Would John Piper give a 'nod' to my gospel definition?

I had a series of amazing conversations this past week while on a new workers retreat for recently hired pastors and staff. The most significant was about rocking church structures to resemble the people with faith in a gospel for all nations by reflecting it in a way that isn't dysfunctional. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the implications and questioning how much or what to change, why, and how. The important thing is that I'm committed to pursuing it.

Another interesting one was on the car ride home with two new friends. I had several conversations about my journey to changing what I believe the gospel is on retreat and this was the last one. After giving a decent overview of the need for change, reasoning through various passages, and pointing to the extensive use of the titles of 'Christ' and 'Lord' I gave my medium length definition of the gospel:

"The story of Jesus; Israel's Messiah crucified and risen to be Lord over everything (according to the Scriptures) who saves and will judge."

Part of the explanation involved discussions about the Gospel Coalition because they have influence in North American churches and have published extensively over the last few years on the subject, not to mention that it is their name and basis of existence! After answering questions to clarify my definition I recited the definition so it could be typed into their phone. After re-reading it, I was asked whether or not the Gospel Coalition, and specifically John Piper, would approve it, adding that they didn't think TGC would have any problem with it.

I said that I was unsure about the whole group, but that it didn't line up with their statement on the gospel, which has no mention of Israel, uses 'Christ' as a name 5x's, and no mention of 'Lord' at all. I said that their definition has a lot going for it, such as being based on part of 1 Cor 15, but that it ignores central dimensions and focuses on the saving of individuals rather than God's people as a whole and creation itself.

I also added that John Piper, at least, would definitely not approve. Of course I was asked why and the reason is that there is no explicit mention of the payment for sin. Immediately my definition was reviewed for confirmation. I explained that for John Piper, the gospel is even narrower than TGC's and that he essentially defines it as Justification (Righteousness) by faith in order to put in a 'right relationship' with God. Sometimes he includes that Jesus defeated of the devil who can no longer damn us to hell. Sometimes it is to remove the wrath of God from us. He does write more thoroughly in his book "God is the Gospel," but the basic definition is the same with God himself being a positive benefit in addition to being saved from something. Consequently he would not approve of my definition, even though dealing with sin is implied twice by saying Jesus was 'crucified' and 'saves'. I am confident that my standard definition would not be good enough for Piper (despite my disagreement with Piper in this blog post, I do have respect for him. He has impacted many lives for Jesus).

I explained that I don't deny that payment for sin is part of the gospel. It is in my long definition, but it goes along side of the defeat of death and the disarming of every evil power. These are equally important in my opinion and God's victory in Jesus is multifaceted and integrated. I also reiterated how I view the result of faith in the gospel to be different than the gospel itself. What I mean is that Jesus' work on the cross applied to sinners is what happens when you put faith in the work he did.

Unfortunately, I made a big mistake at this point because I failed to say that the central reason why I do not push our sin problem to the forefront is because the gospel is about Jesus, not sin. The message is about the good news of who Jesus is and what he has done to fulfill the promises of God to Israel. If we follow Piper, we get a gospel about Jesus' death to cover my sin for my 'salvation' from God (or is it the devil?) who would have sent me to hell. It also means we have a gospel without Israel, Jesus as Messiah and Lord, or a robust understanding of the cross, etc. What Piper is actually saying is that the gospel isn't good news unless I am saved. Not only does Piper ignore some central themes, he makes the "good news" conditional. How many people need to be saved for it to be good news, exactly? I think this is a major error and that the gospel is always 'good news' or, as some like to say, 'a royal announcement' concerning God's son, Jesus.

The gospel is about Jesus, the saving Messiah of Israel, who died for the whole world.

