Brief Notes on the Gospel

Is “believe that Jesus died for your sins” the whole Gospel? What if the Bible says otherwise—and what if we’ve missed the most ancient part?

  1. The Gospel—the good news—was the inauguration of the Kingdom of God, and especially the arrival of the King. Many self-identified Christians will nod sagely at this but not actually understand what it means.
  2. When Mark quoted Jesus as saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15), all Jews who heard this knew precisely what was being claimed. By “the kingdom of God” he meant the restored kingdom of Israel. “The time” referred to “the day of the Lord,” when the prophecies about this kingdom and the advent of its king—the Messiah—would come true.
  3. These things are obvious to those who have read the Old Testament all the way through, for good understanding. They become more obvious with repeated readings.
  4. The word “gospel” simply means “good news,” and in that context, it is very obvious indeed that the good news mentioned in Mark 1:15 concerns the long-awaited restored kingdom.
  5. Note that, at this point in the story, Jesus had been neither crucified nor resurrected. Yet this is indeed the Gospel of John the Baptist and of Jesus himself; they call it that. We will return to this point.
  6. Question: What would Jews quite naturally be expected to do if a genuine king of the Jews arrived?
    Answer: Declare their allegiance to him, of course.
  7. Question: And what if this king were demonstrated through the most stunning signs and wonders to be the Messiah, ushering in the Messianic Kingdom of such frequent Old Testament prophecy?
    Answer: Then the Jews ought to declare their eternal gratitude, extol the glory of the only true God-King, and pledge their allegiance in the most earnest terms, even being willing to die for their Sovereign.
  8. Keep these questions and answers in mind as you consider the following familiar words: Jesus often told his disciples, “follow me” (e.g., Mt 4:19). “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor… and come and follow me.” (Mt 19:21) “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother [value them below Jesus]… yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Lk 14:26)
  9. Jesus said all of these things after (and in the context of) the announcement of the Kingdom of God, and before his crucifixion.
  10. Hence, the faith that Jesus, as King, demands from us, as subjects, is personal loyalty to and love of the Sovereign of the Kingdom of God.
  11. But to understand what loyalty to this Sovereign entails, we must consider what his will is, and what he values most, which he sums up in his two great commandments: love God, and love your fellow man.
  12. Thus, first, we consider: Jesus is God in the flesh. After all, “I and my Father are one.” Thus, to love him in all loyalty is no different than to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” (Mk 12:30)
  13. Second, as to our fellow man, as Jesus loves us, he demands that we love each other. “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). And to do this is to practice our genuine and vital love of God and his Son. (Jn 10:30) “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (John 14:21).
  14. This is the core of the Gospel that Jesus preached. This Gospel never changed. We must never forget it. We must teach it more. It was made fuller—yes, to be sure, there is more to it, as our King revealed more of himself in his walk on earth—but this is what “Gospel” meant in the first instance.
  15. The essential act of saving faith always was to embrace the King as Lord and Sovereign. Many statements about salvation through faith are made before the salvation. For example, while those hostile to him would be burned up as so much chaff, those who believe in him, as their sovereign Lord, would have eternal life: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jn 3:16) “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (Jn 11:26)
  16. In declaring their allegiance as well, even Gentiles could be added to the Kingdom, yes, this very same Kingdom: “Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 8:11)
  17. Note that, so far, we have “shared the Gospel” in a robust, deeply biblical way. Yet we have said nothing whatsoever about the cross, atonement, or beliefs about these—as deeply important as those are. Which raises the question: What do those things have to do with salvation and with “the Gospel”?
  18. Paul used the word “gospel” to refer to something in addition to the advent of the Kingdom: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you … that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…” (1 Cor 1-4). This, too, was the greatest news. The story became fuller still.
  19. The Gospel that Paul meant was not in conflict with the Gospel of the advent of the Kingdom and the reign on earth of its King. For this extended the most profound news of that same King. Namely, the Messiah was—as prophesied—”despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows” who was “wounded for our transgressions” (Isa 53:3, 5). Yet he rose again, resurrected as he said we would be as well. What news! If the news is of the King and of his Kingdom, then, at the darkest hour when Jesus was in his tomb and the promise of the Kingdom seemed hollow, would it not be even more glorious news, about the King and his Kingdom, that he has defeated death? This is not a new Gospel, but an extension of the Gospel. The full Gospel is not only that the King has arrived, but that in dying and rising back to life for us, he has shown that he is victor over death.
