The Other Half of Gospel
This is an attempt to clarify an expanded view of what Gospel did and should mean to both first-century men and our own generation. I have become suspicious that American Christianity (at least since the Civil War) has been largely silent about much of what we should understand and proclaim about its message.
After encountering articles like Gospel of Peace & Jesus: Savior and Son of God I started to see a lot of passages in the New Testament in a new light. Here I quote:
-
To us, the gospel has always been a reference to the scriptures, the New Testament, or the arrival of the Messiah. We use the word “gospel” to refer to many aspects of God’s message. However, in the first century the word “gospel” did not refer to the New Testament to the Roman listener. The word “gospel” was already in use in the world and referred to something completely different.
-
The Romans used the word “gospel” to refer to the good news of the emperor’s accomplishments. New Testament theologian N.T. Wright of The Center for Theological Inquiry states that the word “gospel” was “the celebration of the accession, or birth, of a king or emperor.” The Center further states, “In Paul’s world the main ‘gospel’ was the news of or celebration of Caesar.”
-
Notice how the word is used in connection with Augustus on a calendar inscription from Priene (c. 9 BC; line 40): “but the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of tidings of joy on account of him.” The birthday of Augustus was considered the beginning of the gospel in the Roman world. Notice how the word was used in connection to Gaius Julius Caesar concerning the day he became a man according to Roman custom: “that on the day when the city received the good news and when the decree was adopted, on that day, too, wreaths (must) be worn and sumptuous sacrifices offered to the gods.” In this context we see the city received the gospel when a decree was given concerning the day Gaius became a man.
What I began to see, and now defend, is the connection with the larger half of what the NT writers (and I believe the Protestant Reformers) believed and taught about gospel meaning, and why that taught belief transformed the world into a higher water-mark – religiously, politically, and socially -- than anything America has seen since the Church drifted into the Unitarian apostasy in the time-frame between presidents Jefferson and Lincoln. The part of the Gospel that is more related to the Messianic office of king (over prophet and priest) is, of course, related to the less-popular views of God's law (Theonomy) and Christ's current reign (optimistic, Postmillennial eschatology).
Being Advent Season, we don't have to say much about the Old Testament emphasis on Christ's royal patent and the good news of His earthly reign. The Whole World is singing it for us. It is always fun to watch a professional, agnostic, Jewish choir-and-orchestra conductor enthusiastically singing “King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Hallelujah..” because they cannot help loving the quality of Handel's score, even if their eyes are still blinded to Messiah. The Prophets and Psalms are rich with that, which our Christmas songs highlight – if at arms-length.
Coming in to the New Testament consider these texts which combine the earthly civil exercise of Christ's “all authority is given unto Me” – with the repentance-forgiveness-of-sins-go-to-heaven-when-you-die theme:
First Chapters of the Four Gospels
Matthew: All about Christ as king, from genealogy onward. Curious how the revelation to the adoptive father, Joseph -- through whom the rights of the crown prince come down to Jesus – focuses on the personal-salvation side.....
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
...yet the announcement to Mary in Luke 2 emphasizes the kingly rule element...
But for the rest of Matthew.....lots about His kingly office. Chapter 2 The Magi Daniel-Readers from Persia jolt Jerusalem reminding them it is time for Messiah to appear. At least Herod takes them seriously.
2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
Chap. 3 John the Forerunner is written as bringing a message that combines both personal and civil salvation.
2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Further down Jesus is presented as the Judge of all men and ending with the Fatherly declaration of His sonship.
Chap. 4 Satan keep challenging Jesus' identity as the “Son of God” which is considered, in the ancient world, as equivalent of highest human civil ruler of a political entity. When Jesus steps out on His own public ministry, again, repentance and “kingdom of God” is combined together, and it even connects “gospel” with kingdom.
23 Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom,
Mark: Right away, His kingly title is related to gospel and messiahship.
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Remember Mark is perceived to be writing specially towards Romans who may not have had much grounding in the Jewish Scriptures. His audience would have been hearing “gospel” in the secular, civil, “Caesar-related” context in the article referenced above. Repentance, yes, but full of kingdom/civil-rule meaning.
14 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
Luke: Here is where the message you think God would offer to the husband/father -- all the king-stuff -- is now given to the wife/mother:
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
Our well-known and memorized and sung passage from chapter 2 is full of terms normally reserved for the human civil head of empire. Christians were killed for refusing to acknowledge Caesar as lord, and Soter (Greek) or Savior – these were the terms Caesars used of themselves all the time (along with pontifex maximus – highest priest).
10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people;11 for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
I have since read that there was a day of each month where Caesar was to be especially honored. It was called the lord's day.
John: In the first chapter only the title – Lamb of God – seems to reference the personal-salvation/personal-sin aspect of gospel. Instead more of the Messiah titles focus on civil rule: Son of God, Son of Man, King of Israel
34 I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ).
49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.
51 And He *said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
And of course there are many other passages in John where he emphasizes Christ's royal civil authority. In his last book, he also combines the personal-sin-savior/public-civil-savior ideas, even in one verse:
1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—
Many other combinations in one passage we could reference:
Acts: 2:32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
...with...
