the Son of God, is the perfect revelation of who God is – far surpassing all previous revelations.

So, if something in the Old Testament seems inconsistent with what we see in Jesus, we have legitimate reason to give priority to Jesus’ revelation as conveyed by Luke, the most historically reliable Gospel, and by Paul, the apostle to the nations. Paul’s writings highlight God’s kindness, patience, and inclusive love. Paul proclaims that God “wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). He marvels that “God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Far from being a tribal deity concerned only with one nation, God “overlooked the times of ignorance” among the nations “but now commands all people everywhere to repent” – because He desires to save all (Acts 17:30). Paul even confronts the darker parts of Israel’s story and sees lessons in them rather than endorsements. In 1 Corinthians 10, he recalls how many Israelites fell in the wilderness due to sin, implying that being “God’s people” didn’t guarantee immunity – humility and faith were always what God wanted. In Romans 15:8-10, Paul cites the Old Testament itself to show that God’s plan always included the Gentiles: “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people” (quoting Deuteronomy and Psalms). The mystery kept hidden is now revealed: “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs… members of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). In short, God’s intention all along – now made crystal clear – was to create one multi-ethnic family united by faith and love, not by law and lineage.

This new, clarified revelation of God’s character forces us to rethink the Old Testament narratives of violence and exclusivity. If God is most fully revealed in Jesus,  then perhaps the Israelites’ understanding of God’s commands to wage war was partial or context-bound. The Old Testament’s honest record shows people grappling with God’s will and sometimes misunderstanding God. Jesus Himself corrected Moses’ laws at times. This indicates that not everything in the Old Testament law was the perfect expression of God’s heart; some of it was an accommodation to human weakness until a better way came. Similarly, the eye-for-an-eye justice of the Torah (Exodus 21:24) was a step forward in its time (limiting vengeance), but Jesus reveals a higher ethic: “To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.” (Luke 6:29). Jesus isn’t contradicting God – He is revealing God more fully. 

By embracing the apostolic witness of Luke–Acts and Paul, Christians can confidently assert that God is not the tribal, vengeful deity some imagine from certain Old Testament stories. Rather, God is as Jesus showed Him to be: a loving Father who runs to welcome the prodigal, a Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep, a Savior who pours out grace on undeserving sinners – Jew and Gentile alike. The apostolic writings serve as our interpretive key. They teach us to read the whole Bible with Jesus at the center. We can honor the Old Testament as at least a partially inspired record of God’s redemptive work leading to Christ, without having to adopt all of its cultural trappings or incomplete understandings as normative for today. The Old Testament portrayal of God may not fully correspond to the actual God who transcends the text. 

Conclusion: Embracing the Core Witness of the New Covenant

The old paradigm guarded identity through works of the Law. The new covenant grants identity and power through the Spirit. Paul names this the unrivaled mystery. Gentiles and Jews become equal coheirs in one body. Luke–Acts shows how the Spirit validates this at real tables with real people. Matthew preserves a Torah-shaped catechesis that fits a closed Jewish flock. The apostolic center, however, is clear. Belonging is by faith. Transformation is by the Spirit. The ethic is love that fulfills the Law.

The “mystery” is God’s now-revealed plan that Jews and Gentiles stand as equal coheirs in one body through the Messiah, with full access to the Father in one Spirit, so that the ancient promise to bless all nations is finally realized.

Luke–Acts and Paul’s letters stand at the heart of the New Testament for a reason. They together chronicle and explain the definitive shift in God’s dealings with humanity brought about by Jesus Christ. This apostolic witness is our best frame of reference for understanding God’s character and intentions. It tells us emphatically that we do not need to project every Old Testament depiction of God. We are called instead to see the Father in the ministry of Jesus and his apostles. The old covenant had glory, but it was a fading glory – “what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory” of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:10). The light of God’s love, which dawned in Israel, has reached noonday brightness in Christ. And in that light, some distortions of the earlier revelation are dispelled.

To put it plainly: A Christian does not need to, for example, justify the herem warfare of Joshua or the polygamy of the patriarchs or the nationalistic fervor of Ezra as if those fully reveal God’s ideal. I. The Gospel of Jesus was proclaimed by his apostles. In that final chapter, God’s universal love and grace take center stage, relativizing those earlier provisions. Paul and the author of Hebrews describe the old covenant as obsolete, aging, and ready to vanish (Hebrews 8:13). The new covenant in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20) has superseded it. Therefore, we must be careful not to build our doctrine of God on an incomplete picture of God when the fuller has come into view in light of the Gospel. If we did, we might end up with an “Old Testament God” concept – one that fuels fear, exclusivity, or legalism – and miss the full beauty of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, “from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (Ephesians 3:15). The church of Jesus must hold fast to the revelation of God’s character given by Christ and the Apostles. This revelation invites all into covenant and focuses on inner transformation by the Spirit rather than external rule-keeping. It portrays God as holy love – righteous, yes, but also self-sacrificing for our sake and eager to forgive.

