A Sermon on the Gospel

I was very blessed and fortunate to be a guest speaker at Richmond Alliance Church this past weekend. The lead pastor, Jon, specifically asked me to preach on the gospel because we had some conversations about my study on it last year and he thought it would be great for the church to hear. I was glad to do it and it gave me the opportunity to review and rethink it further as well as communicate it better. I based my sermon on Paul's definition of the gospel given in Romans 1:1-7. You can listen to it by clicking the link below. Leave a comment if you have any comments, questions, or thoughts. Also be sure to 'share' it below if you like it. Thanks.

http://www.richmondalliancechurch.com/www/media/metaudio/20130728.mp3

The 4th day of Christmas

Here is the fourth and final Christmas post by Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part 4

The 3rd day of Christmas

Here is the 3rd post by Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part 3

The 2nd day of Christmas

Here is the 2nd Christmas post by Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part 2

The 1st day of Christmas

You may not realize it, but the Christmas season starts today (it has been advent until now) and goes for 12 days. Yes, the 12 days of Christmas is a real thing. It's part of the church year (and I think protestant evangelicals miss out on a lot by not using the church year). To celebrate the season I'll be posting every day with blog links from other writers as well as some thoughts of my own. Happy reading! And Merry Christmas!

The first few posts are from Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part one

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 3:6-9 - Abraham heard the gospel

This post has been a long time coming. but I did get other posts up including my short, medium, and long definitions of the gospel. I'm sure these definitions will be altered by the time this blog covers the use of the 'gospel' noun and verb in the New Testament, but they will work for now. I've decided to leave some assessments of the texts I look at open for additions from you. This text is a good example.

I've skipped over a large section of Galatians since the last time we delved in because there is no use of the 'gospel' verb or noun and the main concept of that section was covered in the post, "Galatians and gospel logic."

There are plenty of passages that directly speak about how the gospel was promised beforehand and this is one of them. Here's the interesting part: It has to do with being descendents of Abraham and fulfilling that promise of God to make a people for himself. Here's the text, Gal 3:6-9 (NRSV):

6 Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’,⁷so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.⁸And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’⁹For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

 The verb, 'gospelled before' is in verse 8 and is the single occurrence of the modified 'gospelled' verb (essentially adding a prefix making it past-tense).  It refers to the gospel having been told to Abraham. The gospel that was declared was that all nations would be blessed in him. All who believe (Jews and Gentiles alike) are descendents of Abraham and therefore blessed with him. It seems to me that the text is saying that when we have faith in the gospel we are blessed because we are brought into Abraham's family.

As this is the 2nd last occurrence of the word in Galatians, I should also touch on how its seems that Paul is saying the 'promise' or 'blessing' or 'inheritance'  is the Holy Spirit himself (3:14) who we live by leading to eternal life (6:8-9). Paul again reiterates, after his long explanation about how it is only through faith in Jesus and what he has done, that we are Abraham's descendents (3:29).

Why do you think this is such an important point for Paul?
How does it change how we view the gospel?
Do you think I need to integrate this more into my definitions? How?

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

Using the term 'gospel' to denote the right things.

I noticed that someone tweeted this quote from N. T. Wright on our modern use of the word 'gospel'. It is one of the phrases that haunted me all year while reworking the biblical definition in my mind through study, prayer, and reflection. I also used it to stir up discussion in the 'Prison and Pastoral epistles' class I co-taught in the spring.

Another question I asked often was whether or not Paul would have been imprisoned or killed by Rome for preaching the gospel without using 'Lord' or 'Christ' (King) and whether it mattered that some don't even include those titles let alone their implications. I also pushed further asking whether Jesus would have been killed either. The charges, trial, verdict, sentence, and sign above his head on the cross by Rome are pretty explicit.

