What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?: A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity
Readers of the Bible are often drawn to Jesus's message and ministry, but they are not as positively inclined toward Paul. What should people who love Jesus do with Paul? Here Pauline scholar J. R. Daniel Kirk offers a fresh and timely engagement of the debated relationship between Paul's writings and the portrait of Jesus contained in the Gospels. He integrates the messages of Jesus and Paul both with one another and with the Old Testament, demonstrating the continuity that exists between these two foundational figures. After laying out the narrative contours of the Christian life, Kirk provides fresh perspective on challenging issues facing today's world, from environmental concerns to social justice to homosexuality.
226 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2012
About the author
J.R. Daniel Kirk
7 books20 followersJ. R. Daniel Kirk (PhD, Duke University) is assistant professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary’s Northern California campus in Menlo Park, California. He is the author of Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God as well as numerous articles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
August 2, 2012
This one gets off to a bit of a slow start, but finishes strong. With an enigmatic subject like Paul, and a provocative title like this one, I expected a more pointed discussion. It's only when we reach the midpoint that the really controversial topics emerge: women's role in the church, slavery, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, etc.
Kirk begins his book by confessing his early ambivalence toward Paul. Only after much study, and by recognizing that Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings do steer toward one another, did he come to appreciate Paul's slant. This acceptance appears to have come at a cost: Kirk began to realize that not only did Paul tend toward Jesus in his teachings, but Jesus tended toward Paul!
For example, Jesus says we should not judge one another. But is that the whole story? Worry about the log in your own eye, and ignore the speck of dust in your neighbor's? Hardly. Jesus says get the log out of your eye so that you can see to help your brother get rid of his problem. If we condemn Paul for encouraging what looks like strict judgment of others (1 Cor. 5:12-13), we should remember Jesus' admonition to recognize others by their fruits and beware.
Paul may best be understood under the lens of Storied Theology. By telling the story of mankind, from Adam and Eve through Paul's day, he fits the Gentiles into the cosmic plan of God. He brings non-Jews into the fold, makes them feel like they belong, and defines their role as full participants.
Kirk writes as a studied believer, meaning his perspective is most definitely that of a practicing Christian, yet he's been around the block long enough to realize that every question about the Bible has a dozen scholarly answers ... half of them legitimate. For example, Kirk acknowledges that many of the Pauline letters may be pseudonymous, and he focuses more intently on the universally recognized authentic letters, yet he doesn't press the issue.
Kirk doesn't sit on the fence when it comes to interpreting the words of the Bible, though. Paul doesn't pull punches, and neither does Kirk. Still, this is a respectful and thought-provoking book.
January 9, 2016
Many times Christians choose between Jesus and Paul, with many liberals choosing Jesus over the more regressive Paul. Some have tried to rehabilitate Paul by distinguishing between the truly Pauline and the deutero-Pauline letters.
Daniel Kirk doesn't so much try to rehabilitate Paul as connect his story with that of Jesus. Contexts are different,but they're largely on the same page. Kirk uses the idea of narrative to understand Paul, seeing Paul attempting to write the Gentiles into the story of God's people through their adherence to the person of Jesus.
As he does this, he takes us into an exploration of issues facing the church today including women, social justice, and sexuality. His chapter on homosexuality won't satisfy many traditionalists nor many progressives, but he offers a provocative vision for full inclusion of gays and lesbians into the life of the church.
Kirk is an evangelical, teaching at my alma mater. His conversation partners are generally the more moderate evangelicals such as Tom Wright, Richard Hays, and Scot McKnight. It's a good book, well worth reading!!
Daniel Kirk doesn't so much try to rehabilitate Paul as connect his story with that of Jesus. Contexts are different,but they're largely on the same page. Kirk uses the idea of narrative to understand Paul, seeing Paul attempting to write the Gentiles into the story of God's people through their adherence to the person of Jesus.
As he does this, he takes us into an exploration of issues facing the church today including women, social justice, and sexuality. His chapter on homosexuality won't satisfy many traditionalists nor many progressives, but he offers a provocative vision for full inclusion of gays and lesbians into the life of the church.
Kirk is an evangelical, teaching at my alma mater. His conversation partners are generally the more moderate evangelicals such as Tom Wright, Richard Hays, and Scot McKnight. It's a good book, well worth reading!!
