What Is The Gospel?---Tying It All Together
(See the first and second posts in this series.)
If the New Testament uses the word “gospel” in both a broad and a narrow sense, how are we to understand the relationship between those two senses? That’s the next question, and once we answer it, I think it will help us to be clearer in our own minds about some really important questions.
So how do the broad and narrow relate? In an earlier post, I argued that the broad sense of the gospel necessarily
includes the narrow. As I said earlier, To
proclaim the inauguration of the kingdom and the new creation and all the rest without
proclaiming how people can enter it---by repenting and being
forgiven of their sins through faith in Christ and his atoning death---is to
preach a non-Gospel.
But beyond that, how does the narrow sense relate to the broad sense? Is it merely a part of the broad, or something more? Is it central to it, peripheral to it, the heart of it, or something else? And for that matter, why are the New Testament writers willing to apply the word “gospel” to that particular promise and not to other particular promises that are included in the broad gospel? Why do we never see Paul saying, “And that’s my gospel: that humans can be reconciled to each other!”?
I think we can get at an answer to all those questions by realizing that the Gospel of the Cross (that is, the narrow sense of “gospel”) is not just any part of the Gospel of the Kingdom (that is, the broad sense of “gospel”).* Rather, the gospel of the cross is the gateway, the fountainhead, even the seed, so to speak, of the gospel of the kingdom. Read the whole NT, and you quickly realize that its univocal message is that a person cannot get to those broad blessings of the Kingdom except by being forgiven of sin through the death of Christ. That is the fountain from which all the rest springs.
That, I think, is why it’s perfectly appropriate for the biblical authors to call that fountainhead "The Gospel" even as they also call the whole package---including forgiveness, justification, resurrection, new creation and all the rest---"The Gospel." Because the broad blessings of the gospel are attained only by means of the narrow (atonement, forgiveness, faith and repentance), and because those blessings are attained infallibly by means of the narrow, it’s entirely appropriate for the New Testament writers to call that gateway/seed/fountainhead promise “The Gospel.”
It’s also perfectly appropriate for the NT to call that fountainhead “The Gospel” and at the same time not call any other particular blessing of the broader package "The Gospel." So we don't call human reconciliation "The Gospel." Nor do we even call the new heavens and new earth "The Gospel." But we do call forgiveness through atonement "The Gospel" because it is the fountainhead of and gateway to all the rest.
There are some important implications that flow from this.
First, it’s worth saying again: Those who argue that “the gospel” is the declaration of the kingdom are simply wrong. The gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom. It is (in the broad sense) the declaration of the kingdom together with the means of entering it.
Second, to say that the Gospel of the Cross (that is, the narrow) is somehow not the gospel, or less than the gospel, is wrong. So long as the question is, “What is the message a person must believe to be saved,” the gospel of the cross is the gospel. (See the first post in this series.) Jesus, Paul, and Peter say so.**
Third, to say that the Gospel of the Kingdom (that is, the broader, which includes the gospel of the cross) is somehow gospel-plus, or a distraction from the real gospel, is also wrong. So long as the question is “What is the whole good news of Christianity,” the gospel of the kingdom is not gospel-plus; it is the gospel. Jesus, Paul, and Peter say so.
Fourth, it is wrong to call a person a Christian simply
because they are doing good things and "following Jesus'
example." To be a Christian, to be a partaker of the blessings of
the Kingdom, requires one first to go through the gate—that is, to come to
Christ in faith and be forgiven of sin and atoned for. Bunyan tells the
story in Pilgrim's Progress about the characters Mr. Formalist and Mr.
