Sunday, November 28, 2010

The Gospel and Justification

Hi all,what follows are some notes I put together to send to Diane as we were discussing whether the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel refer to two different things, and whether the word "gospel" is used to refer to the preaching of eternal life/justification. Specifically, we were discussing the use of the terms in Acts and the gospels. It is basically a follow-up to what I have previously written on the gospel and the gospel of the kingdom, with a little bit more about what has led me to my conclusions. I thought maybe it would be profitable to put it on the blog for anyone else out there who is interested in the discussion. So, for any who are interested, here it is-

I have put together the following notes to discuss two questions: First, does the word “gospel” include justification truths, or only truths for Christian growth? I understand that the word gospel does not only refer to justification, but it is my contention that it is a broad term which does include truths about justification. Second, is the Gospel of the Kingdom different than the gospel? Does it refer only to the national reception of the kingdom by Israel, or to a broad spectrum of truths about the kingdom, including individual entrance by faith?

Following are some cases where I believe it is clear that the word “gospel” is being used to refer to justification.
- Ephesians 1:13- “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise…” Even if the word "trusted" is taken out of this verse, as it is not in the Greek, it clearly refers to a chain of events in which the Ephesians heard the "gospel of their salvation," believed in Christ, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit. So, in this case, the gospel has to at least include the initial justification truths which they heard. I realize the word gospel does not appear alone here, but in the phrase, "gospel of your salvation." Still, it seems like a clear example of euangelion (the noun for gospel) being used to refer to justification truths. I also recognize that "salvation" could theoretically not be referring to justification in this context, but since the response to the hearing is believing and being sealed with the Spirit, it seems clear that it is referring to justification.

- Galatians 1:8-9- Paul uses the word "gospel" here and elsewhere in the book to refer to the message which he had taught and was trying to defend. In the context (see especially 2:16), it is clear that the primary truth he was writing to defend was the truth of justification by faith in Jesus.

- 1 Corinthians 4:15- ...for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
- This seems to clearly label the truths which led to the Corinthians believers being born again as "the gospel."

So, though Paul obviously used the word gospel in a much broader sense than only to refer to truths leading to justification, it seems clear to me that he did use the word to include the teaching of justification by faith.

Now, what about the book of Acts?
- In Acts, Luke mostly uses the verb form, euangelizo, rather than the noun. In the book of Luke, he only used the verb, never the noun. The verb is often translated simply as "preached" in English, but it is a closely related word and should be considered. As far as the noun goes, in Acts 15:7, Luke records Peter using the noun form "gospel" to refer back to the message which he preached to Cornelius and his family. This was a justification message, and the context in Acts 15 is also dealing with the Gentiles being justified by faith alone. So, here is at least one place where Luke used the noun to refer to justification truths. Of course, we know that Luke was a disciple of Paul, so it is to be expected that he would use terminology with the same meanings as his mentor, and it seems clear to me that Paul used the word broadly, to include either justification or sanctification truths, or both, depending on the context.

If we expand our look at the book of Acts to include the verb form, there are also some cases where it seems to clearly refer to preaching justification/eternal life through faith in Jesus. For example:
- Acts 5:42- "They did not cease teaching and preaching (euangelizo) Jesus as the Christ." Preaching Jesus as the Christ biblically has to mean telling people the good news (gospel) that He is the one who gives eternal life to all who believe in Him.
- Acts 8:35- "Philip...preached (euangelizo) Jesus to him." This preaching resulted in the Ethiopian eunuch believing in Jesus and being baptized., so again, must refer to preaching justification by faith.

So, here is my chain of logic: Paul used the word gospel to include either or both justification and sanctification truths. Luke, a disciple of Paul, also used it that way, at least when he wrote the book of Acts. When Luke used either the noun or verb form of the word in Acts, he gave no indication that it meant something different than the verb had meant in his first book. So, this implies to me that among the churches, the word "gospel" was a known term that didn't need explanation, and was used to include both justification and sanctification truths. Therefore it would have been understood that way in verses like Luke 20:1, where it says that Jesus "preached the gospel" in the temple.

