First of all, let me say to those few people out there who read this blog, the Grace Evangelical Society Conference in Texas was excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed the speakers and the fellowship and came home very encouraged to pursue the ideas I have had regarding church planting in our home area. I also thought that it is high time I got back to writing some things for the blog, and right now would like to continue at least a little bit more with the topic of fruit in the life of the believer.
I spent the last three posts (a long time ago) talking about the fact that “fruit,” defined as good works and/or godly character, is not automatic in the lives of believers. Nor should fruit be used as a tool for gaining assurance of eternal life. We can have assurance that we posses eternal life simply because of the promises the Lord Jesus has made to us, not because of anything we see or don’t see in our own imperfect lives. But now I would like to talk briefly about how fruit is produced in our lives.
Probably the most well-know passage dealing with fruit is Galatians 5:16-23, which contrasts the “works of the flesh” with the “fruit of the Spirit.” It is clear in verse 16 that the following “fruit of the Spirit” is produced in the lives of those who “walk in the Spirit,” rather than being produced automatically in all believers. So what does it mean to walk in the Spirit? I don’t pretend to have everything figured out about walking in the Spirit and how the Holy Spirit produces fruit in our lives, but it seems clear to me that a parallel passage to Galatians 5:16 is Romans 8:4-5, which uses almost identical language to the Galatians passage and talks about walking “according to the Spirit” rather than “according to the flesh.” In verse 5 specifically, more information on what this means is given when it says that those who live according to the flesh “set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Sprit, the things of the Spirit.” This tells us that which sphere one lives in is determined largely by where one’s mind is set. Unbelievers are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:8) and cannot leave that sphere as long as they are unregenerate, but believers have the choice to either set their minds on the things of the flesh or on the things of the Spirit. A believer who focuses his mind on God’s word and spiritual things will find himself more and more making the choice to live in obedience to God’s word as it is applied to his life by the indwelling Holy Spirit. On the other hand, a believer who sets his mind on fleshly, or sinful and worldly things, will find his life being dominated by the flesh, that part of him which desires to sin.
God has commanded each of us to walk in the Spirit, and it is vitally important that we do so. One way we can do that is to consciously choose to fill our minds with the things of the Spirit. I believe this refers primarily to meditating on God and His word, and how it applies to our lives. We who understand that the fruit of the Spirit is not automatically produced in the lives of all “true” believers should in no way let that make us lazy or unconcerned about seeing it produced in our lives. Rather, we should be the first to make a priority of walking in the Spirit, since we know that it is only as we do that, that we will grow and experience the fruit which God wants us to experience.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
FYI
FYI- For Y'alls'Info
I just wanted to let anyone who keeps up with this blog know that though I intend to keep up the discussion about fruit and whatever else comes up in the future, I am going to need to pause for a couple of weeks as I prepare for a workshop and plenary session at the GES conference. I want to try and make sure the time I have there is well used and is a blessing to those in attendance, and so have realized I need to make that a priority for the next couple of weeks until I am done getting the messages ready. And if you think of it, please pray that not only those two sessions, but the whole GES conference would be a time of learning and growing.
I look forward to continuing our discussions in a little while.
Ken
I just wanted to let anyone who keeps up with this blog know that though I intend to keep up the discussion about fruit and whatever else comes up in the future, I am going to need to pause for a couple of weeks as I prepare for a workshop and plenary session at the GES conference. I want to try and make sure the time I have there is well used and is a blessing to those in attendance, and so have realized I need to make that a priority for the next couple of weeks until I am done getting the messages ready. And if you think of it, please pray that not only those two sessions, but the whole GES conference would be a time of learning and growing.
I look forward to continuing our discussions in a little while.
Ken
Sunday, February 13, 2011
How Do You Know If It's Fruit?