  20. So, we have not changed the subject; the subject is still the Gospel. You might ask, though: How precisely is this business of the suffering servant and of the resurrection connected to the loyalty we owe him? Jesus shows the connection, again before the resurrection: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me… and he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” (Mt 10:37-38) Following him means being loyal to him above all others, even unto death; Jesus puts it in a hyperbolic way, even going so far as to say that if you are not willing thus to die for your loyalty to your King, then you are not “worthy of me.” As he would demonstrate, we should be willing to die on a cross for the kingdom of God, if need be: “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it…” (Mk 8:34-35).
  21. Such willing self-sacrifice shows where our true loyalties lie. Dying a humiliating death on a cross proves something: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn 15:13) Jesus proved his love for us by dying for us. If we are called to martyrdom, that will prove our love of God and loyalty to the King.
  22. He did the most spectacular signs and wonders of the Bible; then he suffered such a death as a result of his claim to be the Messiah and the very son of God; and then he rose again, as he had prophesied of himself. By doing all this, he demonstrated to the world that he was who he said he was: the anointed one of prophecy, with all that that entails. By enduring this humiliating death, he died for us, so that we would be inspired—by his own Spirit—to follow him more meaningfully.
  23. His Apostles followed him more meaningfully indeed, and the martyrs after them. All died for our sake even as Jesus did, showing by their stunning self-sacrifice just how strongly they did believe in him and were unwilling to deny him.
  24. This whole story, not any one part of it, is good news indeed.
  25. Yet if we focus, when we “share the Gospel,” only on the blood and the cross of Christ, without explaining the background—of the arrival of the prophesied Kingdom and its King—the blood and torture can seem like positively repellent totems to unbelievers that we would like to inspire. (That is how they struck me for many years.)
  26. Though true, it can still be profoundly misleading to say that we are saved by believing that Jesus died for our sins, especially when this is said to those unprepared for the message. For example, some children can hear that in church and think, “Well, I guess that means the Old Testament prophets were not saved.” Skeptical adults not infrequently opine that this is just holy nonsense. (These are both mistakes I made at different times in my life.) Even for those who do understand more, to repeat the familiar formula constantly without dwelling on the essential love and loyalty we owe the very Sovereign of our lives is to preach a sadly weakened Gospel.
  27. And to the children, I say: Of course the Old Testament prophets were saved. They were saved in precisely the same way we are, namely, loyalty to the King, who is God himself. He “shall reign for ever and ever.” (Ex 15:18) The Lord reiterated this to the greatest of the Old Testament kings, David, when he promised: “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers [i.e., after you are dead], I will set up thy seed [descendant: hence Jesus’ title, son of David] after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” (2 Sam 7:12-13, 16) We may also say, with the psalmist, “God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth” (Ps 74:12), and with Isaiah, “the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.” (Isa 33:22) Zephaniah is looking to the Messianic age when he prophesies, “The Lord hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.” (Zep 3:15)
  28. The beginning and end of the Gospel should always be the love of and loyalty to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We are saved by keeping the greatest commandment—which is the commandment to true faith. By loving him more deeply than our own lives, we practice our loyalty toward the King, we keep the faith to our Lord, and we are inspired to obey our Master.
  29. If the Gospel is the good news of the Kingdom of God, if we are joined to this same Kingdom, then in the end we will reign with him. This is said in the Old Testament, by Daniel: “But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” (Dan 7:18) But it is also in many places in the New Testament, as when Paul says: “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? … Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” (1 Cor 6:2-3)
  30. But if we are to have such responsible positions in service to the King, we in our lives must demonstrate our loyalty to him. Again: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15) This is not a side-issue. Our trusting loyalty to our King requires that we do his will. If we lose sight of this, if we find it easy to sin carelessly and without repentance, is he really our Sovereign? Do we really believe in him? If he is our King and indeed Lord of the universe, is it not right to fear him? Jesus thought so: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mt 10:28) So, as Paul said, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Php 2:12)

