Consider the following two candidates for the title of “The Gospel”:
- Jesus died to pay for your sins so that you can go to heaven and escape hell apart from moral attainment.
- Jesus is the Messiah, God’s anointed King. Through Him God is restoring and renewing all creation.
As Christians we believe both these statements but which is the “Gospel” Jesus and the apostles proclaimed? Both these messages are, in different senses, good news. Let us consider both messages from a Christian (believing) perspective.
The first (1) is basically individualistic and subjective: it’s not true for everyone, only believers. It does not seem to match Paul’s definition (Rom 1:16) of being power for (unto) salvation. A message that you are saved is of course not the power nor the means of that salvation but a report. I presume our readers do not think believing (1) is what gets a person saved!?
Compare (2) which is an objective statement. I can proclaim (2) to anybody as true because it’s a statement about Jesus, yet (1) is about salvation which is, of course, conditional. Notice also the power of (2): it really saves you when you believe it because the belief “Jesus is Lord” implies “I am His servant”. Thus, the saving obedience of faith is implicit: if Jesus is Lord, we are servants (though we are redeemed as sons) and assured of victory and restoration because we’ve got the true King.
Note how (2) is Christocentric, focusing in on God’s mission in the world and that (1) is ego-centric albeit one important implication of (2). Notice how (2) implies we Christians have a job to do above and beyond simply preaching as Paul indicates at the end of his great Gospel exposition in 1 Cor 15 (v58). Notice how the royal overtones of (2) cohere with Jesus own words: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15). Jesus’ Gospel was about Himself, His Person, His Kingship, and not primarily about the upcoming atonement.
There is some historical backing for the claim that (2) is the real Gospel. The word “Gospel” (gk. euangelion) is not a Christian invention but Roman rhetoric of the day. When an Emperor ascended to the throne or achieved a mighty victory, heralds went out to the lands proclaiming the Euangelion: “Rejoice, Caesar is Lord! He is our saviour. We can now have justice and peace.” Given that Caesar was considered divine (the term “the son of God” sometimes being applied) we begin to see how counter-imperial Paul’s Gospel was and why it got him in trouble with the authorities – (1) would hardly deserve persecution. Paul’s Gospel was treason pure and simple.
The Gospel (2) guarantees that every knee will bow because Jesus is Lord of all. Though not all turn (repent) and receive Him (believe) and are included (justified), the hard fact of the Gospel is as true for the Satanist as for the Saint – yet only the Saint will be saved because they acknowledge it (the Lordship) and live out the implications. A demon may recognise Jesus’ power (e.g. Mk 1:24) but not subjugate themselves and be saved. The warnings in James 2:14-26 are against paying the Gospel lip-service!
In short, the Gospel is the announcement that Jesus is Lord. There are all sorts of implications but the actual term is a royal proclamation and not a new soteriology where works have become unimportant. In Jesus, God has been faithful to the covenant with Abraham, bringing salvation to the world through Israel (Abraham’s seed). Our world has bigger problems than our personal sins and God has a bigger solution.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2009 at 5:39 pm
jc_freak
The difference between your two statements seems to be a difference between plan (2) and means (1). It is by Christ’s death that the renewing of creation is achieved.
However, I don’t believe either or these is really the gospel, as it is articulated in Scripture, because neither of these are really news. News is bound up in the concept of event. the original sense of it in the ancient world would have been the idea of the defeat of an enemy in battle.
In Scripture the good news isn’t something which true about Christ, but it is something that Christ has done, namely He has risen from the grave. In this since, 2 is closer to the mark than one, but the significance of His resurrection was the declaration of His majesty. But it is the resurrection which is the good news, and the not the resurrection in terms of a coronation, but the resurrection in terms of a victory: Christ has defeated sin and death. We are free! We are no longer bound to the powers of this world, and death itself no longer has any claim on us since our Lord has defeated it on the cross and in the tomb.
BTW, did you redo your look here? It looks good!
March 10, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Marc
I suppose you are right: The News is Jesus has risen, therefore he must be the Messiah, therefore God is back. Of course the news could still be “Jesus is Lord” (as I claim) with the evidence being the resurrection. That would make 1) an implication.
If you parallel the Roman rhetoric it would be: Gospel=Caesar is Emporer, Evidence=He won this battle/descended from this person, Implication=Peace is coming, on your knees and pay your taxes.
My point is that the Gospel is about more than dealing with our guilt before God so we escape hell however pressing that concern may be to us as individuals.
May 10, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Marc
Another reason why I don’t think, contrary to most evangelicals, that atonement or the ressurection is the Gospel is that the Gospel was preached before these things came to pass and were still hidden. Jesus arrived peaching the Gospel but it was not “I am going to die for your sins” a message which came later but rather a message concerning his Messiaship, the Day of Israel’s Visitation, Yahwe is back!
July 15, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Marc
Postscript:
In Eph 1:13 Paul does say “gospel of your salvation” but it’s unclear to me whether he means that is THE Gospel or whether it’s just good news.
Rom 1:2-3 and other passages seem clear that THE Gospel is about Jesus being the Messiah.