An Expanded Apostes' Creed

I saw this very interesting expansion of the Apostles' Creed which emulates the same sort of expansion I'm driving for on the gospel: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/how-i-think-the-creed

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

Early Christmas Card

Here's a bonus post! (Because I got mail)

Perhaps it should be called a Saviour-mas card? If you look at the card, you'll notice the word 'Saviour' has been made exceedingly larger than the rest of the text. I know it's not a 'big deal,' but I can't help myself because it epitomizes the rampant subtle diminishing of the rest of the message of the gospel, which includes Jesus' birth. Why isn't "Christ" larger? It is called Christ-mas after all...

This is one of my favourite passages on the gospel because it defines it clearly and succinctly. It is one of the ones I used as a basis to construct my definitions. The whole quote from the angel reads as follows:

“Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. ¹¹ Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. ¹² This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Lk 2:10-12 (NIV)

In the discussion about my short definition of the gospel earlier this week, I pointed out why I use "saves" instead of "Saviour" in my definition. It doesn't get used much in the Bible's gospel summaries let alone the entire New Testament. This verse is the only time it occurs in Luke, it appears once in John, and is absent from Matthew and Mark. Jesus's name means "God saves" and the verb is all over the place so I'm not saying to remove the concept.

However, the emphasis in the passage, and meaning for these Jewish shepherds is clearly bent toward understanding any type of salvation or saving being done by the promised King from the line of David who will rule the world (hence Lord). The fact that the future King and Lord of all who will bring joy for all people is born in an animal's feeding trough and is announced to lowly shepherds stuck in the fields working graveyard shift is the thing we should be noting. The saving action is incredible because of who he was, how he entered the world, and that all people, even the least, will benefit.

But let's not decrease the font size of "Saviour" either. It's one of the only instances we've got, and the act of saving is humbling and great to behold. Merry King-mas everyone!

Leave a comment. Share the post. Thanks for reading.

My long definition of the gospel

This is the last 'definition' post I am bringing over to the blog from a class I am teaching. I already posted my short and medium length definitions with some discussion over the last two days.

My long definition of the gospel:

"The story of how God sent Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill the promises made through the prophets to Israel for the nations. By his birth, life, words, deeds, death, burial, and resurrection Jesus has inaugurated the kingdom of God in victory over sin, death, and every evil power. His resurrection and ascension to reign at the right hand of God was witnessed and confirms his claim as Israel's Davidic Messiah, the efficacy of his death on the cross, his appointment as judge over all, and his present rule as the world's true Lord."

You may have noticed that I don't have any 'call to faith' or the need to repent or be baptized in these definitions. That is because I am not preaching the gospel. I am defining it. Perhaps it is a strange way to go about it, but many do and I may end up having a strong opinion against it as we go along through the Bible. I do know that it is important when sharing/preaching/proclaiming the gospel to include an invitation. However, it doesn't always happen when Scripture is defining it or even in Peter's Acts 2 sermon. The people actually respond naturally and ask what they ought to do. This leads to faith in the gospel message and to salvation. This is precisely the discussion I added to this series of definitions with my class this week. You'll notice some overlap with yesterday's post because the following has been cut and pasted whereas yesterday was original material:

One major misunderstanding encountered by others who have adopted this view and what I have now experienced myself is the concern that salvation is thrown to the wayside and that the forgiveness of sins is marginalized. What I normally say is that what happens by changing to a definition like this is that we shift the focus away from 'my sin' 'my need' or why the gospel is good news 'for me' and look to Jesus. It is about who he is, his rule and reign and what he has and will accomplish. The gospel is what Jesus has done, which includes his defeat of sin, death and evil on the cross. This is an essential part of the gospel. It is still a message of the cross, but put into a holistic biblical framework. Jesus' victory as king and establishment as Lord is through the cross and resurrection which brings salvation (forgiveness of sins and much much more) to all who believe.