...they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
We see a combination of personal-salvation application and kingdom reference on the first branch-out from Jews to Samaritans:
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Then again, when Peter is appointed to open the doors – officially – to the Gentiles as a class:
Acts 10:42 And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
What Paul meant by Jesus being the Christ was very clearly understood as being a claim over and above Caesar....
..shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
When Paul writes to believers in the imperial city, he also ties Gospel with messianic/kingly phrasing....
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake
In other epistles we see combinations:
Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Both functions also combine in the beginning of Hebrews:
1:3 When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
And last, showing an amazing relation of the word “gospel” with what our generation rejects as obsolete, abolished 'law'. Note many of the things listed could be interpreted as capital punishment applications.
I Tim 1:8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Our generation has made much of Paul's phrasing of the obsolescence of aspects of Old Testament law. Something is older and has been laid aside, done away with. Verses like...........
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
….could give the impression that law has been abolished. It is well to remember that the encrusted errors of the religious traditions during the time of Christ was trying to justify themselves before God and man by a perverse distortion of Old Testament texts. So what? From our experience we know all men of all time always try to justify themselves with whatever comes to hand – think of Adam “that helper-woman You gave me – she....” blaming God for perfect environment being the cause of his sin. You can read through the Gospels and see how Christ shows how the proper application of the OT law condemns instead of justifies, when it comes to our position and experiential standing before God.
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
But we must be alert to the context of what 'law' refers to in the New Testament.
It could mean the entire Genesis-Malachi inspired Canon (what was in view in I Tim. 3:16-17 'All Scripture....is profitable....thoroughly equipped..').
It could mean the various groupings of the OT books ('law and the prophets'). It could mean just the first 5 books of Moses.
It could mean all of God's commands and requirements regarding man's behavior.
It could be referring to statues, commands, judgments, or instructions about the priesthood, tabernacle, sacrifices, liturgy, civil crimes and punishments regarding worship, economics/property ownership, labor and wages, warfare, prophecy, education, leadership function in church and civil government, diet, and sexual practices.
It could be referring to covenantal blessings and cursings, or just cause-and-effect functioning of the physical elements of creation.
Many theologians have shown that it is not a simple thing to slice up the elements of Old Testament Law into nice, neat categories of civil, ceremonial, and moral. There tends to be overlap. Considering that the Church has been a little lazy about thinking about these things for several generations, we should try to be humble about our understanding of these things.
We all know, at some level, that some things have been finished, completed, terminated, laid aside – how ever you say it – and do not apply to us as they did Phineas and Ezra and Malachi. A basic understanding of the message of the book of Hebrews shows how Christ has fulfilled and finished elements of God's rules about priesthood, tabernacle, sacrifices, and revelation.
Do those things fall within the Messianic office of prophet, priest, or king?
As Prophet:
Hebrews starts off telling us that God's revelation, before the incarnation, came in bits and pieces, and in different forms, but now it has been completed in a Son-Type revelation.
As Priest:
Old Testament, Aaronic priests had no chair-furniture in the tabernacle – there was no provision for them to sit down and rest. But the Son, as soon as He had completed the purification for sins (something Aaronic priests had to keep doing over and over) – He sat down. Not just sat to do nothing and rest, but sat as beginning the new and long-time work as king/emperor.
What is new?
Of course people were justified by faith in the Old Covenant. Justification by faith is not new, even though the finished work of Christ – that is efficacious backward and forwards -- in history, is in our rear-view mirror.
Rom. 4: 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
We all know there was newness and change in the Messianic offices of priest and prophet. We believe in a finality to the prophetic revelation of Christ in His incarnation and the immediate disciples/apostles who met Him face-to-face. Of course the Holy Spirit continues “taking of Mine and revealing unto you” in an ongoing illumination ministry.
We believe in the finality of the priestly work of Christ on the cross and presenting the sacrifice of Himself into heaven in whatever way the earthly 'mercy-seat' represents to us. Of course there is the continuing ministry of intercession by Christ in heaven for His saints.
But the main Office in focus after the resurrection, and especially the ascension and enthronement (session) of Christ in heaven (Rev. 4,5) – is His on-going kingly ruling and judging.
Of course, no one denies the eventuality of this. But a huge difference comes in how theology paints the responsibility of the saints of Christ in the historical periods during which Christ sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ruling “until all enemies are made His footstool”.
One camp says God has no intention of making significant, enduring 'headway' in advancing the kingdom of God on earth until the cosmic event of Christ gloriously and visibly returning to the physical earth for a more “hands-on” reign with good men in a direct, top-down manner. The ups and downs of cultural reformation with its resultant blessings or curses is random and accidental – but generally considered to be in a long-term bloom of evil increasing until the days of tribulation and judgment immediately prior to Christ's return (which is expected shortly). Christians are not expected to be held responsible for cultural reform in significant ways other than a general good influence (on laws and liberty), which is considered to be an automatic consequence of character sanctification by the Holy Spirit. As long as Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, “get their place at the table” in the public square of political discussion, it is assumed that there will be an undefined “good influence”, more-or-less restraining the worst of men's natural bent to destroy civilization.