In my last post, I discussed the fact that where Jesus spoke of being able to identify false prophets (not false believers) by their fruits, the context doesn’t point to fruit meaning actions at all, but rather to the words that these people speak. However, I do think that it is valid to refer to characteristics or changes in one’s life as fruit, since there are passages in the Bible which do use the word fruit in that way, such as Galatians 5:22-23, which refers to the fruit of the Spirit, or the things which the Spirit produces in the lives of those who live under His influence. With that in mind I want to discuss in this post a basic thought which I have had about fruit in the life of a believer. That thought is this: Many people believe that by looking at fruit in their lives, they can verify that they are children of God, but in reality, one can only know that positive things which he sees in his life are fruit produced by the Spirit of God if he already knows beyond a doubt that he is God’s child.
Think about this with me for a moment. If a young believer who used to have a problem with a particular sin shows progress in that area of his life, we look at that and call it fruit, and hopefully it is. At the same time, though, we also know that it is possible for an unregenerate person to make positive changes in his life. For instance, two individuals could both struggle with drinking, and could both get sober at the same time. In one of their lives, this change might be the result of him responding to the Holy Spirit, and in the other one’s life, it might be the result of his decision to get help and stop drinking, or because of his new devotion to a false religion. So the same type of change might be fruit in one person’s life, and not in the other’s. Surely this principal is true in my own life as well. Unless I know objectively, because of the promises in God’s word, that I have eternal life, no positive change in my life could possibly give me assurance, because I would never know for sure that the change was accomplished by God and not by my own efforts.
The teaching that fruit will always be produced in the lives of true believers is a feature of Calvinistic theology, and the same Calvinists who teach it will also say that it is possible for someone who is not truly saved to have the same visible signs in their lives and to think that they are produced by God, even though they aren't. So even the theological system which brought us the teaching that fruit leads to assurance shows that it is logically impossible to really gain assurance of salvation by looking at one’s works, or the “fruit” in his life.
How, then, can a person know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has eternal life? Simply by believing what the Lord Jesus has told us when He said, “Whoever believes in Me has eternal life.” I know that I have believed in Jesus, therefore I know that His promise applies to me. I have entrusted my eternal destiny to Him, and He has given me eternal life. When there is fruit in my life, it is evidence that I am responding to His work in my life, and when there is a lack of fruit, it shows that I am not responding properly to Him, but either way I rest my eternal destiny and my assurance of it simply on the promises in God’s word.
Think about this with me for a moment. If a young believer who used to have a problem with a particular sin shows progress in that area of his life, we look at that and call it fruit, and hopefully it is. At the same time, though, we also know that it is possible for an unregenerate person to make positive changes in his life. For instance, two individuals could both struggle with drinking, and could both get sober at the same time. In one of their lives, this change might be the result of him responding to the Holy Spirit, and in the other one’s life, it might be the result of his decision to get help and stop drinking, or because of his new devotion to a false religion. So the same type of change might be fruit in one person’s life, and not in the other’s. Surely this principal is true in my own life as well. Unless I know objectively, because of the promises in God’s word, that I have eternal life, no positive change in my life could possibly give me assurance, because I would never know for sure that the change was accomplished by God and not by my own efforts.
The teaching that fruit will always be produced in the lives of true believers is a feature of Calvinistic theology, and the same Calvinists who teach it will also say that it is possible for someone who is not truly saved to have the same visible signs in their lives and to think that they are produced by God, even though they aren't. So even the theological system which brought us the teaching that fruit leads to assurance shows that it is logically impossible to really gain assurance of salvation by looking at one’s works, or the “fruit” in his life.
How, then, can a person know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has eternal life? Simply by believing what the Lord Jesus has told us when He said, “Whoever believes in Me has eternal life.” I know that I have believed in Jesus, therefore I know that His promise applies to me. I have entrusted my eternal destiny to Him, and He has given me eternal life. When there is fruit in my life, it is evidence that I am responding to His work in my life, and when there is a lack of fruit, it shows that I am not responding properly to Him, but either way I rest my eternal destiny and my assurance of it simply on the promises in God’s word.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
You Will Know Them By Their Fruits
Here is a brief follow-up to one of the thoughts in my last post about faith and fruit:
Many Christians think that Jesus taught that we can tell whether people are truly believers or not by looking at their "fruit." Actually, this is not what Jesus said. Jesus said that false prophets, not false believers, can be told by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16). Also, in the context of Matthew 7, it is clear that fruits does not refer to good or bad deeds, because in verse 15 Jesus said that these false prophets would come in sheep's clothing. In order for that to be true, they must outwardly look like true prophets. This would primarily refer, not to their physical appearance, but to their actions.