Gospel in the synoptics-
Though there are no verses in the synoptics which clearly use the word gospel to refer to justification, there are a few places, even in Matthew and Mark, where it seems to be used more broadly than what dispensationalists have thought of as the gospel of the kingdom.

- Matthew 26:13 and Mark 14:9 both say "wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." The fact that Jesus said "this gospel," seems to imply that the same "gospel" His disciples had heard Him preach would be preached worldwide. Therefore, even Matthew seems to be using the word here in a broader sense than simply "the kingdom is available to Israel if they repent and believe in the Messiah." He is referring to the story of Jesus being told worldwide.

- Mark 16:15- Jesus commissioned the disciples to "preach the gospel" in the whole world. Again, worldwide proclamation implies a message broader than simply that the kingdom was available to Israel. And we know that what the apostles did in response to this commission was to preach the whole story about Jesus, starting with justification by faith in Him.

- If you test the hypothesis that the word "gospel" only refers to sanctification truths, or that in the synoptics it only refers to the good news that the kingdom was available to Israel as a nation, there are many places that don't seem to fit. On the other hand, if you test the hypothesis that "the gospel" refers to the whole story of Jesus, with one or another aspect of it sometimes more to the forefront, I believe it fits in every case.

What about "the gospel of the kingdom," specifically?
First of all, in the book of Acts, preaching the kingdom and preaching about Jesus seem to be used interchangeably, or at least in the same context, which indicates to me that terminology such as "the gospel of the kingdom," (though it is not specifically used in Acts) or "preaching the kingdom" were being used in a broad sense. For example:
- Acts 8:12- Philip "preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," resulting in people believing and being baptized. The word "preached" here is euangelizo, so this could be translated as "preached the good news of the things concerning the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ." Admittedly, this could have been two different things he was preaching about, but even so, at least part of what Philip was proclaiming to non-Jewish (Samaritan) people in an initial message which resulted in faith was referred to as "things concerning the kingdom of God." This is very similar terminology to "gospel of the kingdom" being used by a writer of one of the synoptic gospels, in a way that is probably much more broad than simply referring to the nation of Israel potentially receiving the kingdom, since it was being preached to non-Jews in what we would call an “evangelistic” message.

- Acts 19:8- Paul's preaching in the synagogue for three months is called "reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God." The context is Paul preaching to unsaved people (Jews and some Gentiles), many of whom became hardened and "did not believe," so it seems like this terminology must be broad enough to cover truths regarding individual entrance into God's kingdom (and justification) by faith in Christ.

- Acts 20:25-
Paul here refers to his ministry among the Ephesians as "preaching the kingdom of God." If preaching the kingdom in the gospels referred only to announcing the national aspects of the kingdom to Israel, it would seem strange for Paul to then use the same terminology to refer to his teaching to the church in this dispensation. If, however, this term is broad enough to also cover individual entrance into the kingdom (like John chapter 3) and rewards in the kingdom, then it would make sense for Paul's teaching to be called "preaching the kingdom of God."

- Acts 28:23- In Paul's preaching to the Jews in Rome, testifying of the kingdom of God and persuading them concerning Jesus seem to be parallel thoughts.

I realize that the specific phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is not used in any of these cases, but I believe they do show that teaching about the kingdom was seen in a broad sense that would have included not only the national aspects of the kingdom, but also individual entrance by faith and individual reward based on faithfulness. If terminology like this was being used that broadly in the book of Acts, it seems likely that it was also being used broadly by the writers of the gospels, who were writing for the church.

The Parable of the Sower-
- As I said before, this was the clincher for me. Restating what I said previously in my brief article, in Matthew 13:19, Jesus is recorded as saying that the seed sown represents "the word of the kingdom." Then in Luke 8:12, Jesus says that the seed which falls by the wayside represents those who hear the word, but the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. So, by comparing these two records of the one parable, we can see that Jesus Himself indicated that "the word of the kingdom" included truths which could be believed resulting in salvation. The whole context of the seed springing up also indicates that this "salvation" refers to justification. So this indicates to me that preaching the kingdom included, but was obviously not limited to, information about how someone could enter the kingdom by being born again.

