What is the "good news"

[Bootstrap]

NT Wright points out that Greek emperors used the same word to proclaim the good news of their reign. For instance, here is an announcement of the Good News of Caesar Augustus as found in the Calendar of Priene:

"Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him.” (The Calendar of Priene, Caesar Birthday announcement)

The Bible Project did an interview with NT Wright, where they observed this:

Dr. Wright says this historical announcement reveals a very interesting historical narrative. The Roman emporers continually decreed that they had brought peace and justice to the world through violent and political power. These emporers used the same language and vocabulary as the gospel authors when they proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as the one who brings true peace and justice to the world.

But Jesus comes very much in the line of the Old Testament prophets. Forgiveness of sins is related to the sin that led Israel into exile. Jesus wants to build a Kingdom of God that can live by the Sermon on the Mount and be the blessing of Abraham to all the nations. Mercy and justice and righteousness and childlike trust and dependence on God are at the heart of this.

[Wayne in Maine]

I thought this was an interesting article on the Gospel that includes both the Kingdom message and how it is meaningful to our lives- https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does ... testament/

In preaching the gospel we preach about Jesus, and we preach about how we are brought into a saving relationship with him.

It's a good article, at least in its beginning, but it goes on to state exactly the first part of what JBG posted:
"If we give our testimony to our neighbors, saying, “I became a Christian last year. I gave my heart to Jesus,” we are bearing witness about Jesus, but we are not telling them the gospel, because the gospel is not about us. The gospel is about Jesus—what He did, His life of perfect obedience, His atoning death on the cross, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, and His outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church. We call those crucial elements the objective aspects of the New Testament gospel of Christ."

So far, so good, at least in regards to a theological synthesis of the "good news of Jesus" (as distinct from the Good News of the Kingdom) but then the writer goes on to indeed make the gospel about us by wrapping the Gospel around Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone":

"In addition to the person and work of Jesus, there is also in the New Testament use of the term gospel the question of how the benefits accomplished by the objective work of Jesus are subjectively appropriated to the believer. First, there is the question of who Jesus was and what He did. Second is the question of how that benefits you and me. That is why Paul conjoins the objective account of the person and work of Jesus (particularly to the Galatians) with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is essential to the gospel. In preaching the gospel we preach about Jesus, and we preach about how we are brought into a saving relationship with him."

No, this is not the good news of the kingdom that Jesus delivered and commended to us..

[Sudsy]

I thought this was an interesting article on the Gospel that includes both the Kingdom message and how it is meaningful to our lives- https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does ... testament/

In preaching the gospel we preach about Jesus, and we preach about how we are brought into a saving relationship with him.

It's a good article, at least in its beginning, but it goes on to state exactly the first part of what JBG posted:
"If we give our testimony to our neighbors, saying, “I became a Christian last year. I gave my heart to Jesus,” we are bearing witness about Jesus, but we are not telling them the gospel, because the gospel is not about us. The gospel is about Jesus—what He did, His life of perfect obedience, His atoning death on the cross, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, and His outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church. We call those crucial elements the objective aspects of the New Testament gospel of Christ."

So far, so good, at least in regards to a theological synthesis of the "good news of Jesus" (as distinct from the Good News of the Kingdom) but then the writer goes on to indeed make the gospel about us by wrapping the Gospel around Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone":

"In addition to the person and work of Jesus, there is also in the New Testament use of the term gospel the question of how the benefits accomplished by the objective work of Jesus are subjectively appropriated to the believer. First, there is the question of who Jesus was and what He did. Second is the question of how that benefits you and me. That is why Paul conjoins the objective account of the person and work of Jesus (particularly to the Galatians) with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is essential to the gospel. In preaching the gospel we preach about Jesus, and we preach about how we are brought into a saving relationship with him."

No, this is not the good news of the kingdom that Jesus delivered and commended to us..

So, is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached ?

[Wayne in Maine]

I thought this was an interesting article on the Gospel that includes both the Kingdom message and how it is meaningful to our lives- https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does ... testament/

It's a good article, at least in its beginning, but it goes on to state exactly the first part of what JBG posted:
"If we give our testimony to our neighbors, saying, “I became a Christian last year. I gave my heart to Jesus,” we are bearing witness about Jesus, but we are not telling them the gospel, because the gospel is not about us. The gospel is about Jesus—what He did, His life of perfect obedience, His atoning death on the cross, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, and His outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church. We call those crucial elements the objective aspects of the New Testament gospel of Christ."

So far, so good, at least in regards to a theological synthesis of the "good news of Jesus" (as distinct from the Good News of the Kingdom) but then the writer goes on to indeed make the gospel about us by wrapping the Gospel around Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone":

"In addition to the person and work of Jesus, there is also in the New Testament use of the term gospel the question of how the benefits accomplished by the objective work of Jesus are subjectively appropriated to the believer. First, there is the question of who Jesus was and what He did. Second is the question of how that benefits you and me. That is why Paul conjoins the objective account of the person and work of Jesus (particularly to the Galatians) with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is essential to the gospel. In preaching the gospel we preach about Jesus, and we preach about how we are brought into a saving relationship with him."

