Which Gospel?
Speaking of Scot McKnight, he published a post a few days ago in which he asks the question "Which gospel do you choose?" You can check it out here.
Like many others, Scot has been advocating recently for a "broader" gospel than what I have called "The Gospel of the Cross," and this post, I think, is in the same vein. Scot quotes two different statements of the Christian gospel, one by N.T. Wright and the other by an unnamed, unlinked, "slightly edited" someone. I think it's safe to say that Scot's hope is that we will all choose Wright's version of the gospel, rather than the other one.
My own opinion, written about here, here, and here, is actually that neither of the two options Scot lays out is a sufficient explanation of the biblical gospel. On the one hand, I think it's probably inaccurate to say that the gospel (broadly considered, which it sometimes is in the NT) doesn't include the proclamation of the kingdom, the promise of resurrection, the promise of Christ's return, and many other promises. But on the other hand, I also think that what McKnight quotes here from Wright is also woefully insufficient, and indeed not good news at all. Here's what he quotes from Wright:
1. In Jesus of Nazareth, specifically in his cross, the decisive victory has been won over all the powers of evil, including sin and death themselves.
2. In Jesus' resurrection the New Age has dawned, inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel's exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.
3. The crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel's Messiah, her representative king.
4. Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name every knee would bow.
Here are a few thoughts on why I think this "gospel" is terribly lacking:
First, there is no explanation at all of what Jesus' death on the cross actually did. Yes, Wright says that Jesus' death won the decisive victory over the powers of evil, but what does that actually mean? How did his death do that? I think the New Testament is much, much, much clearer about the significance of Jesus' death than that--and it includes that explanation in the proclamation of the good news.
Second, it's terribly confused as to whom all these wonderful things are for. On the one hand, it can easily leave the impression that everyone is included, regardless of their spiritual state. 'Good news! Jesus is "the true king of the world" and "every knee" will bow to him!' On the other hand, if you don't read it in a universalist fashion, it doesn't include anything about how a person takes advantage of all these wonderful things Jesus has done. In the New Testament, on the other hand, the proclamation of the gospel always includes the means by which one can enter. "The kingdom is at hand [full stop]," is never---not once---in the NT said to be the gospel. It is always something more like, "The kingdom is at hand; therefore repent and believe [that is, trust in the crucified and risen Jesus for salvation]."
Third, there's no indication that Jesus' death had any connection with the wrath of God against our sin. And yet the Bible really couldn't be clearer that: "He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed."
I won't rehash here in detail what I wrote in those earlier posts, but I think we can say it simply like this: In the NT, the good news is always the proclamation of forgiveness of sin through the substitutionary death of Jesus, and the call to repent to believe in him. Sometimes that's all the NT mentions as the "good news"; sometimes it also seems to zoom out to include in the good news all the promises that flow to those who are so forgiven. What the NT never holds out as the gospel, however, is the bare declaration that the kingdom has come apart from the means of entering it (faith in Christ's substitutionary death). Speaking biblically, the gospel is either Cross or Cross-and-Kingdom. But it is never Kingdom alone.
Thank you, Greg, for your thoughts on the Gospel in the NT. I have been so well-served by your previous series of posts and have made use of many insights gained from them in various teaching opportunities.
I taught the substance of your material this past weekend to a dear congregation and they were richly blessed. Thanks for being faithful to the truth and I thank God for His enabling you to pass it on so clearly for our edification.
Posted by: Mark R | Apr 6, 2009 5:00:59 PM
i'm assuming the first paragraph is supposed to have a link in it... could you provide it? thank you!
Posted by: Meredith M. | Apr 6, 2009 6:09:07 PM
I agree 100%, Greg, yet would you indulge me for a moment and allow me to play the devil's advocate?
In Paul's address at the Areopagus of Athens in Acts 17, he doesn't mention the cross or atonement. He talks about God as creator, men as sinful creatures in need of repentance because they face the Christ who will judge them, and Jesus, who is shown to be this messianic judge by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. So Jesus' death is mentioned, but not its nature or purpose.
We could surmise that he most likely had addressed this earlier in his stint in Athens (see verses 17-18, but even there the focus is on the resurrection), or that he would have included it if he hadn't been cut off (verse 32), but this is speculative.
Here’s the question: Is it possible to faithfully proclaim the gospel by calling people to acknowledge the authority of the God revealed in the Bible (and general revelation), their sin and the judgment they deserve, their need for mercy from the judge, and the identity of Jesus as the one and only king and judge and the one from whom they might receive mercy? Or to put it another way, can we trust in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins by grace alone through faith alone without understanding the means of atonement, at least initially? [That last little phrase is very important. There's just no way to ignore the cross and its meaning in the Scriptures, especially in Paul’s own writings. I hope that helps those who think I should be tarred and feathered for even playing around with this.]