The Postmillennial view is expecting an over-arching pattern of increase in the breadth and depth of the Kingdom of Christ on earth. It holds that the responsibility of unbeliever and believer alike is to obey the owner and legitimate civil ruler of every square inch of earth's surface. Christ is revealed by both Testaments as the real-time sovereign law-giver(definer), judge, and enforcer – not just of every individual, but especially – over every sinful, finite human being who operates with civil authority. This includes voter, policeman, judge, legislator, soldier, general, president, king, and even human emperors over multiple kings of other countries. In a way, all Christians affirm this, but generally tend to not see as relevant yet.
I like what Dr. Greg Bahnsen says about why he has to believe in the triune God of the Bible. He believes it, not primarily because of evidence but because of the impossibility of the contrary. This is how I must testify to the truth of theonomy. The Triune God (specifically God-the-Son) of the whole Bible is the only possible ethical authority for human definitions of crime and punishment because of the impossibility of the contrary.
No orthodox Christian denies that God -- in Christ – is the final judge of all men's actions. I think everybody even accepts (except perhaps hard-core, non-Christian Deists) the reality that God applies some “deserved” blessing and cursing upon individuals and groups in real-time and before the final judgments after human deaths. So if Christ will judge us for what we are doing, now -- regardless of the date of the initiation of any substantive up-tick in His operational rule-on-earth, or the duration of that before-the-final-end rule – how would His standards be different upon the men who steal in Samuel's day, Timothy's day, or in the day of a saint in some future Dispensational Millennium?
I believe the definitions of crime and punishment revealed in the Bible is the only position of intellectual integrity that any men – pagan or reverent – are willing to agree on.
They will certainly not be so foolish as to really claim that any minority of men should be considered the ethical authority to define good and evil. Be careful to understand what ethical authority means in this context. Pretending you believe in Democracy and that the laws in a given generation should reflect what the majority appears to favor is not what we are talking about.
By ethical authority, we are pointing to a standard defining good and evil which men use, in their thinking, to evaluate law or any kind of moral behavior. The true “democrat” would believe that some majority agreement or vote on a moral issue would set up the standard or definition of what good or evil was. In other words, every other opinion or viewpoint by any number of men – or individual man; or men living in any period of history should be judged and defined as either good or evil by that snapshot-majority-opinion-in-time.
And that is silly. Nobody would pin themselves down to that, even if it would be possible to come to a reasonable certainty as to exactly what a decent-sized group of human individuals thought was good and evil (which it is absolutely not possible to do). Why would any group of men – be they majority or minority – be considered a superior ethical authority to define good and evil, crime and punishment over any other arrangement of human opinions?
How would you ever change any laws? Why would the signers of the American Constitution, hundreds of years ago, have any more authority to determine national laws supreme over States (which, by the way, meant “country” in the 1700's, not a partition of a country) or Counties, Townships, or Cities? Why would their laws stay more worthy of respect and veneration in a nation through decades and centuries – than laws defined by any other group of men. Even the fact that the Constitutional delegates allowed for amendments would contradict this.
No single, mortal, son of Adam can be the ethical authority to define what is good and evil in law or anything else. He himself will be judged by an outside standard of good and evil, not it by him. Yet all men attempt to do this and have an opinion on the character of those standards proposed by other individuals, minorities, or majorities. They have a standard inside their own heads. This is not to mean that it is possible men might defer to - or honor a standard coming from outside themselves.
One man will say that whoever is accepted as king in a society should be acknowledged as the true ethical authority when he declares anything legal or illegal. After all, he is the authority the God of the Bible set up, so it stands to reason God will judge men according to how well they obey that earthly ruler. This is a typical view of Romans 13, (every government ordained by God – so we must obey it). Or in Mt. 22 (“render unto Caesar”) which is used to imply we should, as our Christian duty, give Caesar everything he says should be his.
Many think they think there is a “divine-right of democracy/majority” sort of like the English Stewart kings believed in what we still call 'divine right of kings'. Law is what the king or Majority Voters says it is.
No, says Samuel Rutherford, the theonomist, and the Scottish Covenanters,. “Lex Rex. God's law is king, because Yahweh is judge, lawgiver, and king”. God's revelation of law is the ethical authority to define good, evil, crime, and punishment. If you turn away from God's revelation of the If-Then, the cause-and-effect, the blessings and cursings promised in the Bible (these are other phrasings for the concept of “Law”), then you are not turning away from using any operational principle, at all -- you are only turning away from the triune God of the Bible to a different, arbitrary, rival, operating principle of power and authority.
You are only thinking that some other thinking, deciding Being (or group) could be gooder or stronger than the God of the Bible.
Consequently, when we come to deciding as a society, what to do with the thief who is caught – something will be done with him. Some mixture of ignoring his theft, rebuking him, or taking away something of his honor, reputation, property, freedom, or life. If any kind of social action is taken in response to his theft, this action must be defined, called for, and implemented.
And for the questions of which men are responsible before God or man to respond to the thief, or who has the authority to tell them what to do, I commend you to the other treatise: What Makes the Punishment for a Crime Right?