February 16, 2016
Right up until and including the chapter on social justice, it was fantastic, but the last two chapters on sex and homosexuality lost sight of the goal of making the trajectories of Paul and Jesus meet. Yes, they discussed Paul and Jesus to some extent, but the priority of reconciling the two seemed to be put aside in making homosexuality fit with the Christian narrative. That's not to say a good argument was not put forward. It was. But I hear convincing sounding arguments from both liberals and conservatives, and in the end I am happily agnostic on the issue, just wanting to treat everyone according to Jesus' golden rule. Overall, though, the book was powerful and a welcome and brave step away from conservative thought.
May 29, 2015
Another good book by J.R. Daniel Kirk. I digress, the first book I put down by him was "Unlocking Romans," which so far in my life has been the most illuminating book on Romans.
He tackles many questions in this book: what's the deal with Jesus and Paul, what is the gospel, what is theology, what is ethics and spirituality? Given that he's taken on so many topics he can't do justice to all of them. He offers sketches rather than dogmatic conclusions. This is a good thing. If his narrative framework were able to answer everything with black and white precision he'd be no different than the dogmatist and their systems!
I'd recommend this book to evangelicals wrestling within that corner or room (to use C.S. Lewis' analogy) of Christendom as well as more liberal leaning Christians. This is a both/and book reaching out to both sides of the Christian spectrum.
He tackles many questions in this book: what's the deal with Jesus and Paul, what is the gospel, what is theology, what is ethics and spirituality? Given that he's taken on so many topics he can't do justice to all of them. He offers sketches rather than dogmatic conclusions. This is a good thing. If his narrative framework were able to answer everything with black and white precision he'd be no different than the dogmatist and their systems!
I'd recommend this book to evangelicals wrestling within that corner or room (to use C.S. Lewis' analogy) of Christendom as well as more liberal leaning Christians. This is a both/and book reaching out to both sides of the Christian spectrum.
September 14, 2017
A very lucid guide through the process of putting Paul and Jesus into the broader biblical narrative of Israel and world-wide redemption. Kirk has a sensitive eye for the specific cultural issues of Western-American-Christianity, and he does wonderful job of keeping everything in tension. The chapters on community and inclusivity (particularly the connection to the doctrine of justification) are very illuminating, and I was quite impressed with his even-handed discussion of sex, sexuality and LGBT questions in scripture. This one is going on my reference shelf, as I will certainly be re-reading several of these chapters in the future. Definitely recommended.
Read
August 13, 2020The book positions itself as a question of either the cooperation or opposition between Jesus and Paul. For the most part of the book, it shows the continuity of The Anointed and The Apostle. There are some series problems. Specifically with his approach to egalitarianism. Also, his presentation on homosexuality is skewed. I like where he ends up but not how he gets there. There is so much that is left out that I cannot recommend it as a good evaluation of Paul. It does however a good job of letting you know about the current debates on the subject.
July 4, 2026
J. R. Daniel Kirk (JRDK) tells of a conundrum that he has noticed in scripture that seems to resonate with many people. Which is this, if you lay out Christ’s words alongside the Apostle Paul’s words, as a Christian you would expect to find much agreement in what they teach. Yet there are some areas where they seem to deviate, and in JRDK’s eyes this deviation is originating through Paul away from Christ and not through Christ away from Paul. Paul comes across as authoritarian, anti-woman, and overly doctrinal whereas Christ comes across as inclusive, mercy driven, and critiques those in power. He sees what we might call the Gospel of Paul and the Gospel of Christ as adhesive to one another, meaning that when we read Paul narratively, even in those passages that cause most to raise an eyebrow, we actually find him in step with Christ.
To be sure, JRDK views Paul as a man of his culture and as such beholden to views of his day. For instance, when referencing homosexual relationships, there is no context for Paul to be thinking about the types of homosexual relationships we see today, because the ones he was aware of were violent, promiscuous, non consensual, or a combination of all three. If he was aware of how those relationships are commonly today, JRDK writes, he probably wouldn’t have anything negative to say about them.
This methodology is played out through many of Paul’s polemical viewpoints and argued that we are forgetting that Paul’s time is not our time, and despite everything he said that was ostensibly foreign to the Gospel of Christ, nevertheless Paul’s Gospel does align with Christ’s, insofar as it meshes with modern times and beliefs.
