According to today's evangelicals, "The Gospel of Christ" is fairly specifically this:
* God loved the world and sent Jesus to earth to live amongst us, to die for us and to raise from the dead
* Jesus died on a cross, shedding his blood for sinners, who were otherwise doomed (being imperfect sinners keeping us out of God's presence
* His shed blood "paid the price" for the sinner's debt
* We are saved by God's grace IF we accept the gift of heaven, and we are able to be saved because Jesus' blood - which was perfect - paid the price that God requires for sin
* All we need to do is confess our sins, accept the gift and make Jesus Lord of our lives
This is the Gospel as fairly specifically understood by most modern evangelicals, but what I'm wondering is, is that what was understood by Jesus and the disciples when they used that word?
======
Let us consider the word, gospel.
The word, gospel appears in the Bible 97 times in the New American Standard Translation. In researching a bit, every reference I found said that the word translated gospel means simply, “good news,” as in the every day sense of the term.
“Hey! I heard the good news about your job promotion! Way to go!”
You know, good news. Welcomed information of the sort that makes one glad. Good news. From what I read, there is nothing mystical or otherworldly in the Greek word itself that is translated gospel.
The original Greek for this is "Euangelisdzo" (from which we get evangelism). It literally means "Glad Tidings" in the noun form and "Publish Glad tidings" in the verb cognate form.
source
The English noun gospel comes is the translation of the Greek word
source
All 97 instances are in the New Testament. Twenty of them are in the books of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), eight are in the book of Acts (describing the Acts of the Early Church), 64 times in Paul’s letters, twice in Peter’s epistles and one instance in the Book of Revelation.
32 comments:
What's your point?
I've made no point at all, so far. I'm just reviewing what is actually said in the next couple of posts.
You have any thoughts so far?
I can guess where this heading. The argument will be that, if the word for "gospel" isn't explicitly tied to the Crucifixion and the Atonement, we can feel free to focus instead on Christ's ethical teachings ("Jesus' Way") and pretend that the good news is His commands rather than the forgiveness of sin.
Since Dan doesn't believe in the New Testament's explanation of the meaning of the Crucifixion -- writing earlier that the Atonement only "meant something" to the ancient Jews and not to himself -- it's no wonder that he doesn't want to emphasize the centrality of the cross in the good news of Christianity.
But what were the glad tidings that the angel declared to the Shepherds in Luke 2? The birth of a teacher or prophet? No, though Christ is certainly both those things, the glad tidings is the birth of a Savior.
The good news is not what we are to do in obedience to God: that's not the gospel, that's the law, and Moses already brought us that. Rather, the good news is what God has done out of love for us.
I can guess where this (Bubba commentary) is heading, too. Where it's heading is that Bubba doesn't like for Dan to look at the actual words of the Bible, but rather wants Dan to believe as Bubba believes. No questions asked. No need for Bible study. Bubba has the answers. Just ask him and he'll let you know what to think.
However, for me, where this is heading, I'd hope, is a study in what the Bible actually says. Sound like a good idea to you? May I proceed?
Any thoughts on the scriptures quoted thus far or the related scriptures?
Since Dan doesn't believe in the New Testament's explanation of the meaning of the Crucifixion
Dan believes in what the Bible has to say about the Crucifixion and about the Gospel and about Jesus' teachings. Do you have a problem if we look at the actual words/text involved or do you insist that Dan believe in Bubba's almighty interpretation only?
Seriously Bubba, if you want to discuss the topic at hand, I welcome your thoughts. If you merely want to attack and drag down the body of Christ, go away.
I just deleted another off-topic, attack comment of Bubba's.
Anyone is welcome to talk about the Gospel topic at hand.
ON topic, Bubba had this to say:
But, more than that, the suggestion is transparently false since I just appealled to Scripture to show that the Gospel is fairly explicitly shown to be the message of salvation: I pointed out that, in Luke 2, the "good tidings" (euaggelizo) is the birth of the Savior.
Bubba, on this, I don't disagree that the good tidings spoke of in Luke 2 is the birth of the Savior. That IS Good News.
Your summary is a good expression of an individualistic theology that can be found in many modern evangelical circles. In my theology, conversion -- and personal sanctification -- is only the beginning. Alleviating the suffering of others is mandatory in the Christian life. We cannot be closed-off bunkers of righteousness in the midst of a hurting world.