In embracing Luke–Acts and Paul as guides, we are not “pitting Scripture against Scripture” in a destructive way; rather, we are affirming the superior revelation of the apostolic core testament of Luke-Acts + Paul over previous and more inferior witnesses. The law was given through Moses, but the truth in its fullness came through the Gospel of Christ Jesus. So we emphasize the apostolic witnesses over Moses, the prophets, and even Matthew. The proper lens to understand God's character and intentions is Luke and Paul. The character of God that shines from the pages of Luke–Acts and Paul is one of expansive love, impartial justice, and saving grace. This is the same God who patiently worked through Israel’s turbulent history, but now we see His heart without shadow. It’s a heart that aches for the lost, rejoices in the repentant, and calls former enemies to sit at one table. 

Therefore, we can confidently say: We trust the apostolic witness to show us who God truly is. We honor the Old Testament as the vital introduction to the story, but our ultimate doctrine of God comes from Jesus’ revelation as transmitted by His apostles. In that sense, Matthew’s more traditionalist approach must yield to the greater light of Luke’s and Paul’s testimony. Any theology that would keep us bound in fear, prejudice, or legalism – as if we were still under the old covenant – is to be boldly challenged, just as Paul challenged Peter when his behavior contradicted “the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14). The core truth of the Gospel is that God’s grace has appeared bringing salvation to all (Titus 2:11), and that through Christ, God’s true intentions for humanity are revealed.

 The old paradigm had its time and purpose, but the new has come. As the Apostle Paul triumphantly declared, “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). So it is with our understanding of God. The old portrait, with its shadows, has given way to the new portrait in Christ, full of grace and truth. That is the God we worship and proclaim: the God unveiled by the apostolic witness, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose character of love is fully revealed in the apostolic witness of the Gospel. 

Sources:

• Bauckham, Richard. What is distinctive about Luke’s gospel? – Highlights Luke’s universal outlook versus Matthew’s Jewish orientation psephizo.com.

• Seibert, Eric. The Old Testament as a Problem for Pacifists (IVP excerpt) – Observes that Israel’s portrayal of God as warrior was culturally conditioned and not the full picture of God ivpress.comivpress.com.

• IssuesWithMatthew.com. Matthew is a later embellished gospel adopted for a Jewish community. 
  

• LukePrimacy.com Evidence why Luke is the most reliable Gospel witness.
  

• NTcanon.com. Identifying the foundational authority of the New Testament Canon.

Marcion’s Premises and Their Limits

About Marcion

Marcion of Sinope was a second-century Christian teacher active in Rome around 140–160 CE. A wealthy shipowner’s son, he promoted a strict Law–Gospel antithesis and taught that the God revealed in Jesus differs from the creator God of Israel. In 144 he was expelled from the Roman church. Marcion produced what is often called the first Christian canon: an edited Gospel “according to Luke,” beginning at 3:1, and a collection of ten Pauline letters, both revised to remove affirmations of creation, prophetic fulfillment, and bodily resurrection. He rejected the Old Testament as Christian Scripture and advocated an austere moral discipline. Whatever one makes of his theology, Marcion’s program forced early churches to clarify their own Scriptures and doctrines, which is why his corpus of Scripture remains central to discussions of canon and authority.

Marcion’s program drew sustained responses across more than two centuries: Irenaeus, Against Heresies (c. 180–189); Tertullian, Against Marcion in five books, composed in stages (c. 207–212); Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (c. 230–235); and Epiphanius, Panarion (c. 374–377). Together, these works framed many canonical and doctrinal debates from the late second through the late fourth century. Marcion's influence proved durable: Syriac and Islamic sources suggest Marcionite communities lingered in the East for centuries, with Thomas of Marga noting a mission to “pagans, Marcionites and Manichaeans” in the late eighth century, and the tenth-century bibliographer Ibn al-Nadim reporting Marcionites “numerous in Khurasan,” practicing openly like Manichaeans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism).

Virtually everything known about Marcion comes from opponents who wrote to refute him, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. His own works, including the Antitheses and his edited collections of Luke and Paul, do not survive except in hostile quotations and reconstructions. As with many controversies in antiquity, later ecclesial winners shaped the record that endures. 

