A Pharisee and the Gospel

Last week we looked at the way the Gospel/Good News (euangelion) was used in the writings of Matthew and Mark. In these books my thesis that euangelion is a proclamation of the Lordship of Christ held up pretty well. The majority of the time euangelion is coupled with the kingdom of God/Heaven which makes a perfect connection.

But the fact is that compared to Paul, the biographers of Jesus barely used the word gospel. Here's the full break-down of euangelion:

Matthew x4

Mark x7

Acts x2

Paul x59

So while there is definitely a huge level of significance as to how Jesus used the word (or it was used in direct reference to His ministry) if we want to really wrestle with this we have to wrestle with Paul.

Now, in my opinion, Paul was too educated for our own good :)

I don't remember where I heard it (so don't go spouting it off like I'm about to) but I remember hearing somewhere that today's equivalent of Paul's Pharisaical education is that of at least 2 doctorates.

Paul's writing is dense, intricate, "wordy", full of run-on-sentences (which are allowed in Greek), metaphors, mixed-metaphors, analogies, vague illusions... the list can go on. There is no doubt that Paul was an intellectual and wrote as an intellectual. Paul's writings make the Gospel of Mark and Peter's letters (for example) look like "Run Spot, run!"

As a side note, it is unfortunate for us as English readers when our translations "smarten up" rough Greek like Mark's and Peter's and at the same time "dumb down" Paul's Greek. We lose the personality of the writers when the language in our translations are homogenized.

Anyway, all of that is to say that Paul's usage of euangelion is rather diverse. He doesn't use it in a conveniently uniform way like we saw in Matthew and Mark. Instead we see him using phrases like, "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13) or "the gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15). These don't fit nicely with my thesis and therefore must be ignored... just joking.

Instances such as these fit better with a literal translation of euangelion ("good news") rather than an idiomatic (Lordship proclamation) translation. This brings me back to my original question from a few weeks ago: is it better to educate people on the semantic range of our word Gospel or is it better to translate it differently depending on its context?

Aside from that, I think I could probably make a case that "the gospel of peace" can still fit within my thesis (see Mounce's def'n in my original post). At the very least we can agree that euangelion is not confined to an announcement of personal salvation, nor is it quite so simple as a literal good news. The New Testament usage of it is way too broad to be simplified into either of those.

Michael F. Bird addresses complex words like gospel in his introduction to Pauline theology:

"In the ancient world, the title 'Lord' (Kyrios) was also used of the Roman emperor. In the Roman era, terms like grace, gospel, parousia, justice, freedom, Lord, saviour, and Son of God were employed in Roman political propaganda and utilized in the prayers and rites of the imperial cult, which focused on worship of the Roman emperor. By analogy, then, the 'good news' that 'Jesus is Lord' carried with it the implication that Caesar was not Lord... We see that Paul's gospel had theopolitical consequences in that it claimed for Jesus an immense authority and power which threatened that of Rome" (Introducing Paul, 84).

In fact, Bird uses the comparison that proclaiming the Lordship of Christ in the Roman world would have been pretty much the same as proclaiming 'Jesus ist Fuhrer!' in Nazi Germany!! An interesting analogy.

And I still think that a significant portion of the time that Paul talks about euangelion it fits closely with this idea of Lordship:

"gospel of Christ" x8 (Rom. 15:19; 1Cor. 9:12; 2Cor. 2:12, 9:13, 10:14; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1Thess. 3:2)

"gospel of God" x5 (Rom. 1:1, 15:16; 1Thess. 2:2, 2:8, 2:9)

"gospel of his son" (Rom. 1:9)

"gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2Thess. 1:8)

"glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1Tim.1:11)

"gospel of the glory of Christ" (2Cor. 4:4)

There is absolutely no doubt that the theme of Lordship is evident all throughout Paul's writings. After all, by my quick count, Paul uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" a minimum of 72 times as well as referring to the Kingdom of God (of whom, of course, Jesus is Lord) a minimum of 14times.