The other argument I made in my article, which I do think bears some weight, is the fact that we know from the gospel of John that Jesus did preach the message of eternal life broadly throughout Israel. We know that, first of all because some of the recorded instances in John were given in public messages, and secondly because throughout the book of John we see that many people believed in Jesus, even when the specific message that was preached to them is not recorded. So, when Jesus traveled around teaching, He must have taught about eternal life and/or justification by faith in Him. That is the only way people could have believed in Him in the biblical sense. Therefore, when the synoptic gospels say that He went around "preaching the gospel of the kingdom," it either has to refer to only part of what Jesus went around preaching, in which case the synoptic gospels would be virtually ignoring the fact that Jesus taught about eternal life, or it has to be a broad enough term to cover the message of eternal life as well and other truths. I think the other uses of similar terminology which I have pointed out make it clear that the second option was actually the case.

If my conclusions are correct, I think it helps make more sense of the synoptic gospels, because it would mean that they at least make broad reference to Jesus preaching eternal life. With my previous understanding, I had to assume that Matthew, Mark and Luke chose to virtually ignore that aspect of Jesus’ teaching. It also makes sense of the fact that Jesus indicated that the “gospel of the kingdom” will be preached in all the world during the tribulation (Matthew 24:14). This would seem strange if the terminology only referred to the national aspects of the kingdom, but not if it was a broad term which included any preaching about the kingdom.

17 comments:

  1. Hi Ken, more thoughts
    First of all I want to say is that "Knowing God" is always at the core of the Gospel, and we know that to know God is eternal life (John 17:3).


    I believe a KEY to understanding "The Gospel of The Kingdom" that Jesus was preaching to "Israel" telling them that it was at hand was "The Acceptable Year of The Lord~!"

    Israel was God's servant (Lev 25:42,54-55), and the Year of Jubilee had come to set the captives free (Luke 4:18,19). They had come into bondage not only to Rome but to sin (Luke 1:67-79). So the salvation that was being proclaimed came by way of "forgiveness of sins," (Luke 1:77). That is why they were being called to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 10:5-7; 15:24). It was said that the "whole land" was going out to John the baptist to be baptised, (Mark 1:4,5,15) but they were still rejecting their King. Jesus was the rightful heir to Davids throne, and would have set up His Kingdom if they would have known "their time" (Luke 19:41,42,44). That would have meant they would not only have been in harmony with their God through the forgiveness of sins, but would have believed on their anointed King who was the Christ for eternal life. Jesus would have been glorified, and poured out His Spirit upon His servants as a nation of Priests to the world declaring peace to all men. A throne of righteousness would have been established as will be in the Millennial Kingdom where the law would have been written in their hearts and minds establishing the new covenant (Jer 31:31-36). Their sins would have been forgiven, and no one would say "know the Lord" because they would have all known Him. The nations would have come up to Jerusalem, and living water would have flowed freely. But, they did not receive their King so His kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom where righteousness reigns in the One New Man. This is a new creation in Christ where the world has been reconciled through Israel's disobedience for the purpose of making them jealous that some may be saved (Rom 11:11-36). Oh the mercy of God, Israel is an enemy for the gospels sake that mercy has come to the Gentiles through their disobedience.
    The salvation that Paul was offering was "Christ crucified" where there was neither Jew or Gentile but One new man "in Christ." This salvation was more than knowing God which was to have everlasting life but was a salvation that was the power of God through resurrection passing out of the sphere of the law to live unto God in the One New Man.
    This is the gospel Paul preached which was the salvation of God (Acts 28:23,24,28,31). It was entered into by faith alone the moment a person believed that Jesus was the Christ. This salvation was only realized after Jesus death and resurrection by the promise of the Spirit being given to the Seed of Abraham (Gal 1:6,7; 2:16; 3:8,14-29). It was only then that the Gentiles could be reconciled in One body through the cross (Rom 11:15; 2 Cor 5:19). Justification by faith alone was the foundation of this salvation (Gal 2:16) which was first promised to Abraham but the blessings (New Covenant partakers, Holy Spirit) were not granted to the Gentiles until after reconciliation of the world to God had been completed. Now the Gentiles have become partakers with the Jews of the promises that are all "in Christ." By believing in Christ (John 20:31) is how they receive the reconciliation, when they do they are a child of Abraham.

