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.

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.

Jeff K. Clarke questions the gospel.

I saw this blog post by Jeff K. Clarke, which is essentially group 'C' material. I wanted to demonstrate its continued spread to expand the narrowness of the classic 'A' gospel: http://jeffkclarke.com/2012/10/06/the-gospel-of-sin-management-and-the-loss-of-discipleship/

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.

Gal 1:11 - 'Gospel' is a verb and a noun

In our English Bibles we find the word 'gospel' or sometimes 'good news', but in the original Greek there is a verb (euaggelizó) as well as the noun (euaggelion). How does the verb get translated? It is normally translated that someone 'proclaimed the good news' or something similar. Really, it ought to say 'gospelled', but that's not a common word. Sometimes the verb and the noun occur in the same place at the same time. This combination occurs five times: 1 Cor 9:18, 15:1; 2 Cor 11:7; Gal 1:11; Rev 14:6.

Today we'll look at Gal 1:11-12 (NRSV)

11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

"The gospel I preached" is literally "the gospel I gospelled." Now this text might not seem like much, but it makes some pretty bold claims that could be misconstrued as contradictory to other statements of Paul regarding the gospel. He states three negatives and adds a positive:

Not of human origin
Not received from anyone
Not taught it

Received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ

Now according to 1 Cor 15:1, Paul received the gospel and passed it on (Which we'll cover another time). The reason for the difference is that Paul is asserting the validity of his apostleship and the validity of the gospel they heard from him as being legitimate. He writes at length shortly thereafter about his conversion and how God revealed his son (Jesus) to him. Then he continues on about how he didn't confer with Peter and company till later and that they affirmed him and added nothing to his gospel.

What Paul is driving home about the gospel is that he personally saw Jesus the Messiah risen from the dead. The gospel hinges on the historic fact of the resurrection and Paul's conversion was a result of an encounter of the risen Lord. He knows the gospel isn't of human origin (made up stories), or receive it from anyone (go find out about it), or have someone explain it all to him because he understood the implications (learned) of his personal encounter (received directly) of Jesus on the Damascus road (real history).

These are all important facts about the gospel, but it is also important that Paul stresses agreement as to what the gospel is. He emphasizes his validity as apostle to preach the gospel and the agreement about what the gospel is because these are the problems he faces in correcting the Galatian church. They need to know that Paul is legit and that the people throwing them into confusion are false teachers. Paul leverages his encounter with Jesus and the solidarity of the gospel message to speak clarity into the situation, which I posted about the last couple of days.

I suppose I should point out how Paul is revealing that the gospel is a revelation of Jesus who has been raised from the dead and is the Messiah (Christ). These are also constant themes, but not the emphasis in this passage.

Leave a message and let me know what you learned or if there is something more to be said.
Also, share on +, Facebook, and twitter below! Thanks!

5 points often missed

In thinking about how evangelicals often define and frame the gospel message and comparing it with Scripture, there are parts that are usually missed. I recently preached a sermon which confused some people and I wrote these to help clarify what I think at least 5 of the most crucial aspects are with a brief explanation:

1. It is a story - The gospels, Jesus' preaching, the sermons in Acts, and even underlying thought of Paul centres on telling the true story of Jesus in history. This is how the Bible presents it even in its genre and I think we need to recapture that to a greater extent.

2. The story of Israel needs to be part of how we frame the gospel story - Because the gospel is so rooted in history and Scripture it means it only makes sense in the context of Israel's story unless we ignore the majority of both testaments and most of the gospel story itself. The Jesus story is the climax of the Israel story. We are Israel/Abraham's offspring/a holy nation/etc. so this is our spiritual heritage. It's a tough one to bring up to someone with no knowledge of God or the Bible, but it has to be built in eventually and we should definitely be teaching this to Bible-reading believers. This also helps us understand how God calls a people comprised of persons rather than persons that comprise a people.

3. Jesus as Messiah - Since 'Christ' is not a surname but is practically a synonym for 'Jesus', it should be central. 'Son of David' 'Son of God' "the Christ" are all things people called Jesus in the gospels and they all relate to Jesus as Israel's Messiah-King. It is also the word used instead of Jesus' actual name in gospel summaries. It was the basis of Peter's faith in Jesus as Christ on which Jesus would build his church.  It is what Paul argued for from the time of his conversion. It was the last word of the two-fold declaration in the climax of Peter's Pentecost sermon at the birth of the church.

4. Jesus as Lord - The other major declaration in Peter's sermon was Jesus as Lord. FF Bruce says that the declaration of "Jesus as Lord" is the message of the New Testament. This means Jesus is Lord and Caesar isn't and his general rule over the cosmos, but with that he is YHWH (LORD) ruling with God the Father in heaven. I think this is a crucial basis for obedience, discipleship, submission, sacrifice, and other areas of our lives (and all of the world for that matter). I have also come to believe it is important for understanding early Trinitarian formulations in the New Testament (1 Cor 12:4-6, Phil 2:11, and 1 Cor 8:6 where Paul is inserting Jesus into the Shema of Deut 6:4 for example). Other than Christ, Jesus is called Lord most often in the NT and frequently in summaries of the gospel.

5. The gospel is about Jesus - This means that it is not about my salvation or its mechanics, but about what Jesus has accomplished which makes those two things possible. Jesus' death on the cross and his resurrection paid for sin, overcame death, and disarmed all evil forces of their power. That is part of the gospel and through faith in the gospel about Jesus and what he has done I receive remission of sins, resurrection in the age to come, and am free from the power of darkness. It is a subtle, but important distinction to make in order to go beyond his work on the cross to who he is; Christ, Lord, Son of David, Son of God, Son of Man, etc. even though the cross is so important. Jesus as King dying on a cross is the 'foolish stumbling block' for both Jew and non-Jew. What a ridiculous non-worldly way to save the world and establish your reign over everything! Amazing.

What do you think? Is there anything you would add or adjust?