The Core Marcionite Claim

Tertullian reports the Marcionite claim in this form: "although God was not manifest from the beginning through creation, He has nevertheless been revealed in Christ Jesus." (Against Marcion, Book 1) On this basis, Marcion made it his principal work to separate Law and Gospel and to abridge and alter Luke and Paul accordingly. This article grants Marcion’s strongest premises, namely the prominence of Luke and Paul, the real tension between judgment and mercy across the Testaments, the importance of canon, and the need for ethical seriousness. It rejects the inferences that do not follow, namely dualism, docetism, and textual mutilation. It argues that Marcion’s omission of Luke 1–2 and Acts is best explained by ideological motive, not by claims of later development, and proposes reading Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters in full as the most stable New Testament foundation.

According to Tertullian’s report, Marcionites held that God was not manifested from the beginning through creation but has now been revealed in Christ. From this premise, Marcion developed a sharp Law–Gospel antithesis and reshaped Scripture to fit it. Concretely, he produced an abridged Gospel according to Luke, excised Acts altogether, and redacted ten Pauline letters, cutting or altering passages that affirmed creation’s goodness, prophetic fulfillment, or bodily resurrection.

Marcion’s Strongest Recognitions

Prominence of Luke and Paul. Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters offer a concentrated articulation of repentance, grace, and the universal scope of salvation. Elevating their importance is defensible on textual grounds.

Perceived Law–Gospel Tension. Readers encounter interpretive pressure between some Old Testament judgments and the New Testament’s witness to enemy-love, table fellowship, and gratuitous mercy. Observing the tension is not itself a fault.

Canon Shapes Doctrine. The text of a community privileges or excludes decisively, directing its theology and practice. Marcion grasped this dynamic and pioneered the concept of a canon.

Moral Seriousness. A rigorous account of evil and a disciplined communal ethic are necessary. Marcion refused superficial treatments of either.

These recognitions do not entail dualism, docetism, or the alteration of Luke and Paul to rupture Jesus from the context of Israel, the Law, and the Prophets.

Limited Premises, Illicit Conclusions

Let the following be granted:

• P1. Luke–Acts and Paul form an appropriate center of gravity for articulating the gospel’s core, that is, the redemptive purpose and character of God revealed in Christ.

• P2. There are apparent inconsistencies between some depictions of God in the Law and the Prophets and the apostolic portrayal of God in light of Christ.

From P1 and P2 Marcion infers two gods, a merely apparent and non-bodily Christ, and a scriptural text trimmed to fit those conclusions. None of these follow. Perceived tension does not warrant multiplying deities, denying the flesh-and-blood humanity of Jesus, or reshaping the text to force harmonies with a prior philosophical system.

How Marcion’s Text Goes Too Far

Marcion moved beyond emphasizing Luke–Acts and Paul as a canonical core to altering and excising the text within that very core:

• Abridged Gospel. A shortened Luke that begins at 3:1, omitting 1–2 and redacting passages in the larger narrative.

• No Acts. The book of Acts was excluded entirely.

• Redacted Paul. Ten letters were retained but modified where they supported the Law, the Prophets, creation’s goodness, or bodily resurrection.

Such steps exceed principled canonical selectivity and amount to doctrinally driven editing.

Why Luke’s Infancy Narratives Had to Go, on Marcion’s Terms

Luke 1–2 is structurally incompatible with Marcion’s dualism and docetism:

• Prophetic Fulfillment. The infancy narratives present Jesus as the fulfillment of promises to Abraham and David, “as He spoke by the prophets,” which collapses the postulate of a newly revealed, non-Creator deity.

• True Humanity. Conception, birth, growth, and temple presentation presuppose real embodiment as a physical human being.

• Reference the God of the Torah. Circumcision, sacrifices, and devout Israelite worship frame Jesus within Israel’s scriptural life.

Conclusion: The omission of Luke 1–2 is best explained by ideological pressure to remove prophetic fulfillment, full humanity, and covenantal continuity, not by a hypothesis of later textual development.

Why Acts Had to Go, on Marcion’s Terms

Acts contradicts Marcion’s program at foundational points:

• Scriptural Continuity. Apostolic preaching argues from Moses and the Prophets. Jesus is proclaimed as fulfillment, not negation, of Israel’s Scriptures.

• Jerusalem to the Nations. The mission is rooted in Jerusalem and expands outward. Paul is shown inside Israel’s story rather than over against it.