by

Posted

in

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

15 responses to “Brief Notes on the Gospel”

  1. Stephen

    FYI my previous comment regarding how the gospel is even fuller is heavily informed by christus victor, a motif given emphasis by (among others!) the eastern orthodox church.

    I also know that you’ve done your research thoroughly, and perhaps you only meant to emphasize the aspects of the gospel present before the death and resurrection.

    Forgive my ramblings; Christ is risen!

  2. Stephen

    Hi Larry! Appreciated this a lot; this was very edifying to me. I attempt to make fuller this presentation if this gospel, with the news that Christ our liberator has freed captive humanity, defeating our former captors death, sin, and demons.

    Christ is risen!

  3. 18 and 19 are such a mystery to me – I still have so much to learn about this!

  4. James Thompson

    Larry, your message brings clarity and fear. I am a long time believer in God and Jesus Christ as King and God in flesh. I have been addicted to opiates for a long time and the sickness from withdrawal is like death. I don’t know how to quit without wrecking my job which will destroy my retirement for wife and I. I would not be able to take care of her and still have 2 kids at home. Do you feel it’s impossible for eternal life if I ever to die with an addiction? My flesh is so weak and I do NOT do these drugs for pleasure. Your opinion and any advice and your prayer would be very appreciated. I want to please my Lord!

    1. James, I am touched that you would ask me, but I would have you seek out serious counseling, a thing I have no training for. I’ll just say this: you can kick this and there is no one who wants more to help you to do so than the Lord. This too: your loyalty to the Lord, which means in part your trust in his lovingkindness and grace, is what saves you. The very fact that you would ask for help, especially help from him, is what demonstrates your salvation. Trust in God then and know that he demands you strive for reformation—not as a condition of your salvation but as a response to your adoption into his family. I will pray for you (and encourage all who read this to do the same), but I think your own prayer in this case will be most powerful.

  5. Matthew Bates

    Thanks, Larry, for bearing witness to the good news about Jesus the King–yes!–and for showing how and why loyalty is part of the essential framework. May we joyfully celebrate these truths this Easter–and because of his resurrection power–into the age to come. Let’s keep serving together. ~Matthew Bates

    1. Thanks Matthew!

      Folks, Dr. Matthew Bates’ book, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, is on my reading list. ChatGPT told me to read it for more background on the ideas in the above post (which I thought were rather obvious to find in the Gospels).

  6. Dear Larry,

    I am filled with gratitude to our God to learn of your faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. I just read your latest piece and can understand your trying to piece together this great big theme of the Bible, namely, the Kingdom of God and also your attempt to relate it to the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles of Christ after His death and resurrection and ascension. Kindly allow me to suggest to you, a brother in Christ, that you give the following books a serious read, for it would greatly enhance your understanding of the complex and important topic of the Kingdom of God in the Bible. The fundamental issue is hermeneutics. Do we take the words of the Old Testament prophets in a normal, literal sense or not (with due consideration of the use of figures of speech as such)? If the covenants God made with Israel are to be taken at their normal face value, then it will be clear to any reader of the Bible that the final Kingdom promised to Israel has never been established on earth and that the church cannot be the fulfillment of those covenants which were made exclusively with Israel. And therefore, the covenants demand that the Kingdom of God on this earth is as yet future and that the Church is not the kingdom but a “mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God” (Ephesians 3:9). The conclusions have huge implications as to the believer’s present walk and service.