Indeed John. Not only do we hear about the Gospel concerning Jesus's birth, but in Luke 4 we hear him preaching the Gospel to the poor in the same sentence as healing, preaching deliverance, etc.
Dan, I don't appreciate being silenced as a general rule, but I really take exception to it when it's being done hypocritically, as is the case here: your accusation that I don't care about Scripture is a particularly clear example of an off-topic attack.
It's your blog, so you're free to do as you wish, but if you're going to be this reprehensible in abusing that freedom, I will no longer waste my time here.
Bubba, the topic is the nature of the Gospel. I've been pretty generous and don't mind too much bouncing around, but if you're only going to make charges off topic, I will delete it.
I welcome your comments on topic.
More posts complaining about mistreatment for speaking off topic and making attacking commentary will only be deleted.
And, in case you honestly don't understand what I'm talking about, you said:
your accusation that I don't care about Scripture is a particularly clear example of an off-topic attack.
When I have NEVER made the accusation that you don't care about scripture. That has not been stated nor insinuated. THAT comment is off topic and more of an accusatory/attacking nature (in addition to being ridiculously false) than what I expect.
Your comments ON topic are welcome.
Thank you, Alan and John. I agree, John, that for many (maybe most?) Christians, "getting saved," is not a one time thing, but a process.
There is a strain of evangelicalism that does seem to focus on the "let's get them saved," idea - with "getting them saved," meaning get them to accept the Romans Road presentation of the Gospel. But for most of us, I think we generally think there is so much more.
I agree Dan. The Gospel is much broader than getting saved. Jesus says in Matthew (24:14), "This gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all nations, and then the end shall come." The Gospel of the Kingdom. I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means, but it seems to mean more than a gospel of salvation only. It points, I think, to our relationships to our neighbors as well -- particularly when we remember that Jesus tells us in Luke that the Kingdom of God is in our midst.
I think this is one of the great disconnects in the church today between the folk who believe "this world is not my own, I'm just a-passin' through" (as the old hymn says) and those of us who believe there's plenty of work to be done here, now.
"I can guess where this (Bubba commentary) is heading, too. Where it's heading is that Bubba doesn't like for Dan to look at the actual words of the Bible, but rather wants Dan to believe as Bubba believes. No questions asked. No need for Bible study. Bubba has the answers. Just ask him and he'll let you know what to think."
And that is the reason why I am no longer Southern Baptist. I got tired of being told there was only ONE WAY to interpret Scripture.
"In my theology, conversion -- and personal sanctification -- is only the beginning."
Indeed. The starting point of the way of Jesus.
"Alleviating the suffering of others is mandatory in the Christian life. We cannot be closed-off bunkers of righteousness in the midst of a hurting world."
Moving on to action.
And that is exactly the reason why I am now a United Methodist.
"The Gospel is much broader than getting saved."
Amen to that!
I find it intesting that it is Paul who uses the word "gospel" the most. 64 times. Wow. I wonder what the significance of that might be?
Good post Dan.
Alan,
Considering the topic of Matthew 24 is the end times and the 2nd Coming, how does verse 14 point to our relationships with our neighbors? Nothing in the chapter seems to suggest it.
I have to agree with Bubba regarding the Gospel as the Good News regarding the coming of the Savior to pay for our sins. It is, in fact, the point of the entire Bible. God exists, He creates everything and everything is perfect. Man, given free will, chooses against God's Will and invites sin into the world. As the wages of sin is death, no sacrifice was perfect enough to totally absolve anyone from their sins. The Good News is that God sent Jesus to be the perfect sacrifice that will be pleasing to God, thus freeing us from death and God's wrath because of our sin. That's the Reader's Digest version of the whole Book and in between covers are examples of God's nature and His Will for us while we are here on earth. Christ teaches us how to live as He would have us live and that is in the manner that is similar to other religions. But His sacrifice for us is the point, the Good News and without that salient point, the rest is really moot, since works alone are insufficient for God or salvation.
""getting saved," is not a one time thing, but a process."
I view "getting saved" as justification, which would be a one time thing (for Protestants, at least), while sanctification would be a process.
"There is a strain of evangelicalism that does seem to focus on the "let's get them saved," idea - with "getting them saved," meaning get them to accept the Romans Road presentation of the Gospel. But for most of us, I think we generally think there is so much more."
I don't doubt that there is indeed a strain like that (there are all sorts of strains out there), but I haven't found a church (and no people come to mind) who just share the Gospel and don't support helping people. In general, I've found that those with an eternal perspective give and serve more than average.