While this does get closer to the truth that Paul and Christ were certainly in agreement with one another, it misses the fundamental truth that Paul was not agreeing to the teachings of Christ while being duped by the historical context of his own time. Nor does it allow for the idea that Paul was implementing the teaching of Christ in his immediate context, but our context is so different now that those teachings are defunct. Paul appeals to natural law many times as his basis for his doctrinal and sociological beliefs, he so distances his teachings from his immediate context in favor of tying it to the creation of all things that is is exegetically irrelevant what his context was in determining whether his teachings are meant to outlast him into new generations and contexts.
This is where I can prefer an atheist or agnostic writer who reads scripture more than a liberal theologian reads it. Meaning, that in most cases atheists and agnostic are not only not afraid to say exactly what the text says, they make no apologies for it. You can probably envision such an example of one doing so when they read Paul telling women to be silent in church. They relish that idea because, to them, this is just so tough, what sort of Christian would agree to something like this? A liberal theologian approaches the text, finds something he does not like, and either removes or explains that something away.
Whatever the case, JRDK IS very good writer and communicates well. But by trying to save Paul and his theology, he renders them irrelevant.
To be sure, JRDK views Paul as a man of his culture and as such beholden to views of his day. For instance, when referencing homosexual relationships, there is no context for Paul to be thinking about the types of homosexual relationships we see today, because the ones he was aware of were violent, promiscuous, non consensual, or a combination of all three. If he was aware of how those relationships are commonly today, JRDK writes, he probably wouldn’t have anything negative to say about them.
This methodology is played out through many of Paul’s polemical viewpoints and argued that we are forgetting that Paul’s time is not our time, and despite everything he said that was ostensibly foreign to the Gospel of Christ, nevertheless Paul’s Gospel does align with Christ’s, insofar as it meshes with modern times and beliefs.
While this does get closer to the truth that Paul and Christ were certainly in agreement with one another, it misses the fundamental truth that Paul was not agreeing to the teachings of Christ while being duped by the historical context of his own time. Nor does it allow for the idea that Paul was implementing the teaching of Christ in his immediate context, but our context is so different now that those teachings are defunct. Paul appeals to natural law many times as his basis for his doctrinal and sociological beliefs, he so distances his teachings from his immediate context in favor of tying it to the creation of all things that is is exegetically irrelevant what his context was in determining whether his teachings are meant to outlast him into new generations and contexts.
This is where I can prefer an atheist or agnostic writer who reads scripture more than a liberal theologian reads it. Meaning, that in most cases atheists and agnostic are not only not afraid to say exactly what the text says, they make no apologies for it. You can probably envision such an example of one doing so when they read Paul telling women to be silent in church. They relish that idea because, to them, this is just so tough, what sort of Christian would agree to something like this? A liberal theologian approaches the text, finds something he does not like, and either removes or explains that something away.
Whatever the case, JRDK IS very good writer and communicates well. But by trying to save Paul and his theology, he renders them irrelevant.
March 24, 2018
Wow...I'm not sure how to sum up this book. I think Daniel Kirk is brilliant. The overview is that he connects the dots between Jesus and Paul by looking at their cultural context and audience and interprets how they have cohesive messages. He talks about the role of our Christian brothers and sisters in our Christian formation, He talks about social justice and how it’s more than a progressive stance but an opportunity to spread the grace of God toward others. This isn't a zero sum game...when we show the love and grace of God, the love and grace of God grows and benefits us all.
I questioned whether to mention this but if someone reads this book because of my recommendation, I feel I need to provide this caveat: this book was published in 2011. He has a chapter on homosexuality, in which he takes a conservative to moderate "pastoral accommodation" stance and he includes a call for love. I believe that this chapter no longer accurately reflects his views, but for this time in evangelicalism it's a progressive stance. He shows his own humility on the last page of this book when he writes, "this book is a piece of my own theological journey, my own story of narrating Jesus and Paul for the time and place in which I find myself."
This book doesn't accurately reflect all of my current views, but it has a lot of critical analysis and a call to gracious loving that I do believe in. It's also brilliantly written.