    As you are a public figure, everything you write can have a significant impact on your readership, whether good or bad. I am certain you are sincere and want to do good. Here are the three books I would suggest you to study carefully. Well, at least one of them, if not all, considering that the third title comes in 3 volumes, a total of more than 2000 pages, small print.

    The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva J. McClain (1959)
    The Coming Kingdom by Andrew M. Woods (2016)
    The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, the Christ by George N. H. Peters (1884)

    1. Gregg Powell

      Hello Pradesh.
      When you say “Kingdom of God on this earth is as yet future and that the Church is not the kingdom but a “mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God” “- Are you implying the Kingdom of God on this earth will eventually be establish through man’s own effort—an idea often common among Postmillennialism, or sometimes referred to as Dominion Theology or Kingdom Now Theology? I am trying to understand what you are implying about “Kingdom of God on this earth is as yet future” and who will establish it. I perhaps missed something in your response to Larry.

      1. Hi Gregg,

        Thank you for asking. No, I was not implying the Kingdom of God on this earth will eventually be established through man’s own effort. I am of firm persuasion that the Kingdom of God will be established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and that it will happen only after He returns to earth as He has foretold in passages such as:

        “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Mt 24:30).

        The Lord was clearly referencing the prophet Daniel:

        “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).

        Clearly, Daniel foretold of a kingdom wherein the Lord Jesus Christ shall reign over all the earth. There has never been a time in history when all people, nations, and languages have served Him. The Kingdom is yet future.

    2. Thanks, Pradesh. I appreciate the recommendations. I agree the question of the Kingdom is central, and our view of it affects everything from hermeneutics to ecclesiology. But here’s the core of my position: the Kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament is indeed literal, but it includes faithful Gentiles as full and equal participants—not as an secondary afterthought, but as the fulfillment of the very promises made to Israel.

      Indeed I have much to read about all areas of theology, although (see here) I have read some. GPT told me last night about the resemblance of my views to those of Wright, McKnight, Gorman, Willard, and Bates, and of the fact that they are in rather stark opposition to dispensationalism. I was aware of the latter, and much of my theological reading has been Calvinist and dispensational, whether I like it or not, since so much evangelical scholarship is indeed Calvinist and/or dispensational. For example, the chapter on Revelation in the DTS-edited Bible Knowledge Commentary is by Walvoord, an arch-dispensationalist, and I found myself partly agreeing (yes, it’s a real kingdom, yes, there is a new creation) and partly disagreeing (the notion that there are groups of people separated due to their ethnicity is flatly contradicted in many places by scripture itself). Anyway, eventually I will indeed read such books as those you list. But I will also at least one of Wright’s books (Simply Good News, How God Became King, and The Day the Revolution Began) and those like these:

      The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight (2011)
      Inhabiting the Cruciform God by Michael J. Gorman (2009)
      The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard (1998)
      Salvation by Allegiance Alone by Matthew W. Bates (2017)

      Most of all, I’ll continue to read the Bible—just started my sixth reading, having done five readings in five years. It is primarily the Bible reading that led me to the position expressed above.

      On the question whether the OT prophecies are meant “literally,” it depends on the prophecy, of course. Some are, some ain’t. Is a literal kingdom prophesied? For sure. Are the faithful children of Israel going to be part of it, according to the same prophecies? Of course. Will they be exclusively Jewish? No. “I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” (Isa 49:6) “Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord… even them will I bring to my holy mountain… for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” (Isa 56:6-7) “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” (Isa 60:3) The latter is associated with the imagery of Christ as the “bright and morning star.” (Rev 22:16)

      Jesus and the Apostles make it perfectly clear that the Gentiles will be part of this literal “kingdom come.” “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring… and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (Jn 10:16) John the Baptist threw the ethnic pretentions of the Pharisees in their face: “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Mt 3:9) Paul is especially clear: “Thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.” (Rom 11:17-18) “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:28-29) “Ye were… aliens from the commonwealth of Israel… but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh… Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” (Eph 2:12-14, 19) Peter is also clear: “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
      But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34-35) “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;
      that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9-10) So Peter himself asserts that the very verbiage that applied to the Israelites per se, “chosen,” “priesthood,” “people of God,” are now applied to all.