However, a lot of the time the way Paul uses euangelion is ambiguous enough that you can't strongly argue for or against a specific definition. An example of that is Romans 15:20 - "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel..." This usage is so generic that it doesn't exactly lend any weight to either side.

The phrase that got me scratching my head was "my gospel" x3 (Rom. 2:16, 16:25; 2Tim. 2:8).

This doesn't really fit with my "Lordship" definition. Here Paul seems to simply mean "the message that I preached to you."

So it appears that Paul's usage of euangelion does include, but is not limited to a Lordship proclamation. Depending on the context Paul flexes the word to make it fit his purpose; typical Paul!

Anyway, what do you think?

What other texts might tie into this?

What do you think about the translation issue?

The Gospel in the Gospels

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?

Good News for the Gospel

Our word "Gospel" comes from the Old English: gōd spell which means "good tidings." This was a direct translation (in it's day) for the Greek εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion): good message... the good news!

Naturally, the vast majority of English Bibles translate euangelion as either good news or gospel. But what does euangelion really mean? Does it really do the concept of euangelion justice to simply translate it literally as good news?

The reason why I bring this up is because recent scholarship (the last few decades) has been revealing that there is a depth of meaning behind euangelion that can't be captured by a literal translation. As more and more manuscripts are discovered that are also written in Koine Greek we can get more context for how certain words are used. It has become clear that the word euangelion is used most frequently in a very specific context: announcements to the citizens of the empire concerning royalty, specifically birth and coronation proclamations.

"The word euangelion was not invented by the Gospel writers... It referred to an announcement of 'glad tidings' regarding a birthday, rise to power, or decree of the emperor that was to herald the fulfillment of hopes for peace and wellbeing in all the world" (Mounce's CEDONTW).

"The idea of good news... had two principle meanings for first-century Jews. First, with its roots in Isaiah, it meant the news of YHWH's long-awaited victory over evil and rescue of His people. Second, it was used in the Roman world for the accession, or birthday, of the Emperor" (NT Wright's glossary in his "for Everyone" series).

So euangelion is not just, "Hey, honey, I've got some good news. I got a raise at work..."

No! Euangelion is all about, "GOOD NEWS!! An heir; a SON has been born to the emperor!" or "GOOD NEWS!! The reign of the new King has just begun! It's the beginning of a new era!"

On top of this, it is of note that in the Gospel of Mark the word euangelion is used 7 times (for those of you unfamiliar with the significance of numbers in the Bible please read: this). Couple this with the fact that the passion narrative in Mark's gospel is "arranged according to the coronation ceremonies of the Roman Emperor" (Velvet Elvis, 64) and I think we are running into a pretty significant theme.

The reason why I bring this up is because I think a lot of Christians are under the impression that the gospel is about personal salvation... but maybe it's not!

Over the next few weeks I'll be developing this line of thought (and it's implications) a bit more.

In the meantime:

What do you think?

How is this similar or different from what you think the Gospel is?

What implications do you see when you encounter this alternative definition of euangelion?

"... but the LORD was not in the earthquake."

While my title is a blatant mis-quote of 1 Kings 19:11 this phrase has really struck me.

It seems as though every few years there is some sort of huge natural catastrophe that brings uncomfortable issues to the forefront of our minds. As long as the media pushes these to the front-page we feel some sort of compassion/obligation to toss a few dollars to the Red Cross or some other agency, but for the most part as soon as the media lets the issue go we slip back into our egocentric, ethnocentric lives.

How do we deal with natural evil?

Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes... or even cancer for that matter. How do we deal with these? Who do we blame? We have no person, no human to blame. I don't think we can blame it on Satan either. When nature strikes who do we blame? Who is there to blame except God?

These are the uncomfortable questions we often push to the back of our minds until life gets back to "normal."

If you have a couple of minutes check out 38:40-41:40 of the video below. The moderator is asking Nancey Murphy what current issues are facing the world of philosophy, theology, and science (she is an expert on the interrelatedness of these 3) that need to be dealt with.