Because the gospel isn't about me, but about Jesus, it is obedient faith in the gospel of Jesus' saving action that brings salvation. So even though it is a saving story, I'm not 'in' that story until I put my trust in him. This means that the 'gospel' isn't really about 'my salvation' but what Jesus has done, which I put my faith in, which then saves me (or better yet, saves US!). Here are some Scriptures to show what I mean:

1 Cor 15:2 - By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 

Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 

Eph 1:13 - And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. 

1Pet 1:9 - for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

If salvation is the result of faith in the message of the gospel, then it cannot be the gospel message itself. Part of the confusion on this, and the difficulty in explaining it, is due to the cross being a "timeless event" in that it effects all of history both before and after it because of what it achieves.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?
Don't forget to 'share' below!
Thanks for reading.

My medium length definition of the gospel

 Yesterday I posted my short definition of the gospel with some discussion here. Tomorrow I will post the long definition and more discussion from a class I am teaching. Today's medium length definition is the one I use the most often because it can very easily be unpacked, yet it contains elements that are often left out or minimized when preaching, proclaiming, or explaining the gospel.

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."

 If you compare it to the short definition, you'll notice it begins and ends the same, but 'Christ' has been replaced with 'Messiah' along with several additions. Messiah is a less familiar term, which is a synonym for 'Christ' meaning 'anointed one' referring to Israel's long expected liberating king. It is the English equivalent to the Hebrew word 'Mashiah' which I inserted to deliberately link Jesus to the Jewish expectation we find in the four gospels. The good news for Israel was a good king coming to liberate them from oppressors and usher in a new age of world shalom or 'peace'. That is also why I identified the Messiah as belonging to Israel, which also links Jesus and the gospel to the whole of the old testament in a stronger way.

Another addition was the inclusion of the crucifixion and resurrection. How did I have a short definition without the cross? It is because 'saves' is a board term and the cross is the means by which Jesus defeats sin, death and evil so save. Also, Paul does the same thing in Romans 1:2-4. The question I would ask back is, "How anyone can define the gospel with the cross and not include the resurrection? This happens pretty frequently, but people don't get as bent out of shape about it. However, the cross without resurrection is empty and powerless. What is achieved together is the overthrow and defeat all else, the vindication of Jesus as the true Messiah, and his establishment as Lord over everything because he is victorious. The point of being Lord 'over everything' is also emphasized in this definition to expand the focus to not only persons or his people, but all so-called powers and the entire cosmos (universe).

The last addition was 'according to the Scriptures', which points back to the Old Testament promises of God to Israel through which Jesus is the fulfillment. It also alludes to the New Testament in that there is much more that could be said about what Jesus as Messiah and Lord, crucified and risen, who saves and will judge means. I think having this phrase point back to the source of Scripture allows acknowledgement that no definition can capture everything there is to say about the gospel. We don't even get one single definition that succinctly handles the whole gospel message without using this tactic. The best one we have is in 1 Cor 15, which uses this phrase twice. The same thing happens in Romans 1. If Paul can omit things with a 'catch all' then so can we.

Any thoughts or comments?
Click the 'share' buttons below if you have time.
Thanks for reading.

My short definition of the gospel

I wrote a discussion starter for a class I'm teaching and it included my definitions of what the gospel is (short, medium, and long). Today I'll give you my short one and part of my initial  discussion:.

Short definition:

"The story of Jesus; Christ and Lord who saves and will judge."

Reading through Scripture's use of the word, it will become clearer why I think this is such an important distinction (or expansion) to make. The focus of Scripture is on Jesus' fulfillment of the promises that Israel's king would bring in God's rule over everything by rescuing his people and bringing judgment on the oppressors. This is a major OT theme as well as NT, and it is the gospel: Jesus, the King is Lord who saves and will judge.

Here's some quick stats to put into perspective why I call Jesus Christ and Lord, but avoid Saviour and Judge. He is referred to as 'Judge' only 3 or 4 times (God is called 'Judge' 1 or 2 times), and 'Saviour' 15 or 16 times (God is 'Saviour' 7 or 8 times). However, the actions of judging or saving are used too many times for me to have sorted through and counted so far. The point is that the verbs are applied to Jesus far more than the nouns in these cases.