      I’m not saying that these verses settle the matter; of course they don’t. I know dispensationalists interpret these differently by saying, “But that doesn’t mean he didn’t make specific and literal promises to the Israelites!” To which I respond, “True, but that did not prevent the Lord from raising the rest of us up as children of Abraham—John’s “stones”—to become of the very same kingdom. We are indeed, as Peter said, “lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet 2:4) One house, one “holy priesthood”!

      There are not two Kingdoms. The Scriptures never speak of two Kingdoms. When John and Jesus heralded the one Kingdom, it was the same as that prophesied in the OT.

      I’d be curious how someone steeped in the dispensational texts you list would respond to this. How do you reconcile the notion of a singular prophesied Kingdom with the many declarations of Gentile inclusion, not as guests or as part of a secondary Kingdom, but as “fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 3:6)?

      1. Pradesh Shrestha

        Hi Larry,

        Thank you for responding! I will just reply to your last paragraph for now.

        “How do you reconcile the notion of a singular prophesied Kingdom with the many declarations of Gentile inclusion, not as guests or as part of a secondary Kingdom, but as “fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 3:6)?”

        It is true that there is a singular prophesied Kingdom. It is also true that there are many declarations of Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom. But a careful consideration of what Paul is actually writing about in Eph 3:6 (which you quote) would perhaps help toward answering your question. Is Paul in this verse writing about the Kingdom prophesied in the OT or something else? I list some facts relevant to our discussion from immediate context (Eph 2:11-3:11) —

        1. Paul is addressing Gentiles — “ye being in times past Gentiles…” (2:11);
        2. who previously were alienated from God’s chosen people Israel and God’s promises to them— “ye were without Christ [the Messiah], being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (2:12);
        3. but who, thank God, are “now in Christ Jesus” (2:13);
        4. and consequently now enjoy oneness in the Messiah with believing Jews, like Paul who declares to them — “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us [i.e. between Gentiles and Jews]” (2:14);
        5. resulting in “one new man” (2:15);
        6. being reconciled by the cross “in one body” (2:16) and further descriptions of this special oneness is described in 2:17-22;
        7. Paul refers to this unique oneness of believing Jews and Gentiles in one body as “the fellowship of the mystery” (Eph 3:9a).
        8. Paul defines the word mystery to mean that “which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God” (Eph 3:9b), “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:5).
        9. Paul states that he was a recipient of the revelation of this mystery — “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery” (Eph 3:2).
        10. This new revelation or mystery was this “That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 3:6).
        11. The subject of this new revelation which God had not revealed to men in ages past and therefore was a “mystery” is referred to by Paul in our passage as “one new man” (2:15), “one body” (2:16), “household of God” (2:19), “an holy temple in the Lord” (2:21), “an habitation of God through the Spirit” (2:22), “the same body” (3:6), “the church” (3:10).

        Clearly, the subject matter of this passage is the church and not the Kingdom prophesied in the OT. In fact, even the theme of the Epistle is “the church, which is his body” (Eph 1:23). The fact that Paul calls this revelation of the church a mystery hid in ages past, which would certainly include the period of the Old Testament, should lead us to conclude that Eph 3:6 is not referring to the Kingdom prophesied in the OT.

        Further, while OT prophecies speak of Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom, they never speak of Jews and Gentiles being formed into a body where the Jew and Gentile distinction is no more. The OT prophecies (and Kingdom prophecies in the NT) identify the Jews and Gentiles as remaining distinct as “Israel” and “the nations” (e.g. Ps 47:1-3, 9; Ps 67:1-4; Isa 19:23-25; Zech 14:16-19). But in the NT church “there is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).