Hypocrisy whom Christian meets on the path to the
Fifth, I believe it is wrong ever to say that non-Christians
are doing "kingdom work." A non-Christian working for human
reconciliation or justice is doing a good thing; but that is
Sixth, the ultimate goal of any mercy ministry---whether done by an individual Christian or a church---has to be to point the world back to the gate. There’s much that could be said here, but I think understanding all this rightly can provide a powerful missionary motive and a penetrating witness to the world. When you renovate a barber shop in the name of Jesus, for instance, you need to tell the owner (to put it sharply since I’m not actually talking to the guy right now), “Look, I’m doing this because I serve a God who cares about things like beauty and order and peace. In fact, the Bible says and I believe that God is one day going to recreate this world and inaugurate a kingdom where paint won’t peel and trees won’t die. But [and here we get to the point] I don’t think you’re going to be a part of that. Because of your sin. Unless you repent and believe in Christ.” And then you tell him the good news of the cross. If you just renovate the barber shop and proclaim the coming kingdom, you’ve messed up. The gospel of the kingdom is the declaration of the kingdom together with the means of getting into it.
Seventh, as I've argued before, I believe that many in the emergent church---for all their insistence about how astonishing and surprising their gospel is---have missed entirely what really is astonishing about the gospel. That Jesus is king and has inaugurated a kingdom of love and compassion is not really all that astonishing at all. Every Jew knew that was going to happen someday. What is truly astonishing about the gospel is that the Messianic King dies to save his people---that the divine Son of Man in Daniel, the Messiah, and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah turn out to be the same man. That, moreover, is ultimately how we tie together the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Cross. Jesus is not just King, but Crucified King. Next to that, what many in the emergent church are holding out as an astonishing gospel is not astonishing at all. It's just boring.
Eighth, everything we’ve said so far drives toward the conclusion that evangelistic, missiological, and pastoral emphasis in this age belongs on the gospel of the cross—on the fountainhead, the gateway of the broader gospel of the kingdom. That’s because all the rest is unattainable and indeed bad news unless we point people there. Not only so, but this is the age in which God’s overarching command to every human in the world is “Repent and believe.” There’s only one command that is actually included in the gospel itself (whether broad or narrow): Repent and believe. That is the primary obligation on human beings in this age, and therefore it must be our primary emphasis in our preaching, too.
*Astute readers will note that I’m testing out some new
jargon here. I’m not sold on it, and
would love your thoughts.
**Jesus very clearly preaches the Gospel of the Cross (in Mark 10:45, for instance) even if he doesn’t explicitly tie the word “gospel” to it in his recorded words. On a more general note, despite all the word-study stuff we’re doing here, we shouldn’t tie our definition of the gospel and our identification of it in the text too tightly to occurrences of the word “gospel.” Otherwise, we’d have to say that John never preaches it, for he never uses the word in all his NT writings.
Good post. Definitely the kind of post that deserves to be commented upon.
Posted by: Mike McKinley | Sep 24, 2008 4:09:12 PM
First, I must thank you for your careful thinking and your efforts in articulating your thoughts on this topic in this series of posts. I would certainly identify myself with the likes of 9Marks, T4G, The Gospel Coalition and others rather than any emergent movement, but I have been troubled by the polarization that has been taking place in some discussions of this topic.
I appreciate the gate metaphor from Bunyan, which of course was used first by Christ himself. However, if used alone, it can become impersonal-- think of tickets and turnstiles. I would want to emphasize the analogy of receiving or rejecting the King, with the cross being the means by which God can be just in offering amnesty to those who repent.
In brief:
1. Before Christ, there is the promise of a coming King who will bring a his glorious kingdom-- a truly new world order-- in which the wicked will be punished/banished and the righteous will know joy and peace.
2. The people of Israel clinged to these promises, but the prophets informed them that they too were in danger of coming under the punishment/banishment of the wicked if they did not also repent. (See Amos 5:18-24)
3. Thus, for John the Baptist (and later, Christ) to announce the arrival of the King and his kingdom was good news-- though it certainly would be bad news for those who persisted in their rebellion against the king. What should a rebel do? Repent, because the kingdom is near!
4. As you have put it so well above, the twist is that in order for the King to receive these traitors into his kingdom, the penalty for their treason must be paid, and it is indeed a capital crime. Yes, they've broken the King's laws (this is the dimension of sin we usually focus on), but it is also an expression of defiant opposition to God. At the cross, Jesus bears our punishment and propitiates God's just wrath agsinst those who will appeal to the Father's mercy on the basis of their faith in the Christ.