In comparison, the Greek title of Christ/Messiah/King is used 569 times and very few do not refer to Jesus. Also, "Lord" or "Master" is used of Jesus or God over 550 times and most are referring to Jesus. In both cases, with Christ and Lord, the title is used with Jesus's name so much that the NT writers even used it in place of his name, which we do all the time. When we're comparing over 500 occurrences to under 20 the standard seems obvious.

More importantly, when the NT writers, and even the sermons in Acts, explain the gospel it includes as a primary assertion that Jesus is the Christ and is also the Lord. There are a few flickers of calling him judge, most importantly in Acts 17, and there are a handful where he is called Saviour, but over half are in Titus and 2 Peter which are both 'late' writings and therefore distanced from the earliest articulations of the gospel. In the first 5 books of the NT, "Saviour" is only used once in Lk and Jn and twice in Acts. The point is not that we shouldn't call Jesus Judge of all or Saviour of the world, only that it is not the primary way the bible articulates the gospel. However the actions of saving and judging occur all over the place so we ought to include these as integral.

Gal 2:1-5 - Paul's Gentile gospel

 Today's "gospel" text is Gal 2:1-5 (NRSV) which has 2 nouns:

2Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. ²I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. ³But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. ⁴But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— ⁵we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.

 Paul goes to Jerusalem because of a revelation (not of Jesus or to do with the gospel) and takes the time to explain what he preaches to Gentiles (non-Jews). "Preach" or "proclaim" in v2 is not "gospelling," but "to herald" as with news from a king or ruling authority with the implication that whatever is announced is to be obeyed). He is here seeking to confirm that the message of the resurrected Lord, Jesus, he has seen himself is the same message as they preach also having seen the resurrected Lord.
The fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised and that false believers were spying on Gentile freedom in Jesus the Messiah (Christ) has to do with the truth of the gospel. I have already posted on Galatians and the logic of the gospel, but I think it makes the most sense to say the implications of the gospel are the freedom of not following the law, including circumcision, because Jesus has fulfilled the law.  To say that living in freedom from certain restrictions of the Jewish law such as not having to be circumcised are the gospel itself doesn't make sense unless we say all other effects or implications are the gospel. We would basically have to say the entire Christian faith is the gospel itself. The distinction between implication/effect and the gospel itself will be shown in later posts. However, this text and the previous post I've linked to above demonstrate how inseparably linked the two are. If you distort the freedom we have you distort the gospel itself and if you distort the gospel itself you distort the freedom.

Thanks for reading! I have over 1,000 views on this blog after only a week or so!
If you like what you're reading, please 'share' on Google +, Twitter, and Facebook below.

Gal 1:18-24

Continuing the trend of the verb 'gospel' is Gal 1:18-24 (NRSV):

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; ¹⁹but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. ²⁰In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! ²¹Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,²²and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ²³they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’ ²⁴And they glorified God because of me.

 Verse 23 is also translated "proclaiming the good news"(NET); "preaching the faith"(NIV and most other translations),;"preaching the very message"(Msg). In one sense, this is merely reiterating the same thing as the last post: Paul is 'gospelling' about Jesus. However, we should also note that in addition to Jesus being identified as God's son, he is identified as the Messiah/Christ, which the people are 'in'. What Paul tried to destroy was the announcement of Jesus as Messiah, Son of Man at the right hand of the Father, the righteous one, the Prophet promised by Moses, and Lord (Acts 7). Also, I'm sure I'll repeat myself many times, but the first thing Paul proclaimed after his conversion was Jesus as the Son of God; the Messiah (Acts 9). One whole chapter of Galatians and so far no hint of Justification, sin, or the cross, but there will be plenty of that to sort out in the coming chapters.