        Brother Larry, I would suggest one other book, a much smaller volume than the three I listed in my previous post, which would quickly give you a broad outline of the argument for premillennial dispensationalism: The Basis of Premillennial Faith by Charles Ryrie.

      2. Pradesh Shrestha

        “I agree the question of the Kingdom is central, and our view of it affects everything from hermeneutics to ecclesiology.”

        While this is an honest admission, is not the order reversed? Should not our theology be a natural outcome of our hermeneutic and not the other way around? Futhermore, should we not have a consistent hermeneutic? I emphasize the word “consistent” because of your following statement: “On the question whether the OT prophecies are meant “literally,” it depends on the prophecy, of course. Some are, some ain’t.” You did not specify why this might be the case, but, say, if we switch our hermeneutics from literal interpretation to non-literal, or vice versa, when we come to a certain passage of Scripture, in order to, say, make it fit a given view of the Kingdom or ecclesiology, would not that interpretation be suspect? What I mean by “consistent” hermeneutic is well expressed by a statement by David L. Cooper: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

        On another note, I should add the following to the list of observations I made to Eph 2:11-3:13 in my second post, as these are also directly relevant to our discussion:

        1. Paul states that the change that has come about in the spiritual status of Gentiles, namely the change from their previously being “far off” to now being “made nigh” is effected “by the blood of Christ.” (Eph 2:13)
        2. He further states that the previous distinction between believing Jews and Gentiles has been abolished “by the cross” (Eph 2:16).
        3. He also states that this fact of believing Gentiles being fellow-heirs with believing Jews is possible “by the gospel” (Eph 3:6).

        Therefore, Paul taught that it was “the gospel” (Eph 3:6) that brought about the “one new man” consisting of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles reconciled to God in one body, the Church. The fact that this unique fellowship of believers in Christ in one body, regardless of their ethnicity, is effected “by the blood of Christ” and “by the cross”, indicates that the centrality of the message of the gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ. I would note that while these historical facts of the gospel were prophesied in the OT (Romans 1:2-4) and were “according to the [OT] Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4), the church which we find revealed in the NT was a mystery, i.e. something not revealed before in OT times. Of the 113 references to the church (“ecclesia”) in the Bible, the very first mention of it is by Christ in Matthew and there He speaks of it as something as yet future, “I will build my church” (Mt 16:18). The word occurs only 3 times in the historical records of the NT prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 which event, a careful study would show, marks the beginning of the Church, something quite different from the Kingdom prophesied in the OT.

        Therefore, without getting into the details, I would just note that the plain reading of the Scriptures reveal that the Gospel heralded by John and Jesus was directly linked with the Kingdom prophesied in the OT, whereas the Gospel of the grace of God that we find being preached by the apostles in the Book of Acts and explained in the Epistles of the NT is directly linked with the distinct entity called the Church.

        The following might be helpful:

        Dispensationalism: A Clarifying Statement in View of the Confused Theological Climate -https://middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/dispen.htm

        1. Pradesh, your response is puzzling because the very first thing you admit is that there is only one prophesied Kingdom and there are many declarations of Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom. But then you go on to argue against what you just admitted—or so it seems, saying that “the same body” is “the church”…and not the Kingdom? (Can you even conceive that they might be the same?) The relevance of your saying this (that “the same body” is “the church”) would seem to be that the faithful (Gentile?) members of the universal Church are, therefore, not of the kingdom. But then you’re just assuming the point at issue.

          (Unless, I suppose, they become devotees of “Hebrew Roots”? Or is it possible at all for non-ethnically Jewish proselytes to become members of the Kingdom?)

          That we members of the Church are also members of the Kingdom of God has been essential to Christian doctrine from the beginning. He is not just a foreign, Jewish King. He is our King, of course. So, you can say all you like that Eph 3:6 is about the Church, but it’s also about the Kingdom. That is my firm contention there. This is not a mistake, Pradesh. It’s very clear in the context.