No, this is not the good news of the kingdom that Jesus delivered and commended to us..

So, is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached ?

If we could stop using this religious language like "the Gospel" we might get somewhere. Is the "Gospel" mentioned by Bootstrap found in the "Calendar of Priene" the same as the "Gospel" Jesus preached? or the "Gospel" Paul preached?

[Sudsy]

It's a good article, at least in its beginning, but it goes on to state exactly the first part of what JBG posted:
"If we give our testimony to our neighbors, saying, “I became a Christian last year. I gave my heart to Jesus,” we are bearing witness about Jesus, but we are not telling them the gospel, because the gospel is not about us. The gospel is about Jesus—what He did, His life of perfect obedience, His atoning death on the cross, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, and His outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church. We call those crucial elements the objective aspects of the New Testament gospel of Christ."

So far, so good, at least in regards to a theological synthesis of the "good news of Jesus" (as distinct from the Good News of the Kingdom) but then the writer goes on to indeed make the gospel about us by wrapping the Gospel around Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone":

"In addition to the person and work of Jesus, there is also in the New Testament use of the term gospel the question of how the benefits accomplished by the objective work of Jesus are subjectively appropriated to the believer. First, there is the question of who Jesus was and what He did. Second is the question of how that benefits you and me. That is why Paul conjoins the objective account of the person and work of Jesus (particularly to the Galatians) with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is essential to the gospel. In preaching the gospel we preach about Jesus, and we preach about how we are brought into a saving relationship with him."

No, this is not the good news of the kingdom that Jesus delivered and commended to us..

So, is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached ?

If we could stop using this religious language like "the Gospel" we might get somewhere. Is the "Gospel" mentioned by Bootstrap found in the "Calendar of Priene" the same as the "Gospel" Jesus preached? or the "Gospel" Paul preached?

Me thinks you avoided my question ?

No, imo. We can use the word "Gospel" to apply to any good news if that is all we are saying. The first 4 books of the NT are called 'The Gospel According To' Mathew, Mark, Luke or John. There were many of writings also called "The "Gospel" - The
"Gospel of" - Thomas, Mary, Peter, the Hebrews, Judas, etc.

I believe the "good news", if you prefer, is about the Kingdom that Jesus preached about. Jesus ministry was primarily to the Jews and He went about correcting their understandings of what the Kingdom of God was about. Paul also preached what the Kingdom of God was about and was not about as he also preached to the Jews. But Paul was sent mainly to the Gentiles preaching salvation. After the death and resurrection of Jesus the main message was what Jesus accomplished by that act of obedience.

I'm not sure where this is going but I believe after Pentecost, the Holy Spirit directed the message of good news as we read in Acts and the Epistles. The descriptions of how Jesus explained the Kingdom life would be evident in those who believed in His death and resurrection. As Jesus put it 'Ye must be born again'. I view the basic belief of what Jesus accomplished for us to be the "good news" we are to share with others. Once born again, Kingdom life as Jesus and the Apostles preached is how we are to understand and obey it.

Got to go now. Be back later.

[Bootstrap]

So, is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached ?

Yes, I think it is, but the best way to do this is to do a simple experiment. Read all four Gospels more than once, then read Galatians. Listening to them on audio while you read is particularly helpful. I did this years ago when I was learning to read Greek because the Greek in the Gospels is easy and the Greek in Galatians is not too bad - after reading the Gospels several times, I read Galatians and was very surprised that it didn't seem to read the same way I had remembered it.

N.T. Wright brings in the Old Testament background in his New Perspective on Paul theology.

Paul defined the Gospel differently in different passages, here's Romans 1:

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures— 3 concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was a descendant of David according to the flesh 4 and was appointed to be the powerful Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead. 5 Through him we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the Gentiles, 6 including you who are also called by Jesus Christ.

I think all of that is the Gospel, and all of that is explained in the Gospels. The Gospel fulfills the promises of the Old Testament. It's not just receiving grace, but receiving grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the Gentiles. It's not just for Israel. Through it we become servants, set apart for the Gospel.

Like the Pharisees, we too need to worry if we a “neglect the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness,” “strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel,”or “clean up the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence”. Even if we prayed that prayer.

[Wayne in Maine]

So, is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached ?

If we could stop using this religious language like "the Gospel" we might get somewhere. Is the "Gospel" mentioned by Bootstrap found in the "Calendar of Priene" the same as the "Gospel" Jesus preached? or the "Gospel" Paul preached?

Me thinks you avoided my question ?

No, imo. We can use the word "Gospel" to apply to any good news if that is all we are saying. The first 4 books of the NT are called 'The Gospel According To' Mathew, Mark, Luke or John. There were many of writings also called "The "Gospel" - The
"Gospel of" - Thomas, Mary, Peter, the Hebrews, Judas, etc.