I questioned whether to mention this but if someone reads this book because of my recommendation, I feel I need to provide this caveat: this book was published in 2011. He has a chapter on homosexuality, in which he takes a conservative to moderate "pastoral accommodation" stance and he includes a call for love. I believe that this chapter no longer accurately reflects his views, but for this time in evangelicalism it's a progressive stance. He shows his own humility on the last page of this book when he writes, "this book is a piece of my own theological journey, my own story of narrating Jesus and Paul for the time and place in which I find myself."
This book doesn't accurately reflect all of my current views, but it has a lot of critical analysis and a call to gracious loving that I do believe in. It's also brilliantly written.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 15, 2021
I only was able to get though the first half of the book before it had to go back to the library, but it's enough to write a review.
The author does a good job of connecting Paul and Jesus and speaking on issues like the roles and rights of women. He shows a great depth of research and I agree with all of his conclusions so far. I have high interest in the subject matter, but honestly this book was a slog. The language was too dry and scholarly for me. (I say that as an editor with a master's degree in English—it's not that it was difficult for me to read, but that it didn't hold my interest.)
The author does a good job of connecting Paul and Jesus and speaking on issues like the roles and rights of women. He shows a great depth of research and I agree with all of his conclusions so far. I have high interest in the subject matter, but honestly this book was a slog. The language was too dry and scholarly for me. (I say that as an editor with a master's degree in English—it's not that it was difficult for me to read, but that it didn't hold my interest.)
October 1, 2016
I'm sorry to say that I was a bit disappointed in this, as I expected more based on what I'd heard. But there were some grave omissions, in my opinion, and it seemed to me that the author was catering to a group of people who are living in denial of modern scholarship. To be more specific:
- There was really not much but a passing mention of the fact that the vast majority of scholarship accepts that the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul and that a majority accepts that Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians were also not written by Paul (these were, it is said, pseudepigraphy). Rather, this author often quotes from some of these sources and seems to take for granted that they were written by Paul. This is a grave disappointment to me. I'd highly recommend, as an alternative to this book, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon.
- The author makes a rather unconvincing argument for a sort of strange "universalism" that treats everyone the same way even though one takes for granted that not all will be saved. He seems to argue against any other forms of universalism without really being familiar with (or at least not discussing) their own arguments for their position, and also seems to accept a common mistaken view that all universalisms are a loosey goosey "anything goes" sort of non-morality that doesn't stand up against abuse.
- The chapter on Homosexuality makes a less than convincing argument that doesn't even mention that in Paul's context, it was taken for granted that all forms of homosexuality were abusive in that the only homosexuality people saw in this time were in the forms of pederasty and prostitution. Of course they saw homosexuality as immoral if they took it for granted that there was no such a thing as consensual monogamous relationships between two healthy adult individuals of the same sex. I really would have liked to see him discuss this a bit and was very disappointed that he didn't. He also seemed to take it for granted that anyone who might be called "liberal" not only accepted homosexuality but also would fall under the "free love morality" of the seventies where monogamy wasn't valued.
- There was really not much but a passing mention of the fact that the vast majority of scholarship accepts that the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul and that a majority accepts that Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians were also not written by Paul (these were, it is said, pseudepigraphy). Rather, this author often quotes from some of these sources and seems to take for granted that they were written by Paul. This is a grave disappointment to me. I'd highly recommend, as an alternative to this book, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon.
- The author makes a rather unconvincing argument for a sort of strange "universalism" that treats everyone the same way even though one takes for granted that not all will be saved. He seems to argue against any other forms of universalism without really being familiar with (or at least not discussing) their own arguments for their position, and also seems to accept a common mistaken view that all universalisms are a loosey goosey "anything goes" sort of non-morality that doesn't stand up against abuse.
- The chapter on Homosexuality makes a less than convincing argument that doesn't even mention that in Paul's context, it was taken for granted that all forms of homosexuality were abusive in that the only homosexuality people saw in this time were in the forms of pederasty and prostitution. Of course they saw homosexuality as immoral if they took it for granted that there was no such a thing as consensual monogamous relationships between two healthy adult individuals of the same sex. I really would have liked to see him discuss this a bit and was very disappointed that he didn't. He also seemed to take it for granted that anyone who might be called "liberal" not only accepted homosexuality but also would fall under the "free love morality" of the seventies where monogamy wasn't valued.