Even using basic logic, it should be clear that a false prophet may live an outwardly moral life. The fruit by which false prophets may be identified is the fruit of their mouths, or what they teach. In fact, in the book of Luke, it is quite clear that this is what Jesus meant by referring to "fruits." In Luke 6:44 Jesus says that every tree is know by its fruit. Then in Luke 6:45 he interprets this figurative language by saying that what people say indicates what is in their hearts. So, a false prophet or false teacher can be identified, not by his outward morality or lack thereof, but by whether what he says lines up with God's word.
Jesus didn't talk about knowing true or false believers by their fruits at all, but even if we did want to apply what He said about false prophets to trying to ascertain whether someone is a believer, we would have to evaluate people's spiritual condition by what they say, not by whether or not we see good works in their lives. If a person can clearly state that he is going to spend eternity with God because he has believed in Jesus, there is no reason to question that, even if his life is lacking in some areas. On the other hand, if a person is unclear as to whether he will make it to heaven, or has his trust in anything besides Jesus to get him there, we may validly conclude him to be either unsaved or saved but subsequently confused, no matter how good of a life he lives.
More on faith and fruit in a while, in the meantime, any thoughts on this?
Many Christians think that Jesus taught that we can tell whether people are truly believers or not by looking at their "fruit." Actually, this is not what Jesus said. Jesus said that false prophets, not false believers, can be told by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16). Also, in the context of Matthew 7, it is clear that fruits does not refer to good or bad deeds, because in verse 15 Jesus said that these false prophets would come in sheep's clothing. In order for that to be true, they must outwardly look like true prophets. This would primarily refer, not to their physical appearance, but to their actions.
Even using basic logic, it should be clear that a false prophet may live an outwardly moral life. The fruit by which false prophets may be identified is the fruit of their mouths, or what they teach. In fact, in the book of Luke, it is quite clear that this is what Jesus meant by referring to "fruits." In Luke 6:44 Jesus says that every tree is know by its fruit. Then in Luke 6:45 he interprets this figurative language by saying that what people say indicates what is in their hearts. So, a false prophet or false teacher can be identified, not by his outward morality or lack thereof, but by whether what he says lines up with God's word.
Jesus didn't talk about knowing true or false believers by their fruits at all, but even if we did want to apply what He said about false prophets to trying to ascertain whether someone is a believer, we would have to evaluate people's spiritual condition by what they say, not by whether or not we see good works in their lives. If a person can clearly state that he is going to spend eternity with God because he has believed in Jesus, there is no reason to question that, even if his life is lacking in some areas. On the other hand, if a person is unclear as to whether he will make it to heaven, or has his trust in anything besides Jesus to get him there, we may validly conclude him to be either unsaved or saved but subsequently confused, no matter how good of a life he lives.
More on faith and fruit in a while, in the meantime, any thoughts on this?
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Faith, Fruit and Fad Diets
Being that it is early in the New Year, many people out there have bought diet books and are a few days into a new diet program. I myself have, in the past, followed a couple of different diet plans, sometimes to lose a little weight myself or to try and gain more energy, other times to be a “diet buddy” for my wife if she was on one (By the way, my wife tells me that a skinny spouse does not make the best dieting buddy). Not only have I been on a few diets, I’ve read a few diet books, and one thing I’ve noticed is that all of them seem to promise, not only weight loss, but also improved energy levels and a greater quality of life in general. Some of them even go into great detail about how much energy and hunger, or lack thereof, you should be experiencing at each stage of the diet. Of course, the problem is, not every diet plan delivers what it promises. If I am following a diet program and it says I should be feeling unbounded energy, and I am not, what can I conclude? Normally, I have concluded that the diet in question made greater claims for itself than were realistic. In other words, I decided that particular diet didn’t work.