Of course, her answer is: natural evil.

I find her answer interesting. Traditionally, Christians have said that natural evil is the result of moral evil or sin. Of course, as our understanding of science has progressed (she says) this sort of answer doesn't fit with the way the world actually functions.

According to Murphy neither the sinfulness of man nor the wrath of God are directly responsible for natural evil. Instead she says (obviously from a scientific perspective... [how does that shape our theology?]) that if humanity is to exist at all we need a world with tectonic plates. In other words, for any life of any kind to survive on this planet it requires a world with volcanoes and earthquakes. And thus God created our world that way.

What do you make of that?

You don't need to have some sort of fancy intellectual insight.

What sorts of things run through your mind when you see events like we have now in Haiti?

Christus Victor

There is a word used in the New Testament that provides us with a wonderfully vivid picture of what Jesus accomplished as the Christ. This word, triumph (qriambeuvw), is only used twice in the Bible:

2 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)
But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.

Colossians 2:15 (ESV)

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

This word, triumph, is not simply another word for "being

victorious" (the word for victorious, nikavw, is used 28x in the NT). This word comes from a very specific practice from the ancient

world which the Romans perfected.

Since every single person to whom the New Testament was originally written lived under Roman rule it is safe to say that they would all be familiar with this practice and it is quite likely that a significant number of them would have witnessed something very similar to a triumph at some point in their lives.

The Roman Triumph was a celebratory procession that marked a great victory and the end of a war. This procession (a glorified parade) was designed to heap praises upon the victorious General and to heap abuse and shame upon the hapless losers.

But not just any soldier or General could qualify for a proper triumph. No! they had to meet a strict set of criteria in order to qualify. They had to:

1. be a of a certain social class and from a proper family line

2. kill a minimum of 5,000 enemy soldiers

3. bring their army home with them (symbolizing that the victory was so complete that there was no need to leave soldiers behind to keep the peace)

4. the senate had to approve and endorse the triumph

5. etc... (there were a lot of criteria)

Once the General met all of these qualifications he could have his triumph which looked roughly like this:

1. Leading the parade were the members of the senate who endorsed the triumph

2. Trumpeters and priests with incense (engaging the senses of the onlookers... notice how in 2Cor2:14 Paul talks about fragrance...)

3. Carts and wagons full of the spoils of war

4. the conquered war leader/king with his family and other important people of the conquered nation all of whom were bound

5. the victorious General with his family and other important people. The General is crowned with the laurel wreath.

6. finally the procession is rounded out with the disarmed, defeated army who gets to march through Rome while the people ridicule them.

And once the whole procession reaches it's destination the defeated army is sold into slavery and the defeated leaders are publicly executed. This usually happened either by crucifixion or strangulation: both of those emphasize the helplessness of this once powerful leader.

Take a few minutes and watch the video below. This gives you an idea of what sort of imagery Paul and Timothy were using when they wrote 2 Cor. & Col. This is the imagery they wanted to conjure in the minds of their readers/listeners:

[warning: this is a little graphic]

So, I'm going to leave the application of this to you!

What is the significance of Paul/Timothy's use of triumph?

What does this say about what Jesus has done?

What other thoughts do you have that this brings to mind?

Love lifted me!

... or at least my Jeep!

In case you didn't know, the "stapes" is the smallest bone in the human body. I don't think that I can say "I don't have a mechanical bone in my body"; it's just that if I do have a mechanical bone it would be my stapes.

So in an act of true brotherly love my brother Darrell helped me (told me what to do and did at least half of the work himself) put a small lift on the my Jeep. It's just a small 2 1/2 inch body lift but I'm very happy with it.

For those of you who might care here is how it went:

In the front we swapped out my old "stock" coils...

... for some of Darrell's "used" but much sweeter coils. This gained us just under 3 inches.

In the back we inserted some 2 1/2 inch blocks just under the leaf springs:

Before

After

And here are the final before and after pics: (watch Kaleb's pom-pom to get an idea of the hight difference).

Thanks, Deebs. You're the best!