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.

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.

Gal 1:16 gospel (verb)

Here's a quick post on the use of 'gospel' from Gal 1:13-17 (NRSV):

13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. ¹⁴I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. ¹⁵But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased ¹⁶to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, ¹⁷nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.

 Literally, verse 16 says "...so that I might gospel him..." (it can be a verb as in this case and verse 11)  Paul is speaking about 'gospelling' God's son, aka Jesus. This is very similar to Friday's post, so I won't go into much detail except to point out that we see once again the gospel as a message about making Jesus himself known.

Galatians and gospel logic

Since I put up the page from my book on the gospel yesterday, which starts by looking at Paul's letter to the Galatians, I will start going through that book's use of the word 'gospel' first.

In the meantime, I mentioned in an earlier post that the number of people holding to a group 'C' view of the gospel (neither Justification by faith or Justice of the the Kingdom, but the saving story of Jesus himself). Well, I'm finding even more examples of this! Peter Enns' post alerted me to something David Williams wrote on gospel logic in Galatians. While he also touches on what I wrote in Group 'C' and the 3rd 'J' his main point is that Paul is not telling the Galatian church what the gospel is, but how they have misapplied it and misunderstood its logical effects in relation to ethnic Israel, the law, and circumcision.

The primary point Williams drives home is that their actions are denying the change the gospel brings regarding the rituals of the Law (Torah/Law of Moses) having lost their governing function over God's people.

This is the logic of the gospel:

If the Messiah was crucified, then the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

The Messiah was crucified (the gospel).

Therefore, the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

 But the Galatians' actions say they believe this:

 If the Messiah was crucified, then the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

It is not the case that the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people (hence, that is why we’re being circumcised).

Therefore, the Messiah was not crucified (perversion of the gospel).

The thrust of this argument from Paul can be found in 2:21b-3:1.

The more I read Galatians the more I see the interesting parallel to Romans, which has convinced me that Romans is also about Jew and Gentile being one people in the Messiah.

Any thoughts on this?

The gospel according to Trevin Wax

To kick things off I thought a post from Trevin Wax of The Gospel Coalition would be appropriate. He has been blogging about the gospel for a long time and has gathered over 60 definitions of what the gospel is. Here he gives a gospel summary from his book on the gospel: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/09/13/gospel-definitions-trevin-wax/

I have a lot of respect for Trevin and his openness in discussing the definition of the gospel with others, but have some reservations about its limitations. What do you think?