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Gal 4:8-20 - The gospel unchained

The last verse in Galatians referencing the gospel is 4:13 in the context of Paul transitioning from the Galatians' enslavement to their freedom:

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods.⁹Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?¹⁰You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years.¹¹I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.
12 Friends, I beg you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong.¹³You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you;¹⁴though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.¹⁵What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.¹⁶Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?¹⁷They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.¹⁸It is good to be made much of for a good purpose at all times, and not only when I am present with you.¹⁹My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,²⁰I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

The word 'gospelled' is straightforwardly speaking about Paul's original preaching of the gospel message to the Galatians due to illness. The whole purpose of Paul writing this letter is to move the Galatians back to simple, obedient, Spirit-led faith in that message rather than a complex system of religious observance and practice being introduced to them. The perversion of the gospel message is the addition of observing the law to be considered part of Israel and to receive eternal life. This is not purely doing the 'right' thing in terms of sin, but also the proper religious observances including rituals of circumcision, Sabbath keeping, festivals, etc.

As far as concluding how Galatians defines the gospel, we can say that it largely assumes the Galatians know its message already. However, the implications have been distorted by others adding requirements to what Jesus has already achieved, the 'righteous' status as Abraham's children declared by God, and what the Spirit is at work doing in their lives.

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Gal 2:6-14 - Acting in line with the gospel

There are many Christians who live out of sync with the truth of the gospel and it was no different in Galatia in the 1st century. I have already stated in previous posts on Galatians that Jesus fulfilled the law and that the Galatians' problem had to do with living inconsistently with the logical implications of that fulfillment. The some of the details will come out later in Paul's letter, but for now, we'll look at Gal 2:6-14 (NRSV):

⁶And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. ⁷On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised ⁸(for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), ⁹and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was^* eager to do. 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; ¹²for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. ¹³And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. ¹⁴But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’^*

There are two instances of the word 'gospel' (v7 [only once in Greek, but put twice in English for sake of clarity] + v14) and I contend that they are still talking about the same basic message about Jesus and what he has accomplished. Verse 7 doesn't reveal much about the gospel itself, but rather that Paul got it right and was not made to change anything. The second instance confirms what has been said thus far about the Galatian controversy, namely that the problem is not that they don't know the gospel, but that they are not living in light of the gospel (in line with the logic of what should naturally follow). The Greek word only occurs once in the entire New Testament so I should point that out. "Acting consistently" is ορτηοποδεο (Strongs 3716) with the following definitions: 1) to walk in a straight course 2) metaph. to act uprightly. Both options say exactly what we've established about following what has been taught concerning Jesus.

Thanks for reading and sharing on Facebook and Twitter!

First page of my book on the gospel

I decided to write a book this summer, but found myself on graveyard shift and in an interview process for a new job. I got a lot of research and outlining done, but I only finished writing one page of the book itself! I'd really appreciate some feedback in the comments on this one.
I won't reveal the book or chapter title, but here's the first page:
--------------
-->

When the Apostle Paul travelled from place to place he proclaimed the gospel. Where there was a response he established a church. Where there were problems he stayed longer, returned, or wrote to them. One such church was having a serious problem. This was the problem of getting the gospel wrong. Paul addressed this problem by writing his letter to the Galatians. This was one of the first letters, if not the first letter, Paul wrote.

Think about that. This was one of the firstwritings of the New Testament and alreadythe understanding of the gospel was in jeopardy. If theycould get it wrong then certainly we can get it wrong. It is no wonder that this letter was kept, copied, and circulated, eventually being accepted into the Bible we have today. Here Paul writes, bringing attention to their confusion about the gospel:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angelfrom heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!“ (Gal 1:6-9 NRSV)

There is a lot we can learn from this simple looking text. Paul is surprised because he clearly told them what the gospel is and explained it properly. The Galatian church turned to another gospel quickly and he had to remind them what it actually was. The problem was caused by some who were changing the gospel which brought confusion because it was different from what they heard from Paul. The confusion about what the gospel is comes from someone either adding to or subtracting from it.

Paul is so certain that the real gospel has been given he says someone who presents another gospel should be accursed. Anathema. Eternally condemned. Going to hell. This list potential 'someones' includes: himself; his companions; angels; anyone. Significantly, when he says that they turned toanother gospel Paul does not say that it was the gospel that they turned from. That is implied, but what he actually says is that they turned away from God himself; The God who called them to the gospel about Jesus in the grace of Jesus. The harsh words of letting those proclaiming 'another gospel' be condemned is a natural consequence when we understand it means they are leading people away from God altogether.

-------------

I'm concerned that it's a little boring or dry.

What do you think?