Unfortunately, many people understand the Bible to be making claims much like some diet books. Their understanding of the fact that the Bible says that all who are in Christ are new creatures and of what Jesus meant when He said “You will know them by their fruits” is that if you have truly believed, a certain amount of “fruit” in your life is guaranteed. Now, I don’t think that the Bible actually teaches that fruit is inevitable in the lives of every believer, but I know that many people do. The problem is, what happens when it doesn’t work? What happens to the person who has been told that if he will only believe in Jesus or “give his life to Jesus,” or whatever the case may be, he will no longer be able to habitually sin but will have the fruit of the Spirit in his life, but then who does continue to have problems with sin or doesn’t see the fruit of the Spirit in his life? Unless that person studies the Bible and concludes that what he has been taught is incorrect, he only has two options as far as I can see. One option is to conclude, like with a diet program that doesn’t deliver all that it claims, that the Bible doesn’t work. The other is to conclude that he hasn’t really been following the program correctly. Maybe he didn’t really believe in the right way. Maybe it was only “head faith” and not heart faith. Either way, this person will be plagued with uncertainty, either about the reliability of the Bible, or about whether or not he is really saved.
The reality is, there are many people who have believed in Jesus but who don’t evidence the fruit of the Spirit. There are also many regenerate people, in fact I believe all of them, who still struggle with sin. Many, indeed, sin often enough that their sin might be called “habitual.” However, I don’t believe this runs counter to what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible is not like a diet program that doesn’t live up to its claims, it is just that many people misunderstand what it says in this area of fruit. I believe that the Bible teaches that the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) is produced only when we walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:18), and not that all believers do that. When Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16), he was speaking of identifying false teachers, not true or false believers. Incidentally, I believe He was talking about identifying them by what they say, not necessarily by how they act, but more on that later. I intended to put this post out there to generate some thought, and will try to follow it up later with some thoughts about specific verses dealing with fruit and whether it is inevitable in the life of every believer.
Unfortunately, many people understand the Bible to be making claims much like some diet books. Their understanding of the fact that the Bible says that all who are in Christ are new creatures and of what Jesus meant when He said “You will know them by their fruits” is that if you have truly believed, a certain amount of “fruit” in your life is guaranteed. Now, I don’t think that the Bible actually teaches that fruit is inevitable in the lives of every believer, but I know that many people do. The problem is, what happens when it doesn’t work? What happens to the person who has been told that if he will only believe in Jesus or “give his life to Jesus,” or whatever the case may be, he will no longer be able to habitually sin but will have the fruit of the Spirit in his life, but then who does continue to have problems with sin or doesn’t see the fruit of the Spirit in his life? Unless that person studies the Bible and concludes that what he has been taught is incorrect, he only has two options as far as I can see. One option is to conclude, like with a diet program that doesn’t deliver all that it claims, that the Bible doesn’t work. The other is to conclude that he hasn’t really been following the program correctly. Maybe he didn’t really believe in the right way. Maybe it was only “head faith” and not heart faith. Either way, this person will be plagued with uncertainty, either about the reliability of the Bible, or about whether or not he is really saved.
The reality is, there are many people who have believed in Jesus but who don’t evidence the fruit of the Spirit. There are also many regenerate people, in fact I believe all of them, who still struggle with sin. Many, indeed, sin often enough that their sin might be called “habitual.” However, I don’t believe this runs counter to what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible is not like a diet program that doesn’t live up to its claims, it is just that many people misunderstand what it says in this area of fruit. I believe that the Bible teaches that the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) is produced only when we walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:18), and not that all believers do that. When Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16), he was speaking of identifying false teachers, not true or false believers. Incidentally, I believe He was talking about identifying them by what they say, not necessarily by how they act, but more on that later. I intended to put this post out there to generate some thought, and will try to follow it up later with some thoughts about specific verses dealing with fruit and whether it is inevitable in the life of every believer.