    ReplyDelete
  2. footnote: Better promises needed a better covenant but without the death of the testator a testament cannot be put in force. A better sacrifice was needed for the heavenly Holy of Holies than the earthly pattern. The disciples proclaimed Jesus death, and resurrection from the house tops. For the blessings had come to the Gentiles who were grafted into the root being partakers of Israel's New Covenant to bring Israel to jealousy that some may be saved.

    Main point concerning the gospel: Christ crucified, and the reconciliation of the world (Gentiles) showing that believing Gentiles not only had eternal life which wasn't anything new (Rahab) but they were now able to receive the blessings of Abraham without being a prostolite which would make Israel jealous. So the salvation of God that was being offered by Paul's gospel was much more than eternal life but was being saved by Christ's risen life. The power of Paul's gospel was resurrection power to live the new life (Mark 16:15,16; 1 Cor 1:18-23).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do you all have a copy of Jeremy Myers' paper on "The Gospel is more than Faith Alone in Christ Alone?" I will post it on my server if you don't. His workshop was good too. He has a chart in his paper where he shows every use of the word Gospel in the NT along with the 50+ ways it is used.

    Also, did you hear the beginning of the Q&A panel in 2005 at the S. Cal. Regional GES Conference, where the first question was when Zane was asked what the Gospel of the Kingdom was? Zane initially avoided the issue of the Gospel of the Kingdom, and commented on the word "Gospel" today. Bob later asked him to comment on the Gospel of the Kingdom.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwZb3txZ_S0

    ReplyDelete
  4. I went ahead and posted them:

    The mp3 from the 2007 GES Conference
    http://colsem.palcs.org/~dreiher/jmyers_gospel.mp3

    The paper
    http://colsem.palcs.org/~dreiher/jmyers_gospel.doc

    - Don

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Alvin, for your thoughts. I agree with what you wrote. We often don't think about what a blessing it is to be one body in Christ, Jews and Gentiles together and united with Him. I was focussing on a more limited topic in what I wrote, but those are good thoughts.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Don, for the links. I have read Jeremy's paper on the gospel, but don't currently have a copy of it. I'll get a copy of it and also look at the video you gave a link to. Sounds interesting. This study I did was actually a result of Diane asking me if I agreed with what Jeremy wrote in his paper regarding the gospel of the kingdom. She sent me just that part as an excerpt. His perspective was that the gospel of the kingdom referred only to the national reception of the kingdom, which I told Diane I didn't agree with and then did this study.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Don,

    I had trouble with the internet the other day and couldn't watch the video you mentioned, but just watched it today. Zane put it very succinctly. I didn't know that he took the same view of the gospel of the kingdom that I have been talking about, that it included the truth of eternal life through faith in Messiah, but it's always cool to have an absolutely brilliant person back up your views.

    To anyone else who looks at the comments here, by all means go and watch that video. Thanks Don for posting it.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Ken,

    I watched the video of Zane the other day and started to tell you that his view was exactly the same as yours. I was very excited about that. But then I thought that you probably already knew what his view was. So you didn't know? Amazing! The fact that both of you came to the same understanding independently says a lot. So cool!

    God bless you as you continue to study His word! My thanks to Don for posting that video as well! Zane made several excellent comments. It's a video well worth watching more than once.

    Gary

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Ken,

    I, too, feel like Gary on this one..... So cool that you came to the same conclusion that Zane did without learning it from him. That is significant. I've been studying all these articles here that you've posted, plus everything you've written to me, and plan on listening to these videos that Don has posted. It's just a matter of finding the time, and I can't wait~!!! I'm very grateful to him, too. God sure has blessed me with good teaching~!!!

