If you haven’t seen the first part, See Did Paul Get Jesus Right? Part 1.
Now, I want to look again at what John Piper said in his second paragraph (i.e. from Did Jesus Preach the Gospel of Evangelicalism?):
What I am driven by in this message, and in much of my thinking since my days in graduate school in Germany, is the conviction that Jesus and Paul preached the same gospel. There is a 300-year history among critical scholars of claiming that Jesus’ message and work was one thing, and what the early church made of it was another. Jesus brought the kingdom; it aborted; and the apostles substituted an institution, the church. And dozens of variations along this line.
Notice that it is scholars who have been saying Jesus preached a different gospel than Paul. Pastors always want to make it out like its just kooks and internet trolls saying this. Nope. Its scholars. And “There is a 300-year history” of it! That’s John Piper admitting it, not just me saying it.
Now, this position has always been more accepted in Germany than in America, because the American theological academy is under the control of the Calvinists, of guys like Piper. So much so that had Piper himself gone to graduate school in the US, he probably wouldn’t be knowledgeable enough on this subject to even know that there is a 300 year history of scholars saying Jesus taught a different gospel from Paul! Seminary in the US is Mickey Mouse basket weaving time.
I saw a post on an online forum using Hebrews 6:1-2 to demonstrate that Paul rejected the teachings of Jesus:
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ [or elementary teachings of Christ], let us go on unto perfection [or maturity]; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
The argument was that Paul calls Jesus’ own teaching “elementary” but his new teaching “mature.” That this is very clear evidence Paul taught a different doctrine.
Now, I’ve never taken the idea of Pauline authorship of Hebrews too seriously. But then again, I don’t take the Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians too seriously anymore either. Paul is more a group, an emerging sect or heresy, than an actual person. So I suppose I can grant the “Pauline” authorship of Hebrews.
What does “he” actually mean when he says that he wants to “leave behind” the “elementary teachings of Christ” and move on to “maturity”?
Well, contextually, it appears he means two things:
(1) high christology.
(2) that the law is completely obsolete.
These are the two points discussed from this point on in Hebrews, along with (in this chapter, see 6:4) his theory that nobody who falls away can be restored (which is different from the “Paul” of the other epistles, obviously—not to mention that it is also essentially a denial of the parable of the prodigal son).
Basically what is being said is “What Jesus preached: an impending resurrection and judgement that requires us to believe in God and repent of our sins and be baptized—man that’s old hat. Today where its at is high christology, making Jesus out to be either an exalted pre-existant spirit, a ‘logos’ whom God used to create the world, or making Jesus out to be God himself somehow.”
That is essentially what Christianity has become, is it not? Its all about christology, about your opinion on what sort of being Jesus is/was. Its no longer about following his teachings; and certainly no longer about repentance and judgement. The concept of resurrection has even been replaced by immediate going to heaven upon death. That’s a subject that one Paul disagrees with another on, for in 1st Cor 15 Paul is in favor of the resurrection, but in Philippians where he’s hard pressed to decide whether or not to commit suicide (yes, I said it, Philippians 1:20-26) Paul expresses that to die is to be with Christ (immediately); so much for the resurrection. Ultimately Paul not only undoes the teachings of Jesus but one Paul undoes another Paul.