I truly believe that the original meaning of words use by the writers of scripture is important. The way the word "Gospel" is used corrupts its meaning: it is not a proper noun such that you can ask "Is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached".

Paul references his "good news" as "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" and in another instance: "that Christ was "risen from the dead", and elsewhere "the good news concerning His [God's] Son" and in another case that it is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" - these are all statements of "good news" but they are not some special and unique religious object owning the word "Gospel" exclusively.

Jesus also preached good news, he preached about the good news of the Kingdom. And I have no reason to believe that Paul did not, in his ministry, present the very same good news as Jesus Himself proclaimed even if it is scant in His letters. The problem I'm addressing is that the way you use the word "Gospel" makes it sound like there is only one unique message (you choose Paul's s good news about "salvation" which you interpret as an offer of going to heaven when you die) that is The Good News: "The Gospel". Historically Christendom and especially Protestant theologians have avoided the good news Jesus proclaimed of His Kingdom and have synthesized a "salvation Gospel" even adding words to scripture to create a religious doctrine that never came from the mouth of Jesus or the pen of one of the apostles.

[Josh]

Part of the good news of Jesus’ kingdom (and I’d like to find a less archaic word than “kingdom”) is that the rich will find it hard to enter, yet the kingdom will be made up of the poor.

That’s not an aspect of the “Gospel” I hear emphasised to often.

[Sudsy]

If we could stop using this religious language like "the Gospel" we might get somewhere. Is the "Gospel" mentioned by Bootstrap found in the "Calendar of Priene" the same as the "Gospel" Jesus preached? or the "Gospel" Paul preached?

Me thinks you avoided my question ?

No, imo. We can use the word "Gospel" to apply to any good news if that is all we are saying. The first 4 books of the NT are called 'The Gospel According To' Mathew, Mark, Luke or John. There were many of writings also called "The "Gospel" - The
"Gospel of" - Thomas, Mary, Peter, the Hebrews, Judas, etc.

I truly believe that the original meaning of words use by the writers of scripture is important. The way the word "Gospel" is used corrupts its meaning: it is not a proper noun such that you can ask "Is the Gospel that Paul preached, not the same Gospel that Jesus preached".

Paul references his "good news" as "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" and in another instance: "that Christ was "risen from the dead", and elsewhere "the good news concerning His [God's] Son" and in another case that it is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" - these are all statements of "good news" but they are not some special and unique religious object owning the word "Gospel" exclusively.

Jesus also preached good news, he preached about the good news of the Kingdom. And I have no reason to believe that Paul did not, in his ministry, present the very same good news as Jesus Himself proclaimed even if it is scant in His letters. The problem I'm addressing is that the way you use the word "Gospel" makes it sound like there is only one unique message (you choose Paul's s good news about "salvation" which you interpret as an offer of going to heaven when you die) that is The Good News: "The Gospel". Historically Christendom and especially Protestant theologians have avoided the good news Jesus proclaimed of His Kingdom and have synthesized a "salvation Gospel" even adding words to scripture to create a religious doctrine that never came from the mouth of Jesus or the pen of one of the apostles.

The underlined - my intention was not that but rather to point out that Paul said what was of 'first importance' regarding the good news was a belief as he stated it in 1 Cor 15:1-2 and he put it that this good news was the base belief necessary to hold to that saves us. Paul didn't say this was the complete good news but rather it was of 'first importance'. In other words you can't be saved from your sins without believing these truths.

I agree that the good news some have proclaimed was incomplete when they did not also disciple new believers in what Jesus said about life as a Kingdom citizen. But I think before one can lay hold on what Jesus said about the Kingdom, it begins with acceptance first of what is of 'first importance' and upon this we become new creations and able, through the Holy Spirit, learn about Kingdom living.

For examples, my parents, both with no church backgrounds, very worldly sinners, heard the good news that Christ died for their sins and accepted His gift of salvation. Upon this belief they both were born again which radically changed their lives to want to be good Kingdom ambassadors. Both suffered persecution from their previous acquaintances. Then they were taught what Jesus and the apostles said about Kingdom life. Myself, as probably most in the Mennonite groups, were raised in some form of Kingdom living and this radical change was not quite so dramatic. But at some point, we realize we are attracted to the Kingdom way of life and if our salvation is genuine we will embrace Jesus as both Lord and Saviour and operate out of love for Him and no other reason.

There is much good news in Kingdom living. Jesus said He came to bring us abundant life. Something the world in all it's ways cannot match. We can stay at a new born level and miss out on how great this life can be as Paul pointed out in his epistles. Or grow in spiritual maturity to experience this full life Jesus spoke about. Much of the professing Christian world wants a foot in both worlds. That abundant Kingdom life doesn't come that way. Imo, what is most missing today is preaching that this abundant life is still attainable if we are willing to walk in the Spirit.