Monday, December 20, 2010
A Resource Tip About E-sword
I wanted to take a break today from the type of articles I’ve been posting and just post a tip about the E-sword program, in case anyone reading this blog isn’t aware of the program and its features. E-sword is a free Bible study program with purchasable add-on translations, commentaries and dictionaries. Even with just the free tools, though, it is a very helpful program and the best one I know of that you can download for free. When I was doing translation work, I had a couple of fancier programs available to me, but they were only for people working directly in Bible translation, so I don’t have access to them anymore. Even though E-sword may not be as fancy, it has some great features. I know there are also some good study tools available online, but I like being able to use the tools whether I am online or not, and being able to save notes to my computer.
Basically, E-sword has one window for Bibles, one for commentaries or your own notes, and one for dictionaries. Within the Bible window you can toggle between translations, put up to four translations parallel with each other, or compare one verse between all of them. Included in the free resources is the KJV with Strong’s numbers. Clicking on the Strong’s number takes you immediately to the entry for the word in Strong’s or in Thayer’s Lexicon, which is also a free resource. You can perform searches based on words, phrases, or the Strong’s numbers. For those who know some Greek, there are also a few different Greek texts available for free, including a Majority Text (Robinson Pierpont) with Strong’s numbers on all the words. There are also free translations available in several other languages besides English.
I have really enjoyed all these features, but have especially appreciated the study notes tab in the commentary window, which allows me to make notes on any verse and keeps them linked to that verse. There is also a topic notes tab that allows you to make notes on a topic, rather than the notes being linked to one verse. Most of the articles I have posted on this blog have been written in the topic notes feature, which has allowed my to type my notes in one window, while looking at the scriptures in another window.
Adding a purchasable Bible translation, like the NKJV or NIV, costs between $15 and $20 per translation, and there are also commentaries like the Bible Knowledge Commentary or J. Vernon McGee’s “Through the Bible” notes available for purchase, and some dictionaries like Vine’s. The neat thing about the commentaries is that they stay linked with whatever verse you click on in the Bible window.
E-sword has been a big help to me in my Bible study, and I thought I should pass on the tip for anyone else who might not be aware of it. If you are interested in downloading it, go to E-sword.net and then go to the “downloads” bar. You first have to download the basic program, then you can download each feature that you want to use. The free ones download immediately, and the purchasable ones take you to another site where you can buy them and then download them. Maybe everyone already knew about this, but I hope it’s a help to someone.
Basically, E-sword has one window for Bibles, one for commentaries or your own notes, and one for dictionaries. Within the Bible window you can toggle between translations, put up to four translations parallel with each other, or compare one verse between all of them. Included in the free resources is the KJV with Strong’s numbers. Clicking on the Strong’s number takes you immediately to the entry for the word in Strong’s or in Thayer’s Lexicon, which is also a free resource. You can perform searches based on words, phrases, or the Strong’s numbers. For those who know some Greek, there are also a few different Greek texts available for free, including a Majority Text (Robinson Pierpont) with Strong’s numbers on all the words. There are also free translations available in several other languages besides English.
I have really enjoyed all these features, but have especially appreciated the study notes tab in the commentary window, which allows me to make notes on any verse and keeps them linked to that verse. There is also a topic notes tab that allows you to make notes on a topic, rather than the notes being linked to one verse. Most of the articles I have posted on this blog have been written in the topic notes feature, which has allowed my to type my notes in one window, while looking at the scriptures in another window.
Adding a purchasable Bible translation, like the NKJV or NIV, costs between $15 and $20 per translation, and there are also commentaries like the Bible Knowledge Commentary or J. Vernon McGee’s “Through the Bible” notes available for purchase, and some dictionaries like Vine’s. The neat thing about the commentaries is that they stay linked with whatever verse you click on in the Bible window.
E-sword has been a big help to me in my Bible study, and I thought I should pass on the tip for anyone else who might not be aware of it. If you are interested in downloading it, go to E-sword.net and then go to the “downloads” bar. You first have to download the basic program, then you can download each feature that you want to use. The free ones download immediately, and the purchasable ones take you to another site where you can buy them and then download them. Maybe everyone already knew about this, but I hope it’s a help to someone.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)