It’s just something to think about...
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Apr 7, 2009 9:34:08 AM
Absolutely EXCELLENT post. Thanks for the sharp thinking here. Well said.
Posted by: David Anderson | Apr 7, 2009 10:23:56 AM
Thanks for this post. It seems that Wright et. al. isn't on the radar screen for many Baptists and I see few posts about this and similar issues.
Posted by: Chris Poe | Apr 7, 2009 6:48:12 PM
Nice article, Greg. Good biblical corrective.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Lamprecht | Apr 7, 2009 7:46:15 PM
I think it's extraordinarily ironic that those who are preaching a "kingdom" Gospel are forgetting the reaction of the Jews to a "Kingdom" Gospel: they were completely undone -- their response was, "what shall we do?!" because they had murdered the king and were guilty, so that when he comes again in judgment, they were doomed.
The "kingdom" Gospel is one in which Christ is the righteous and God-ordained judge of all men -- which is why the demand "repent and believe" makes any sense at all. Those who do not repent are already doomed, condemned. Those who believe shall never perish but have eternal life.
Great post -- great insight. Thanks for what you do here.
Posted by: Frank Turk | Apr 7, 2009 7:56:33 PM
Greg Gilbert: "[I] also think that what McKnight quotes here from Wright is also woefully insufficient, and indeed not good news at all."
On a previous occasion Professor Albert Mohler also found Bishop N.T. Wright woefully insufficient with regards to the essential core of the Gospel. You can find it here titled "Not All Christians Believe in the Resurrection of Christ?"
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Apr 8, 2009 10:23:55 AM
You say:
"The kingdom is at hand [full stop]," is never---not once---in the NT said to be the gospel. It is always something more like, "The kingdom is at hand; therefore repent and believe [that is, trust in the crucified and risen Jesus for salvation]."
I'm not quite sure how you can reconcile this statement you made with this from Isaiah 52:7--
"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion, "Your God reigns."
The book of Isaiah (especially 40-55) most certainly undergirds the entire gospel of Mark ("Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah"). And therefore your concern that Wright and McKnight could be going soft on Isaiah 53 is likely just a difference of method. The four points McKnight makes is essentially a narrative that subsumes the points you make.
A close reading of the New Testament will reveal that the language used for describing "gospel" is "Jesus is Lord". This makes sense in light of the fact that "gospel" in the Roman world meant "Caesar is Lord." I don't think McKnight and Wright would ever deny any of your concerns. McKnight's points just reflect the language and the narrative import that is present in the Old and New Testaments.
Posted by: Alan K | Apr 9, 2009 12:57:26 PM
Alan,
Thanks for your comment, but I think you're wrong on both counts.
First, the points McKnight (it's actually Wright) makes DO NOT subsume the points I make. At best, those points ASSUME the points I make (which I would argue is not good when the thing being assumed is the forgiveness of sin through Christ's death). At worst, they OMIT the points I make. Which of those is the case I leave to those making those points to clarify.
As to your second point, it's simply not the case that the language used to describe "gospel" is simply "Jesus is Lord." You're wrong about that. I'm not going to spell it out here, but I at least start looking at it in the second post linked above.
Thanks again, though.
Greg
Posted by: Greg G | Apr 10, 2009 8:08:15 PM
Greg,
The gospel I share with people is a cross-centered gospel that calls for repentance and faith. However, I've been thinking about something for a while.
You say, "In the NT, the good news is always the proclamation of forgiveness of sin through the substitutionary death of Jesus, and the call to repent to believe in him."
We're told in Luke 9:6, "Departing, they began going throughout the villages, proclaiming the gospel and healing everywhere."
Just nine chapters later we're told in Luke 18:31-34: "Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.' But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said."
If the gospel in the New Testament "is always the proclamation of forgiveness of sin through the substitutionary death of Jesus," why does Luke 18:34 say the disciples "understood none of these things"? And if they didn't understand it in Luke 18 (it was news to them then, so to speak), how could they have been proclaiming previously the very thing they were stunned to hear?
Like I say, I share a cross-centered gospel, but Luke 18 makes me wonder what exactly the disciples had been proclaiming? How do you understand Luke 18:34?
Posted by: Molly S | Apr 11, 2009 7:55:01 AM
Sorry, I should have included this in my previous comment. Also, if the disciples had been proclaiming the substitutionary death of Jesus, why did they go back to their fishing business after Jesus was crucified? Luke 24:20-21 also reflects this same dismay about Jesus' crucifixion.
Posted by: Molly S | Apr 11, 2009 8:03:21 AM