I think we also need to respect spiritual gifts. We should all share the Gospel, but some have more of a gift for evangelism. We should all serve, but some have more of a gift for certain kinds of service.
I agree absolutely Neil (with the last comment). But what I'm getting at is, what does it look like to share the gospel - the good news that Jesus shared so frequently, especially with the poor and ill (as we see in the texts)?
Does it look like going door to door, Bible tracts in hand asking people if they know where they'd be if they died tonight? Is that what the disciples did when Jesus sent them out to share "the gospel of the kingdom"? Trying to get people to "pray the sinners' prayer"?
"But what I'm getting at is, what does it look like to share the gospel"
Good question. I'm not a door-to-door guy myself, I just look for opportunities wherever they present themselves.
I think the Book of Acts is a pretty good proxy and at least a good place to start to answer that question.
It shows how the early church worked through a lot of issues but made concerted efforts to take care of each other. I think that when the church "gets it right" then it is a very attractive model to the world, sort of a "What is different about them? / I want what they've got" marketing message.
Here's the key: There were thirteen presentations of the Gospel described in Acts. Not one of them mentioned God's love. The word isn't even mentioned in the whole book (not that the concept isn't to be found there).
The consistent theme: Repent and believe and Jesus' physical resurrection, e.g., Acts 17:30-31 "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
Skim through Acts and see what I mean. It makes for an interesting study.
Does it look like going door to door, Bible tracts in hand asking people if they know where they'd be if they died tonight? Is that what the disciples did when Jesus sent them out to share "the gospel of the kingdom"? Trying to get people to "pray the sinners' prayer"?
That kind of evangelism may have a place in a society in which Christianity is largely unknown, but effective evangelism in 21st Century America works at improving Christianity's reputation among non-Christians.
But I realize that these were rhetorical questions.
I agree, John. Quite wholeheartedly. Thanks for the thought.
And thank you, Neil, for a reasonable answer. Indeed, when one reads Acts, and perhaps the epistles, one might come closer to associating the gospel with the notion of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
But what of "the gospel" found in The Gospels? There is very little to make us think that these instances are talking about Jesus' life, death and resurrection. When Jesus sent the disciples out or when he went some place speaking of "the good news" - was he speaking of his own death and resurrection, before the fact? If not, then what was he talking about?
And what of all the emphasis on and association with the poor and ill? When John the Baptist sent his followers to check out Jesus, Jesus told them "Tell John how I am healing the sick, how I'm sharing the good news with the poor...", what was the purpose of saying that? What Good News was Jesus sharing?
And what of the Kingdom angle? The Good News of the Kingdom? What would that have meant in context? What would "good news to the poor" mean in context? Are they related?
I haven't explored this fully and am not claiming it applies to all the mentions of the poor, but I think it is often associate with "poor in spirit."
Did Jesus do that much for the financially poor? He said he was going to release captives, but I'm not familiar with him releasing any prisoners. But He did much for those captive to sin. He did heal some physically blind people, but his higher priority was spiritual blindness.
BTW, I'm not one to jump straight to metaphors.
I'd suggest that preaching the Kingdom of God is here, now IS doing something for the poor, ill, marginalized and imprisoned. It's a changing of the way that things are done.
As John the Baptist preached the good news, people asked him what they should do differently. John tells them to not engage in oppressive economic practices, and to live simply, sharing what they have with those in need.
As people start living that way, following in Jesus' steps, they are living in the kingdom and that effects the real world here and now. And that results in those in poverty getting assistance.
My understanding is that back then, many if not most of those in prison were in prison because of economic systems that tended to put the poor in prisons (not unlike today?). Debtors' prisons. John and Jesus preached a gospel that said, "Quit supporting the economic systems of the world - ones that result in oppressive conditions and imprisonment of the poor. Instead, live for the Kingdom of God."
As people do that, it does result in good news for the actually poor and freedom for the actually captive.
I am glad that you don't automatically jump to metaphors. I don't think there is any reason to jump to a metaphor here.
After all, when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor," in Luke, he also said, "WOE to you who are rich!" and it is fairly clear he is talking specifically about the actual rich, not the "symbolically rich" (whatever that would be).
I just see no reason to think that this means anything other than what it literally says.
I see that I guessed right: Dan is pretending that Gospel is Christ's commands rather than the forgiveness of sin.
