so what is "the heart of the gospel"?
I've indicated my disagreement with the statement that "justification is the heart of the gospel," and there have been some good comments in response to that post. That post and those comments lead naturally to this question: so what do I think is "the heart of the gospel"? Here are some thoughts on this, reflecting one of my own comments on that previous post.
The heart of the gospel is 1) Jesus himself, 2) his death for our sins, and 3) his resurrection on the third day - all in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-5). There are several apostolic interpretations of these three core elements which are direct implications of these elements, such that if any of them is outright denied by someone then the legitimacy of that person's understanding and expression of the gospel is called into question: 1) Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God; 2) Jesus' death for sins as sacrificial atonement, new-covenant ratification, liberating redemption, spiritual victory, and suffering exemplar; and 3) Jesus' resurrection on the third day as divine vindication and new-creation transformation - all in line with metaphors and motifs and expectations deriving from the Jewish Scriptures. Perhaps other implications could be in this summary as well.
To connect this with my previous post, Paul's doctrine of "justification" is one of several crucial apostolic interpretations of "what is going on" in the reality that "Jesus died for our sins and was raised on the third day," particularly in explicating the "sacrificial atonement," "liberating redemption," "divine vindication," and "new-creation transformation" aspects of these events. But it is not identical to John's doctrine of "life," nor is it any more or less central than the Johannine soteriology - or the Lukan, or any other apostolic soteriologies that can be discerned in any detail. We don't read Scripture well, it seems to me, when we collapse all of these into our preferred apostolic mode of discourse.
My doctrinal/confessional summary of "the heart of the gospel" given above follows the "apostolic gospel creed" of 1 Corinthians 15. It is not, however, the only way of expressing the gospel, nor is it necessarily always the best way. In fact, more kerygmatic/narratival expressions of the gospel have an equal claim on legitimacy in the apostolic writings - particularly the narrative presentations of Jesus, his death, and resurrection in the Gospels, and the kerygmatic presentations of these in the speeches of Acts.
For some more detail on my understanding of the background, origin, nature, and significance of the Christian gospel, check out my series on "what is the gospel?"
The heart of the gospel is 1) Jesus himself, 2) his death for our sins, and 3) his resurrection on the third day - all in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-5). There are several apostolic interpretations of these three core elements which are direct implications of these elements, such that if any of them is outright denied by someone then the legitimacy of that person's understanding and expression of the gospel is called into question: 1) Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God; 2) Jesus' death for sins as sacrificial atonement, new-covenant ratification, liberating redemption, spiritual victory, and suffering exemplar; and 3) Jesus' resurrection on the third day as divine vindication and new-creation transformation - all in line with metaphors and motifs and expectations deriving from the Jewish Scriptures. Perhaps other implications could be in this summary as well.
To connect this with my previous post, Paul's doctrine of "justification" is one of several crucial apostolic interpretations of "what is going on" in the reality that "Jesus died for our sins and was raised on the third day," particularly in explicating the "sacrificial atonement," "liberating redemption," "divine vindication," and "new-creation transformation" aspects of these events. But it is not identical to John's doctrine of "life," nor is it any more or less central than the Johannine soteriology - or the Lukan, or any other apostolic soteriologies that can be discerned in any detail. We don't read Scripture well, it seems to me, when we collapse all of these into our preferred apostolic mode of discourse.
My doctrinal/confessional summary of "the heart of the gospel" given above follows the "apostolic gospel creed" of 1 Corinthians 15. It is not, however, the only way of expressing the gospel, nor is it necessarily always the best way. In fact, more kerygmatic/narratival expressions of the gospel have an equal claim on legitimacy in the apostolic writings - particularly the narrative presentations of Jesus, his death, and resurrection in the Gospels, and the kerygmatic presentations of these in the speeches of Acts.
For some more detail on my understanding of the background, origin, nature, and significance of the Christian gospel, check out my series on "what is the gospel?"
Labels: justification, paul and his letters, the gospel
posted by Michael Pahl at
9/01/2007
4 Comments:
Hey Michael,
Thanks for the further clarification. I agree that the three elements you include in your definition of the heart of the gospel should be there.
I would only add that #2, Christ's death for our sins, and #3 his resurrection on the third day, *accomplish* justification for all who will believe. The historic life, death, and resurrection of Christ is precisely the alien righteousness that will be *applied* to all who trust in Christ for redemption. Thus, the elements you identify as the heart of the gospel are inseparable from justification.
I would also say that anyone who understandingly denies the biblical doctrine of justification so distorts #'s 2 and 3 that he denies the very heart of the gospel itself.
"But if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:8). According to Galatians, any gospel that adds even a single human work to justification undermines the *gospel* completely (Gal 1:8-9; 2:15-16; 3:11).
Blessings and peace,
Tom
By
Tom, at 2:17 PM
Thanks for your further comment, Tom. I think that we are essentially agreeing with each other on the general issue, even if we would each describe things a little differently and make the connection with justification a little differently. I'll leave it at that, and not even get into the issue of the "new perspective on Paul," what Paul means by "works (of the Law)" and "righteousness (of God" and "faith(fulness) of/in Christ," and so on... ;-)
By
Michael Pahl, at 9:16 PM
Michael, I'm a new reader of your blog and quickly linked you when I discovered that you teach at Prairie Bible College. I graduated from PBI in 1983.
I readily resonate with all you say here. Have you read any of Scot McKnight? I look forward to reading his new book on the atonement.
By
Ted M. Gossard, at 6:08 PM
Hi, Ted. Thanks for your comments on this post and the previous one. It's great to hear of a 1980's grad of PBI who is reading Scot McKnight! I'm interested to read this new book also, but I still haven't made it through his Jesus and His Death...
By
Michael Pahl, at 10:49 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home