          Look again. I know you went over this yourself, but I want you to look again, because, with all due respect, you apparently didn’t understand what you quoted to me. Eph 3:4 says the subject is “the mystery of Christ”. He immediately says this “in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men” but “it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (v5). So, tell us, Paul, tell us, what is this mystery! He does not disappoint; he gives us the “to wit” in the very next verse: “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (v6). So far, we agree on what we quote.

          But read that again. Oh, my. The mystery was that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs? That they should be partakers of his promise in Christ? What was that promise again? The Messiah prophesies all concerned the Kingdom, y’know. You do know that, I can tell you do because it’s evident you know the Bible. (I mean, you have read the Old Testament a bunch, I’m very sure.) The “fellowship of the mystery” is the heretofore-unrevealed brotherhood between Jews and Gentiles. “Oops, I forgot to tell you that Gentiles would be heirs too!” It is to the credit of the “manifold wisdom of God” that Jews and Gentiles would both be “fellowheirs” and “partakers of his promise in Christ”, fellow enjoyers of the Messiah promises of … the Kingdom.

          I can agree with you that this does mean the Church. Yes indeed. It says so right there in v10 so I can’t deny that. So the discussion has been about the ekklesia. Now, as a Bible scholar, you know that this word means “assembly” and is used copiously in the Septuagint, i.e., to refer to the people (or most typically, I think, the faithful, or the faithful remnant, among the people). But consider his very point here. He’s talking to Ephesians, who consist of both Gentiles and Jews (all Christians, however), and he’s urging unity between them, saying, “Look, guys, it doesn’t matter that you’re both Gentiles and Jews. You’re all inheritors of this promise, so dear and familiar to the Jews. So Jews are not over Gentiles here. You are all fellowheirs.”

          In fact, if Paul meant to be saying that the unity was only in the Church and not in the Kingdom, you might think that would be relevant of him to mention that, because that would actually back up his Jewish brethren. If you were right, then why didn’t he say, “The mystery of the church is now revealed: you’re all unified in the church. Isn’t that nice? But, you know, you Jews have a good point here in your ongoing disputes with the Greeks. You are the inheritors of the prophesies of the Kingdom of Israel. Not the Gentiles.” He doesn’t say that, because it would look awfully like a contradiction. (I think it would have been.)

          “Further, while OT prophecies speak of Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom, they never speak of Jews and Gentiles being formed into a body where the Jew and Gentile distinction is no more.” Yeah. It’s almost like … it was a mystery not made known to anybody.

          “The OT prophecies (and Kingdom prophecies in the NT) identify the Jews and Gentiles as remaining distinct as ‘Israel’ and ‘the nations’.” This really doesn’t prove much, though. If it’s a mystery that the Christian Gentiles will be united to the faithful remnant of believing Israel, then the prophets would still need a way to refer to those outside of this assemblage of fellowheirs.

          If from this basic famous verse— “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28)—you infer that the Jews are different from the Greeks in Christ Jesus, who is both our King and the King of the Jews, then … I have to wonder. Did you read what you quoted? “We are all one in Christ Jesus.” If you say “in the church! He means, in the church!” then I gently point out that he doesn’t say that here, and that in the very next verse he says exactly the thing I need him to say, to make my point: “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (v29) Ye Gentiles are Abraham’s seed just like those ancient Israelites, and therefore ye are heirs according to the promise of the Kingdom of the great Anointed One. Yeah—that one, not some other promise!

