By Claude.ai on 3/31/2026.
That is one of the genuine tensions that critical scholars themselves debate. This is actually a point where critical scholars themselves identify a significant discontinuity. Here is what the scholarship actually says:
The Forgiveness Problem: Ehrman’s Direct Assessment
The most direct critical-scholarly voice on this is Bart Ehrman. Ehrman argues that “forgiveness” and “atonement” are fundamentally different concepts — even different enough to contradict each other. With forgiveness, penalties and reparations for wrongs done are not necessary, whereas with atonement they are necessary. On this basis, Ehrman concludes that the Jerusalem church, Paul, and others abandoned the teachings of Jesus about how to get into right standing with God — shifting from a forgiveness-based approach to an atonement-based approach. If they had stuck with a forgiveness-based approach, there would be no way to explain why Jesus was crucified.
This is a remarkable concession from a leading critical scholar: on forgiveness, Paul did not simply continue Jesus’ teaching — he transformed it.
What Jesus Taught on Forgiveness
Critical scholars note that in Jesus’ teaching, the divine forgiveness he offered was conditioned upon repentance (Mark 1:4, 15), faith (Mark 2:5–11), and properly turning from sin (Mark 4:12). After the resurrection, Jesus commissioned his followers to proclaim “repentance for the forgiveness of sins to all nations” (Luke 24:47), and Peter echoed this in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” The mechanism is repentance → forgiveness.
What Paul Taught on Forgiveness
Paul’s framework is structurally different. He grounds forgiveness in the atoning death of Jesus and belief in it, not merely in repentance. As he writes: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace” (Ephesians 1:7, NRSV). The mechanism becomes Christ’s death + faith → forgiveness.
How Some Scholars Argue for Continuity Anyway
Not all scholars agree with Ehrman’s sharp divide. Some argue faith and repentance are inseparable. The Reformed view holds that “faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin: by faith we look to Christ and by repentance we look away from sin.” Paul himself, in Acts 20:21, summarizes his preaching as “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” — combining both.
John Calvin’s position was that repentance is a consequence of faith, and that both repentance and forgiveness “are attained by us through faith.” On this reading, Paul didn’t eliminate repentance — he reframed it as something that flows from faith rather than preceding it.
The Bottom Line
Critical scholars do not broadly argue that Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings on forgiveness are the same. Ehrman and others in the critical tradition see this as one of the clearest points of departure between Jesus and Paul — Jesus offered forgiveness grounded in repentance, while Paul grounded it in Christ’s atoning death and belief in it. Ehrman frames this as a deliberate theological shift made because early Christians needed to explain the crucifixion, and that in making this shift, they chose to keep their apocalyptic messianic movement alive rather than accurately pass along Jesus’ original teachings.
Note from me – This response was a follow-up to my prompt that asked for a list of beliefs that Paul taught as well as Jesus. Claude cited 6-8, but at least two did not “fit” with what I heard taught. So this is Claude’s correction that made a good stand-alone post.