• Creation-Affirming Salvation. Pentecost, healings, and a repeated emphasis on bodily resurrection presuppose the goodness and redeemability of creation.

Conclusion: The exclusion of Acts functions to minimize prophetic fulfillment and to sever the Gospel from the Law and the prophets. This is an ideological move, not an indication of lateness.

A Positive Proposal if One Grants Marcion’s Strongest Premises

Foundational Authorities. Treat Luke–Acts plus the undisputed Pauline letters as the most reliable New Testament foundation, in their entirety. They do not dissolve every difficulty, but they constrain interpretation: one Creator God, true humanity of Christ, bodily resurrection, and an apostolic proclamation in continuity with Israel’s Scriptures.

Qualified Continuity, Not Rupture. The Old Testament remains a foundational witness, yet it often speaks from Israel’s limited vantage and evolving circumstances, with signs of later shaping. The New Testament receives that witness but subjects it to apostolic reassessment in light of Christ. Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters supply the decisive clarification of God’s character and purpose, centering one Creator God, the true humanity of Jesus, and bodily resurrection. Continuity is real, yet the controlling norm is the apostolic proclamation rather than every earlier portrayal.

Hermeneutical Discipline. Allow the core apostolic sources to unsettle fashionable philosophical systems. The refusal to cut Luke 1–2 and Acts is not capitulation to tradition, but a decision to let the strongest early witnesses speak in full.

Qualified Continuity of the Old Testament 

Qualified Continuity. The Old Testament should be received as a foundational witness, yet not as a uniformly accurate depiction of history or of God in every detail. Much of it can be read as Israel’s Godward commentary that reflects limited vantage points, changing circumstances, and later editorial shaping. The New Testament does not merely harmonize these tensions. It offers a corrective and clarifying reassessment centered on Christ.

Pauline Contrasts. Paul repeatedly frames the new covenant in contrast with the old. Representative axes include law versus Spirit, fleshly boundary markers versus faith working through love, and a ministry of condemnation contrasted with a ministry of righteousness and life. These contrasts authorize reading the earlier witness as preparatory and provisional rather than as the controlling norm.

From Separation to Inclusion. The earlier covenantal economy set Israel apart as a priestly people. In Christ, the dividing wall is removed, and the promise is extended to all nations. The narrative movement is from a particular election toward an invitation to all peoples.

Handling Old Testament Difficulties. Apparent inconsistencies and signs of revision in the Old Testament can be approached without forcing complete harmonization or complete rupture. They become part of a developing testimony that is judged and reoriented by the apostolic proclamation of the one Creator God revealed in Jesus, his true humanity, and his bodily resurrection.

Resulting Posture. Our hermeneutical disposition should be neither severance that results in multiple deities nor complete harmonization that dissolves all contrast. It is apostolic reassessment that grants the earlier witness real authority, while allowing Luke–Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters to supply the decisive clarification of God’s character and purpose in Christ.

Why “Later Development” Is the Wrong Inference in Reference to Luke 1-2 and Acts

The pattern of Marcion’s excisions, namely Luke 1–2, all of Acts, and numerous other passages, maps closely onto his philosophical presuppositions. The simplest explanation is an ideological motive. When a system survives by removing the texts that most clearly contradict it, the removal argues for doctrinal selectivity, not for textual lateness.

Summary

• Marcion rightly sensed the weight of Luke and Paul and the pressure between judgment and mercy across the Testaments.

• He erred in drawing dualistic and docetic conclusions and in enforcing them by altering Luke and Paul while omitting Acts.

• The omissions of Luke 1–2 and Acts are ideological, not an indication that they are later texts.

• Luke–Acts plus Paul, unabridged, provides the most coherent canonical foundation. They do not eliminate tension, but they bind it within a creation-affirming confession of the one God whose purposes reach their climax in Christ.
  

In conclusion, Marcion’s strongest premises are Luke/Paul’s prominence, the felt Law–Gospel tension, the canon’s doctrinal force, and ethical seriousness. However, most of his claims, including dualism, docetism, and excessive textual omission, should be rejected. The more responsible approach is to affirm Luke–Acts + Paul in full as the best available authorities.

Furthermore, what Marcion included proves nothing about what was original to the Lukan corpus because Marcion would have excluded Luke 1-2 and Acts on ideological grounds. Thus, no one can draw conclusions about the original status of Luke chapters 1-2 or Acts based on Marcion.

For more on why Luke-Acts + Paul should be considered at the core of the New Testament canon, see https://ntcanon.com