Luke 6 is a parallel to Matthew 5 where Christ clearly states that the poor in spirit are blessed. The idea of the spiritually rich -- or the self-righteous who think they are spiritually rich and believe that therefore they deserve God's love -- isn't a difficult one. And Christ was quite clear that His kingdom is not of this world. None of that matters because it doesn't advance the false religion of the Social Gospel.
Just as Dan hasn't apologized for his off-topic attack against me --"Bubba doesn't like for Dan to look at the actual words of the Bible, but rather wants Dan to believe as Bubba believes" -- I doubt he'll acknowledge that I correctly guessed precisely where he was going with this oh-so-innocent look at what the Bible says about the Gospel.
I'm vindicated whether or not he admits it, and whether or not he even has the courage and decency to leave this comment undeleted.
sigh.
Bubba, you are not god enough to know what I think. I've told you what I'm doing here: Studying what the Bible has to say.
Your off-topic, attack comment may remain, just so that people can see you for what you are. Shame on you, brother.
Do you have any comments ON topic or are you content merely to strive to bring strife and false accusations to the community of faith?
I have made no false accusation, Dan. Despite your very best attempts at obfuscation, it doesn't take divine power to deduce your beliefs from what you write. (What good is writing if it doesn't provide insight into what a person thinks?) And strife is definitely a price worth paying to stand against literally false gospels.
Your off-topic, attack comment may remain, just so that people can see you for what you are. Shame on you, brother.
What am I? Do tell, or is it only the insinuation that I'm something really bad that is perfectly permissible?
About being on-topic, I don't think it's a digression to question both your premises and even your motives for this transparently disingenuous attempt to remake God's word in your own image.
What you want is for people to act as if this really is nothing more than "Studying what the Bible has to say." Those who accept that claim are declared to be on-topic; those who question it are dismissed for digressing.
But though my thorough skepticism at your claim to be studying the Bible in good faith is arguably impolite and is certainly inconvenient, it's NOT irrelevant.
Bubba said:
I have made no false accusation, Dan.
False accusation #1:
"Despite your very best attempts at obfuscation, it doesn't take divine power to deduce your beliefs from what you write."
Response:
I have made no "attempts" to "obfuscate." Your claim that you have made no false accusations is undone before you can even finish your thought, Bubba!
What I have done is offer what the Bible has to say and some impressions I have from it. There is quite truthfully ZERO obfuscations in my so doing.
False accusation #2:
"I don't think it's a digression to question both your premises and even your motives for this transparently disingenuous attempt to remake God's word in your own image."
Response:
I have absolutely NOT sought to remake God's Word in my own image. In fact, as I have clearly noted, many times I have had to change my dearly held positions in order to align more closely with what I believe God's Word is saying.
Your accusation is false. Further, to presume to know that my words have been "disingenuous" is a presumption that you can know my motives. You can't. That would make that False accusation #3.
There are three false accusations just in your one response.
The topic is The Nature of the Gospel. To continue OFF topic attacks is not staying on topic, no matter how many times you might make such an assertion. What you are doing is making repeated attacks on the person, not on the statements made in the text of the post.
I ask you again: Do you have on topic comments? I'll brook no more attack commentary.
Dan, in order to defend myself from the charge of making false accusations -- a charge, I might add, that is at least as unrelated to "The Nature of the Gospel" as my criticisms of your character -- I would have to argue for the credibility of my criticisms.
If you're not willing to endure arguments in defense of my belief that you're being disingenuous, perhaps you shouldn't attack that belief by saying it's a false accusation.
Engaging in your own "attack commentary" only to immediately forbid a response in-kind is hypocritical, especially when substantiating my criticisms of your character is precisely how your attack is to be repudiated.
Bubba, I am merely asking you to stay on topic and to be polite. That is not hypocritical.
You also went into great length trying to justify your charge that I'm making false accusations. If my "attack commentary" is off-topic, so is yours, but you didn't abstain from what you forbid, and that is hypocritical.
Unless you want to retract the charge, you should be willing to "brook" my making arguments to repudiate the charge.
So, you're suggesting that you can come on here, make OFF topic commentary that attacks me based on false accusations. Then, when I point out that those accusations are demonstrably false and ask you to stay on topic instead of making attack commentary, THAT is hypocritical?
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Do you have any comment ON topic? The topic of this particular post was merely a definition of the word, gospel, and a counting of the times it appears in the Bible and where it appears in the Bible.
Do you have any commentary on THAT? If not, move on to the next topic.
Post a Comment