For clarity sake, I think it would be a good time to give a more clear and expounded version of my first ‘gospel’ post -seeing that I wrote the first one in about 10- 15 seconds while I was reading through Revelation 14. I think there is a level of misunderstanding that surrounds this word that I would now like to address it. To say that the truth of Jesus is the gospel is correct in one sense while in another it is a bit too simplistic. It is based on the presupposition that ‘our’, ‘mine’ or ‘their’ concept of Jesus is the correct or true version. We only need to talk about the The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) or the Jesus Seminar to realize that there is as much confusion about the person of Jesus. Therefore it is important that we realize this confusion and bravely seek to understand and know the true Jesus revealed in the Word asking the pertinent questions along the way
The second misunderstanding or concern over the gospel as ‘Jesus is Lord’ is the view that it undermines the soteriological basis of the gospel. There is much to say about this, but it will suffice to say that this is at once an overreaction and a very telling reality. The reason for the confusion within the church over ‘what is the gospel’ is largely because we are trying to give an answer to what we perceive to be the ultimate question, namely the question of ‘how is a sinner saved’. In that I mean, most are concerned with what has to happen in order for a sinner to perceive their rebellion against God and how he restored to right relation to Him. This question is good and needed, but I think the basis and paradigm we use for raising this question is off target. It is in fact not the ultimate question nor warrants the ultimate answer, rather it is a sub-question and answer if you will. I have conviction that many of us are guilty of asking questions about salvation separated from the story in which in was proposed in the first place. Does ‘what must I do to be saved’ fit within the larger story of God’s redemption of the entire cosmos and his unique working of bringing about that salvation through his covenant people Israel? Or are we guilty of the myopic introspection and anachronism seeking to free ourselves from our own conscience? It is only within the larger narrative of cosmic restoration and God’s action through his unique people that we can rightly answer this question.
The truth of ‘Jesus as Lord’ being the substance of the gospel is one that I am not only convinced of through scripture, but also through literary and historical analysis. As I have mentioned elsewhere it is both necessary and important to look at all of these things if we truly going to come to a position that reflects the biblical authors intentions. The word for Gospel had both a Jewish and Roman connotation:
For the Jews it was that God, the Creator and Sovereign Lord, would act in bringing restoration to the earth and a return from exile for the people of God. Within that context the Jews would understood the good news as God acting in opposition over the nations, subduing them to His righteous rule. The people of God would then be ‘justified’ or better ‘vindicated’ as the people of the true God. In short, when God manifests Himself in subduing the nations and defeating the enemies of God (which have all the ecological and societal implications implicit in it), the nations would know that ‘God is the Lord’ (which would be, in a simplistic sense, the Jewish Gospel). Now, albeit in an unexpected way, Jesus had acted definitively to defeat Satan and the principalities displaying His preeminence over them. Also, because of his obedience to the Fathers will, He further received a name above all others (the Lord) and a throne above all others making Him the rightful heir of all things. You may ask then why is darkness still rampant and the nations still in rebellion? The simple answer which I will possibly expound on later is part of the argument in Romans 9-11: God has given time for the Gentiles to come in before He completes His plan (the how? is then explain in ‘how do I get saved’ which is explain earlier in Romans – ‘in Christ’). Therefore there is a gap between Jesus’ first and second coming. It may even be interesting to note the disciples question of Acts 1:6-7, being that they understood the implications of Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement as the surety of the full manifestation of God’s rule.
For the Romans/Greeks, the gospel would have had a more governmental/or subversive connotation. Being that it was a term used to announce either the birth or crowning of a new King. The term Jesus is Lord is, and rightly should be, seen as a direct challenge to the Caesar/King of the day. Jesus is Lord, therefore Caesar is not! The Romans would understand that there was a greater Lord, who is demanding total allegiance. The message would be to ‘confess with your month he is Lord {not Caesar}’ and ‘believe that God raised Him from the death {believe that God had acted in a one time event of vindication of Jesus over the gentiles (nations) by raising him from the dead as a down payment/first fruit of our future vindication over the nations} (Romans 10:9-10).
I have to go study, more to come…