          Re my “honest admission,” it’s not the shameful admission you seem to think it is, so much as a firm insistence on Bible truth. My basic hermeneutic is analogia fidei within the bounds of sola scriptura. When I say that the first part of the Gospel revealed in the Gospel accounts is that the Kingdom of God has arrived (I say that, because it’s what John the Baptist and Jesus both said), I’m saying that view affects our interpretation of the meaning of euangelion. Right? Because that’s part of the text. You don’t disagree with that, do you? Anyway, obviously, this hermeneutic is very consistent, because the Bible is consistent. Hence, since the Bible says very clearly (and in multiple places!) that we are fellowheirs with our Jewish Christian brothers and sisters, and that we are children of Abraham, and ingrafted, and heirs by adoption, then the text means very literally that we Gentile Christians become—what?—children of Abraham.

          This is perfectly consistent and quite literal. It also has the advantage of actually taking the text seriously and not playing around with hidden meanings—apart from literally hidden mysteries of the kingdom!—which I would have thought was poor hermeneutics, but I won’t return the favor and lecture you further about that.

          You return to your previous argument, making precisely the same error. You merely assume, contrary to the plain language of the text, that the “one body” is only “the Church” and not “the Kingdom.” That’s just an assumption of yours, one that is not at all supported by your premises 1-3, and which (as I said) requires you to ignore the very meaning of “fellow-heirs.” We are heirs of the promise made to the Jews of the Kingdom of the Messiah. That’s what the word means. If you think it means something else, pray, do tell.

          As to the assembly (ekklesia) being something he will “build,” the necessity of this is rather obvious: he has by that time in the Gospel story (i.e., Matt 16) proven to all around him that the Pharisees and Sadducees are definitely not on board with this Messiah business. Only a small following (see John 6, about the same time in the history of his ministry) remains with him when he makes it abundantly clear that his followers must take him to be the Son of God who will not be ushering in an earthly kingdom just yet. Obviously, he knows that, after his resurrection and the Comforter arrives, it will take time for his Apostles to assemble all his faithful, both Jews and Greeks. Those Jews who rejected him are as the pruned branches; as he says explicitly, they were not to be added to the Kingdom just because they’re Jews. That’s not good enough.

          There’s another basic argument that your position is going to have a hard time with, and that is that the first thing that he announces, when he begins his ministry, is that the Kingdom of God has arrived. He doesn’t later say, “Yeah, just kidding, I take it back, it’ll actually arrive only when I return.” He says it has arrived, And he never walks this statement back. By way of clarifying, he says that it is within you (and, perhaps, among you). It is a spiritual thing. These are why for the entire history of the church, until the 19th century, it was understood that the church just is the heir of the promises made to Israel—because the Kingdom of God has come, it is among us of the Church.

          Your last longer paragraph (the one beginning “Therefore”) is especially puzzling to me. You seem to think there are two Gospels. I disagree, for reasons explained in my blog post above. There is one. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom and its King. We are living in the Kingdom even now. It is “already” but also “not yet.” But it is “already” indeed. I have always thought so and, I dare say, most Christians agree with me on this one. Don’t you? This is, anyway, the plain reading of the Scriptures to my mind and to that of the vast majority of Christians throughout most traditions and throughout most of history. Is there some second kingdom that Jesus is going to set up when the remaining, unconverted Jews finally realize he is their Messiah? Or will they be added to the one we are now part of? Answer this question.

          Finally, if you respond again, I ask you to do a fellow Christian the favor of actually responding to his arguments in detail, this time. You really haven’t done much in the way of coming to grips with them. Because, to be perfectly frank, I don’t think you can. You have your own arguments, but you can’t seem to deal with mine.

          I might be right, after all, you know.

  7. Adam Martin

    Very well said,
    Your last point – yes indeed fear and trembling. Fear and trust going hand-in-hand. To fully trust outside of oneself is the most fearful most vulnerable thing any creature can do, and thus Jesus says he will give us his Spirit (a helper, an advocate) to dwell within us, to help our ‘unbelief’ (Mark 9:24). Additionally – one of my favorite verses on the ‘backwards’ radicalized love of God is Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” While we were natural enemies of God, he died for us. Good news indeed! A blessed Lent to you.

Leave a Reply to Stephen Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *