So, the theme that I'm running with for the next few weeks is that there may be a need for us to rethink what the Gospel/Good News (euangelion) really means. Our tendency as Western Christians has been to personalize/individualize our faith and so the Gospel has been taken by many to mean: the good news of my personal salvation... Christ died for me.I'm certainly not going to argue the basic truth of such statements, but that is not what the Gospel is. Based on what we talked about last week, the thesis that I'm testing (and please understand that this is a trial-run of this idea. I'm arguing for this idea to see if it holds under scrutiny... so please provide some) here is that the Gospel is a proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus.
And, just so you know, this isn't just me making stuff up. Aside from some very major New Testament scholars pursuing this theme, the fact that Bible translation guru, Bill Mounce (ESV, NIV2011), would include "...rise to power, or decree of the emperor that was to herald the fulfillment of hopes for peace and wellbeing in all the world..." in his definition of Gospel really says something.
So this week we're going to tackle the usage of Gospel in... the Gospels:
Surprisingly, euangelion doesn't show up all that often in the Gospels!
Matthew x4
Mark x7
Luke x0
John x0
**Gospel may show up in Luke & John in our English translations but (and I checked) euangelion isn't there in the Greek.**
In Matthew the euangelion is intimately linked with the Kingdom (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). This makes perfect sense with this "proclaiming Lordship" definition of Gospel. If Jesus is preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God then to think of the gospel as a proclamation that there is a New King and a New era coming into being fits perfectly.
In fact, that is one of the major themes of Matthew: that Jesus, the descendant of King David is the one true heir to the throne of Israel and is bringing about a new Kingdom, one where the purposes of Israel are being fulfilled through Him.
Basically, there's no way that we can really think of gospel as being about personal salvation (at least not in the 4 Gospels) because Jesus is preaching the gospel prior to His death and resurrection!
Observe Mark 1:14-15 (ESV)
14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."Again we see this link between the Kingdom and the Gospel. Again, the gospel cannot mean Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice for us because it hasn't happened yet. So, in order for those people to "believe in the gospel" it has to mean something else. Again, in my mind, it makes perfect sense that Jesus would mean:
"The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe [that God's Messiah is the one true ruler of all creation]"... or something along those lines.
This also makes perfect sense with Jesus' constant healings and exorcisms. If the only reason why Jesus came was to die for my sins why did He bother doing all that extra stuff? He did it to demonstrate that He was the true Lord of Creation coming to claim His rightful throne. Jesus had God-given power and authority over all creation: physical (healings, calming seas, multiplying food, etc) and spiritual (exorcisms, forgiving of sins, etc).
So, what do you think?
Is this starting to make sense?
What problems with this idea do you see?
What strengths?
3 comments:
I fully agree with the misinterpretation of "the Gospel" in today's Christian circles to a very specific and personal event. That's not to say that I've ever had a clear definition in my own mind but after reading this post it seems to be coming together for me. I like the argument that Jesus wouldn't have been preaching for all to believe in the gospel if it were specifically related to his sacrificial death.
I am wondering if the "gospel" could have refered to more than one piece of "good news" depending on where and how it was used? I agree with what you're saying about it being more than just "I can have salvation", but I wonder if saying it is simply or only about Christ's Lordship might also be too limiting. The good news preached in the gospels where, as you say, the word is used much less frequently, may have been only that the Messiah King had come because, again agreeing with what you said, that was all the revelation available at that time. But I'm not sure you can say that that is the complete definition of the word as it is used elsewhere (and possibly more frequently) in the NT. I keep coming back to Paul's definition of the "gospel that he preached" in 1 Cor 15:1-8. There it is very definitely the good news that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. Definitely that resurrection act established his lordship if anything did, but do you think Paul is really saying, "the gospel = Jesus is Lord" here? I'm just not so sure. Definitely I would agree that the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a major aspect of the gospel message, I'm just not sure you can summarize the good news as being just Lordship. But go ahead, try and convince me. :)
Arlana
You're right. Paul uses "gospel" WAY more than everyone else. My next post will look at the Pauline usage. I definitely think he expands the scope of the word to include more than the gospel writers did.
Post a Comment