March 29, 2025
New perspectives on Jesus’ gopel
Dr. Kirk’s book helps to open our minds to think in a new way about the Good News of Jesus from a Pauline point of view.
Dr. Kirk’s book helps to open our minds to think in a new way about the Good News of Jesus from a Pauline point of view.
February 24, 2024
Ahistorical Zionist apologism. Not for anyone interested in the Paul of Tarsus who actually lived.
April 15, 2013
I did not expect the clarity and fresh thinking in this brief book. I love the engaging tone of the book -- thoughtful, but not ponderous; sober, yet upbeat; personal, and sparkling. The author proposes that "Genesis 1-3 creates the narrative tensions that drive the remainder of the biblical story ... As the story unfolds, Abraham, and later Israel, are called to play the role God had originally given to Adam" (p.35). I happen to be reading this just as I heard N. T. Wright interviewed on his new book, "How God Became King." I see quite a bit of overlap in these two books as they rethink the gospel narratives and the message of "the Kingdom of God." The second half of J. R. Daniel Kirk's book applies the Kingdom message to contemporary issues such as social justice and homosexuality. I thought his chapter on homosexuality was very well thought through. It would do everyone good to read it.
April 10, 2015
This book exceeded my expectations and I learned a lot from it. If you're interested in the intersection of Jesus and Paul and the perceived incongruities therein, this book provides a great analysis and synthesis of the two. I read the book mainly because I was told that Kirk's chapter on homosexuality provided a new-ish (2011) presentation of the 'traditional' view on the subject. I'm not sure his exegetical or ethical approach is anything new, but there was something about that chapter that was very rare to find: Kirk spends at least 4 or 5 pages exploring what it might take for him (and the church) to reconsider this issue and come to a new conclusion. This kind of openness from a person who holds a 'traditional' view is extremely uncommon in my experience. I already respected Kirk based on the rest of the book, but his generosity and humility in that chapter kicked it up a notch.
November 6, 2019
I have read more of J.R. Daniel Kirk's blog posts than I have his books, and in fact, it was one of his blog posts which alerted me to this volume. As a dabbler in theology who is a fan of both the Jesus in the Gospels and of Paul in his letters, I've always been puzzled by those who set them against each other, and I was intrigued to see Kirk take this on.
It's a great book for that--comparing theology in the Gospels and theology in the epistles--and also a solid close reading of many New Testament texts. Anyone who is trying to get a deeper understanding might find gold nuggets here, even if they disagree with some of Kirk's smaller conclusions (as I did).
But my favorite part is how Kirk applies the narrative approach. If you are a storyteller or you find a narrative framing helpful in other approaches to theology, I highly recommend this book.
It's a great book for that--comparing theology in the Gospels and theology in the epistles--and also a solid close reading of many New Testament texts. Anyone who is trying to get a deeper understanding might find gold nuggets here, even if they disagree with some of Kirk's smaller conclusions (as I did).
But my favorite part is how Kirk applies the narrative approach. If you are a storyteller or you find a narrative framing helpful in other approaches to theology, I highly recommend this book.
April 11, 2014
Most of this book was helpful for me in reframing Paul and not making me think he sucks so bad. The chapter on homosexuality was enough to bring it down two full stars. In that chapter and also the one on universalism and the one on women, and perhaps elsewhere, Kirk ends up in a place I like and agree with but along the way says some terrible things. Now someone needs to write "Paul Have I Loved, but Kirk?" If I excise those chapters I may keep it for future reference when someone comes to me badtalking Paul.
December 10, 2012
It seemed to take a long time to get into what it was supposed to be about, which I suppose is necessary to get everyone on the same page, but the first eighty pages or so didn't leave me with much. That said, I enjoyed the book and it did bring up some interesting points. It's arguments were all well-founded in scripture, which I appreciated greatly as I was a bit suspicious of this "Narrative Approach" business.
January 26, 2015
I really loved Kirk's work with Paul and Jesus. I found it to be agreeable and enlightening. Topics that range from justice, judgement, women, sex, and sexual identity make this text relevant for our day and age.
April 6, 2013
This is a very good book by a promising young author. A great application of narrative theology to the consideration of some of the challenges presented by Paul. I'd like to give it 4.5 stars but alas ... A very helpful book if your giving thought to Paul.
January 10, 2013
A great introduction to narrative theology. His sections are strong.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews