Jules decides to leave his job as a hired killer after surviving the shots of a man who was hiding in Brett's apartment. He interprets what happened as a divine intervention that forces him to change his life. Vincent has lived through the same danger, but rejects his companion's conclusion.
The decision comes before the final breakfast. In the diner, Jules explains what he wants to do and finds an opportunity to act in line with that purpose: he can kill a robber and chooses to let him leave. The conversation that accompanies that choice alters the use of a speech the viewer had already heard before an execution.
Jules' redemption in Pulp Fiction unfolds between that inner conviction and a behaviour that begins to change. The ending makes it possible to observe a concrete renunciation of violence. His life afterwards is left outside the story, so the change has to be judged by what he comes to say and do during that morning.
A decision that begins before the diner
The shots that miss give Jules an experience he can no longer fit into his routine. Until then, he has used violence to carry out Marsellus's orders. Surviving makes him think he has been given a chance whose meaning demands a response. The religious certainty belongs to the character: the film shows the bullets and his survival, while he provides the explanation.
The final continuity of Words in Pictures, from July 1994, places the announcement of his retirement during the car journey, before the accidental shot that kills Marvin. This positioning clarifies the cause of the change. The subsequent clean-up introduces obstacles and outstanding obligations into a decision Jules had already communicated.
Vincent tries to argue whether a miracle happened and questions his companion's material future. Jules shifts the conversation towards the effect the experience has had on him. He does not need to convince Vincent of his explanation in order to accept that he must go. The split between them begins in that different response to a danger they shared.
His plan is still vague. He intends to deliver the briefcase to Marsellus and then travel the world, using Caine from Kung Fu as his reference point. The image allows him to express a search with no defined professional destination. In the journey of Jules Winnfield, leaving behind a known identity comes before finding another one he can live with.
The biblical passage stops justifying the man who pulls the trigger
Facing Brett, Jules had presented his recitation as part of a threat whose outcome he controlled. When speaking with the robber, he admits that for years he used those words without stopping to understand them. What attracted him was their effect on the person who was about to die. The speech helped make the executioner seem invested with a higher authority than his gun.
The final repetition makes it possible to review that behaviour. First he considers an interpretation that places him among the righteous, identifies the other man with evil and turns his weapon into protection. It is a convenient arrangement for whoever holds the power: any shot could be presented as legitimate defence of his own position.
Then he considers a reading in which the robber would be the righteous one, he would act as a shepherd and the world would occupy the place of evil. He would like that possibility because it preserves a benevolent role for himself. However, he ends up recognising the man in front of him as weak and his own conduct as part of the violence that oppresses others.
The construction of the monologue makes that review happen while he speaks. Jules tries out different positions until he finds one that forces him to accept responsibility. The desire to become a protector comes after recognising the harm of the role he already plays. That recognition prevents his purpose from being confused with a declaration of innocence.
Samuel L. Jackson retains Jules's intimidating presence while leaving room for the hesitations in his reasoning. The pauses let us hear someone who is trying to find a way to name a change. Within the work of Samuel L. Jackson with Tarantino, this scene brings together the character's verbal command and an uncertainty he now needs to express to another man.
Letting the robbers go tests the purpose
The robbery gives him an immediate test because Jules regains control of the confrontation and keeps the possibility of killing. The threat remains present during the conversation: guns are aimed and Vincent intervenes on returning from the loo. Changing his behaviour requires preventing that tension from ending in the result the audience had learned to associate with his speech.
Jules protects the briefcase, allows the robber to keep money from his wallet and steers the exit of Pumpkin and Honey Bunny. Accepting that loss has practical value: it makes it easier for the conflict to end. It also means renouncing the chance to prove his superiority through punishment, even though the two strangers have tried to rob him.
The bargain remains conditioned by the force he can exert. Jules keeps the other man under threat for part of the exchange and demands that he listen. That continuity with his earlier conduct makes the effort visible: he has the same resources and is beginning to use them to ensure that everyone can leave the diner alive.
Tarantino confirmed to Mark Seal in Vanity Fair in 2013 that redemption is explicitly present in the film. Here it can be recognised in a verifiable decision within the fiction: Jules lets go of someone he would previously have killed. The scope of that action is concrete, and the story ends without certifying a permanent transformation.
The ending of Pulp Fiction places that exit after the viewer has seen Vincent die at another point in the story. The editing allows Jules to close on an open possibility, even though we know his companion will remain exposed to the violence of his trade. The difference illuminates his choices without proving that there is some supernatural division of rewards and punishments.
The retreat Jules announces includes an outstanding obligation: to return the briefcase before starting out. That detail keeps the transition within the world he knows. He has a new intention and still has to move through the relationships and commitments that organised his previous life.
It is also significant who hears his most extended reflection. Vincent argues against the change from the familiarity of a companion; the robber receives the explanation while fearing for his life. Jules ends up laying out his responsibility to someone who could become another of his victims. The conversation forces the recognition to have consequences for someone present.
When he lets the pair leave, the viewer can compare what happened with the encounter in the apartment. The repetition of the speech had prepared an expectation of execution. Having heard those words and seeing that the man survives establishes an observable difference, enough for the promise of change to start becoming credible without needing an epilogue about his future.