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.