    Thanks so much for having this blog. I'm learning little by little, and you're just one more teacher that God has brought across my path to teach me as I slowly and carefully examine the biblical data. God is always so good to me~!!!

    Diane
    :-)
    P.S. Alvin and Gary are two blogging friends who have encouraged me MUCH along my journey~! I'm thankful for those friends too.
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Ken,

    I just wanted you to know that I'm using ALL of your articles in my Ladies Discipleship Class BEFORE going verse by verse through the gospel of Matthew. I thought understanding these truths first would help us all understand Matthew better.

    Your blog is a wonderful help. Thank you for it.

    Diane
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. HAPPY BIRTHDAY KEN 12-17-10

    You're one of God's blessings to all of us out here in Blog-Land~!!!
    Thanking God for you~!!!

    Diane (for Dale, too)
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hope Your Having A Happy Birthday~!!!!!!!!!

    From Bad an Ugly Gezzer . . . .heeeeeheeeeee

    ReplyDelete
  13. Happy Birthday Ken!!!

    -----------------------

    Yaaaah...dat be rite...Geezer be Ugly's last name... an he be a ornery Ugly Geezer... ...even da mule he ride tink he ornery... da mule try ta buck Ugly out da saddle cuz da Geezer wanna argy bout schogarly wuids as soon as he mount da po critter... den Ugly git mad cuz da bean of da mule win da wuid argyment...

    Heeeheeeeeeee!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now Bad yah know I'm sweet on Ruthy, and treat her just like I do my own wife . . . . Im a kind ole geezer dats still learnin ta spell dem scholary wuirds . . . .but you be anuder story of one dat dont know when ta quit dats why da buzzards ur always circling yur house waitin fer you ta drop at anytime of onrynus . . . . dat right . . . .ole Ugly was jus tryin ta do Bad a favor in given a birthday greeting to dat young whippersnaper Ken when Bad came in wid his bad manners . . . . .heeeeeheeeeeee

    St. Ugly of da High Hills . . . .heeeeehaaaaaw getty-up sweety-pie

    ReplyDelete
  15. I answered back to Don on the thread below this one, just some thoughts:)

    ReplyDelete
  16. We need to give the whole council of God to people. Even though Jesus on the cross took away the sin of the world, and therefore has removed the sin barrier between God and man there is still a personal barrier. Man is not forgiven even though all his sins have been paid for (see-->John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 2:2). That is where the need to warn everyone just as Paul did night and day with tears. Paul could testify that he was innocent of the blood of all men by warning them of a coming judgment (see-->Acts 20:26). Jesus resurrection from the dead was proof of a coming judgment day, in which Jesus who God raised from the dead would be the judge of the living and the dead (see-->Ezekiel 3:17-21; Acts10:36-43;17:30,31; 20:21,26-27).
    All those in hell will be unforgiven, but that is not the reason for their eternal condemnation. Neither is sin the reason. The reason is because they do not have life. Other words their name is not found written in the book of life (see-->Rev 20:15; John 16:9).
    For those who refuse to take of the water of life freely, they need to be warned of the consequences of not believing in Jesus for eternal life. For Jesus Himself in probably the most beloved passages in the Bible gives a warning to those who do not believe. That the one who is judged already is because he has not believed in the only begotten Son of God (see-->John 3:15-19).
    But with the woman at the well there is no such warning of judgement, but is all about the giving and receiving of a gift. As are ALL the living water passages. They are an invitation to take of the water of life freely. And the living water content has not changed but is the gift and the giver. The one who drinks (believes) will never thirst. The life is in Jesus name, to believe in Him as the Christ is to know you will never thirst again (see--> Isa 55:1; John 4:7,10,13-14,25-26; Rev 21:6; 22:17). To know God is eternal life, and if you know the Son you know the Father who gave Him words of life (see-->John 17:3; 8:19; 12:49,50).

    alvin:)

    ReplyDelete
  17. This may be duh? But after reading Zanes little book so many times this came to me:

    The one true Gospel is concerning the salvation of man, and the basic element is eternal life. Man is dead and needs to be made alive.

    alvin:)

    ReplyDelete