5. This is the reason that, for a person to truly receive the gospel, they have not only put their faith in the person and work of Christ, but they must also acknowledge him as Lord. It's not an additional step-- it's part and parcel of truly understanding who this Savior is and what he is doing.
6. Because of all this, we cannot preach a gospel that is divorced from these related issues, both individual (lordship, final judgment) and cosmic (destruction, renewal). Thus, matters such as discipleship (in principle, at least) and the new heavens and new earth are not The Gospel understood narrowly, but I don't think I've shared all the good news without them.
Thanks again, Greg.
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Sep 24, 2008 5:14:07 PM
W.E. Vine also distinguishes between 2 definitions for “gospel”...
"The Apostle uses it of two associated yet distinct things,
(a) of the basic facts of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1-3; (GG: See Acts)
(b) of the interpretation of these facts, e.g., Rom. 2:16; Gal. 1:7, 11; 2:2.
In (a) the gospel is viewed historically, in (b) doctrinally, with reference to the interpretation of the facts.” (Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
We might also distinguish it as:
1. The evangelistic gospel for the lost.
2. The edifying gospel for the Church.
For a helpful chart of the content of the apostles' evangelistic gospel in Acts see:
http://www.loveintruth.com/amf-docs/gpia-appendix.htm
Also, perhaps this distinction can shed some light on the controversial question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?" No, it's not an INHERENT/NECESSARY part of the historical facts of the gospel. Yes, it's part of the interpretation of the gospel.
Posted by: Greg Gibson | Sep 24, 2008 5:17:55 PM
Hats off to you guys for a good series and a constructive discussion in the comments.
Posted by: Greg MaGee | Sep 24, 2008 8:33:17 PM
Greg,
Very good post. Very helpful in many ways. I might only quibble with the way you have worded your first "implication": "Those who argue that 'the gospel' is the declaration of the kingdom are simply wrong. The gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom. It is (in the broad sense) the declaration of the kingdom together with the means of entering it." I understand what you mean here, and I agree with the substance of your point, but the Bible is able to say (and does indeed say in several places without further qualification) that the gospel is the declaration of the kingdom (see, e.g., Luke 4:43). Now, we understand that the cross (the gate) is part of the gospel of the kingdom (the Messiah must suffer) and must not be left out of our explanation of that gospel. But I don't think it will be helpful or biblical to say, as you have said, "The gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom." That is "simply wrong" if we are using biblical terminology. What you are really saying, I understand, is that "The gospel is not the declaration of a kingdom without a cross." Such would be a misunderstanding of the gospel of the kingdom. But that is different than saying "The gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom." The gospel is indeed the declaration of the kingdom (rightly understood). Agreed?
Kent
Posted by: Kent Capps | Sep 25, 2008 10:36:23 AM
Dear Greg
Thanks for your helpful articles. It is interesting in Acts that Luke uses this kind of language - for example in Acts 8 he describes Phillip's preaching as 'The Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus', and likewise in Acts 28 it is said of Paul that 'boldly and without hindrance he preached the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ' (v31). It seems to fit a twofold proclamation of broad-sweeping redemptive history (the Kingdom of God) and a more narrow how-to-enter the Kingdom (the Lord Jesus Christ - focussed on his death and resurrection).
Posted by: Derek Smith | Sep 25, 2008 12:24:55 PM
Greg,
Just another simple follow-up note. After reading all three posts more carefully, I'm pretty sure you'd be comfortable with my comments above. I can hear you saying about some of them, "I already said something like that in my post." Even still, I think we should be careful about saying, "The gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom," even if we are responding to those who misunderstand the true nature of the kingdom (i.e. it is one with a necessarily crucified King).
On a second note, after reading again, I wonder if you may be over-emphasizing the nature of the kingdom as a destination--a realm in which we partake of the blessings of the kingdom--when the New Testament also speaks of the kingdom as the dynamic reign of God by which he exerts his power to save and to heal through his Son (e.g., "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you"). So the kingdom is both God's ruling and saving power through Christ and a destination. I say this because I believe this is why the Bible is able to call the kingdom of God the gospel without further qualification. The kingdom, rightly understood, includes the cross-work of Jesus because the cross is God's exertion of saving (kingdom) power.
On a final note, I have regularly found it interesting that, in addition to Paul's equation of the gospel with the message of the cross (which you highlight so well), he also seems to equate the gospel with the message that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (2 Cor 4:5). He says that unbelievers are blinded to "the gospel of the glory of Christ" (4:4) and explains that "we proclaim . . . Jesus Christ as Lord [i.e., the gospel of the glory of Christ]." So, which is it? Christ crucified or Jesus Christ is Lord? The answer seems to be that these are really the same. There is no lordship without the cross (see Phil. 2--"Therefore God has highly exalted him . . . ."). I assume you agree with all this. I simply bring it up because I wonder (along with the commenter above) if we might, in reacting to the "kingdom-gospel" folks (who really misunderstand the nature of the kingdom), underdo the proper biblical balance or bifurcate the broad and narrow senses because of underemphasis of the former.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: Kent Capps | Sep 25, 2008 2:32:42 PM
Kent,
Thanks for your comments, brother. I'm not at all thinking of the kingdom as a destination. All that language about "gate" and "getting to" and "through" and "walls" and all the rest is meant logically, not geographically.
G
Posted by: Greg G | Sep 25, 2008 4:16:09 PM
Thanks for the response, Greg.
I'm sure I didn't communicate very clearly, but I wasn't really opposing thinking of the kingdom as a destination per se (which is why I simply used the words "over-emphasizing"). The Bible surely does think of it as a destination, even a geographical one (if it involves a new creation). I was simply wondering aloud that if we bear in mind the dynamic nature of Jesus' kingdom terminology, in addition to the destinational nature of it, it might help us understand better why kingdom terminology often sufficed as shorthand for the gospel. If the kingdom of God is God's reigning power exerted to make all things right (including and especially sin, guilt, and death), then the cross becomes central to the kingdom of God. In this sense, it seems a bit redundant to speak of the "kingdom of God together with the means of entering it." The kingdom, as God's dynamic, saving activity, incorporates "the means of entering" the kingdom. Our task, then, is not to say that the gospel is not the declaration of the kingdom (that would be to grant to some of the Emerging folks and others their misunderstanding of the kingdom), but to help people understand what the kingdom really is--God's power to overcome sin and death through his Son, to bring his people into fellowship with himself, and to make everything else in the universe right as well.
As I said before, I enjoyed your posts. I was helped much by your distinctions and your "fountainhead" thoughts. What a helpful corrective. Forgive me if I have overblown my minor quibble with the wording of your first implication. Blessings to you.
Kent
Posted by: Kent Capps | Sep 25, 2008 11:18:29 PM
Greg,
You wrote:
"Fifth, I believe it is wrong ever to say that non-Christians are doing "kingdom work." A non-Christian working for human reconciliation or justice is doing a good thing; but that is not Kingdom work because it is not done in the name of the King. C.S. Lewis was wrong; you can't do good things in the name of Tash and expect Aslan to be happy about it."
That's not how CS Lewis told the story. The man who had worshiped Tash did not "expect Aslan to be happy about it." In fact, when he saw Aslan, and realized Tash was a false god, and that Aslan was the true God, he thought that Aslan would be angry about it.
I don't think we are in a position to judge much how God looks upon the actions of those who do good, but not in his name. Perhaps you are right that we should not call it "kingdom work," but I think it is equally presumptuous to say that God is not happy with it. Certainly he would be displeased if it were, for example, being done out of a works-righteousness mentality, but we don't know this about the person's heart. Only God knows their hearts, and what measure of true repentance exists; I think we should leave it an open question as to whether it is possible for one to be serving the true God without realizing his true name.
Posted by: Phil | Oct 5, 2008 1:09:26 PM