What Was Christ's Gospel?

[DLClark]

I think I see how you reason. The 4 Gospels can also be referred to as the Gospels of Christ, right?

If you mean they called the gospel in that they are the good news about Christ, then Yes. Also, the word can be used to define what the saving message is that Christ brought us. Christ told us in John 3:15-19 that when we belive we are saved and will never perish and when we do not believe in Him we are judged. this is the Gospel in a nut shell. Adding anything to Christ’s gospel of salvation like, water baptism, holy communion, the mass, marriage, church membership, perverts the simple plan of salvation that Christ gave to us.

 

[avflf]

If you mean they called the gospel in that they are the good news about Christ, then Yes. Also, the word can be used to define what the saving message is that Christ brought us. Christ told us in John 3:15-19 that when we belive we are saved and will never perish and when we do not believe in Him we are judged. this is the Gospel in a nut shell. Adding anything to Christ’s gospel of salvation like, water baptism, holy communion, the mass, marriage, church membership, perverts the simple plan of salvation that Christ gave to us.

I see. So, the sacraments are really not essential to salvation and we could happily dispense with them

 

[DLClark]

I see. So, the sacraments are really not essential to salvation and we could happily dispense with them

that is most correct my friend. There is no salvic value in the ellements of communion. We observe communion as a memorial to what Christ did for us on the Cross. That is the value of communion. Notice what Christ said about the elements of communion,1 Cor 11:23-26

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
NASU

Christ never said communion saves us. We are saved by faith in Christ and nothing else. The thief on the cross was saved and he never partook of communion, or was baptized, or joined any church but Jesus said he was saved.

 

[avflf]

that is most correct my friend. There is no salvic value in the ellements of communion. We observe communion as a memorial to what Christ did for us on the Cross. That is the value of communion. Notice what Christ said about the elements of communion,1 Cor 11:23-26

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
NASU

Christ never said communion saves us. We are saved by faith in Christ and nothing else. The thief on the cross was saved and he never partook of communion, or was baptized, or joined any church but Jesus said he was saved.

You’re not Catholic, are you? For if you are you seem to be in conflict with the Church.'s doctrine on, for example, Baptism. The following is from the New Advent Encyclopaedia:

Necessity of baptism

*Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. *

 

[davidv]

that is most correct my friend. There is no salvic value in the ellements of communion.

This is total untrue. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 1131:

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

{snip}

As a sacrament, Communion was instituted by Jesus Christ at the last supper, and is a means by which grace is dispensed.

 

[DLClark]

You’re not Catholic, are you? For if you are you seem to be in conflict with the Church.'s doctrine on, for example, Baptism. The following is from the New Advent Encyclopaedia:

Necessity of baptism

*Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. *

You are not biblical are you. when Catholic dotrine conflicts with the Bible, the Bible must
be followed. The Bible tells us to believe on Christ and you will be saved, Acts 16:31. If Catholic doctrine conflicts with the Bible Catholic doctrine is wrong.

 

[davidv]

You are not biblical are you. when Catholic dotrine conflicts with the Bible, the Bible must
be followed. The Bible tells us to believe on Christ and you will be saved, Acts 16:31. If Catholic doctrine conflicts with the Bible Catholic doctrine is wrong.

No church is more Biblical than the Catholic Church. She is the one who assembled and protect the Bible. It was out of the teachings she receive from Jesus Christ that the Bible emerged.

 

[avflf]

You are not biblical are you. when Catholic dotrine conflicts with the Bible, the Bible must
be followed. The Bible tells us to believe on Christ and you will be saved, Acts 16:31. If Catholic doctrine conflicts with the Bible Catholic doctrine is wrong.

Considering that the Catholic Church has been the keepers and dispensers of the Sacred Texts for close on 2000 years and that the Reformation only brought about a different interpretation of those same texts and, at the same time, also discarded books from the Bible that did not fit with their new interpretation, how can you be sure that your belief is true and all others miss the mark. Can you also be sure, and for that you must trust the Catholic Church, that the Bible as you now have it has not been tampered with by the Church over the thousand odd years when they were sole custodians of the books? :bible1:

 

[swplan76]

No church is more Biblical than the Catholic Church. She is the one who assembled and protect the Bible. It was out of the teachings she receive from Jesus Christ that the Bible emerged.

Hey David,

     The Catholic church does not depend on Biblical authority.  The Catholic church looks to the Pope for direction on an equal footing with the Bible (no?).  There is also the Catechism.  Catholics are not really encouraged to read the Bible and it is not considered important.  Most Catholics I know do not attend mass regularly and they certainly do not read scripture.  Most Catholics I know would laugh at the idea that they might need to consider changing their lives in order to become more like the first century church.

I was talking with some kids the other day, trying to help them imagine the way the church emerged after Jesus’ resurrection and the way scripture describes the church. They had divorced themselves from the traditions they were raised with. They seemingly had no traditions outside of Baptism and the Eucharist. They spoke in tongues, prophesied, worshiped in song, read scripture, but the way church was done, we do not resemble that. There may be some people out there who are living out the model presented by the first century church, but from what I know it is not easy to find… It certainly is not mainstream.

The approach to being His church that the Catholic church practices is not an approach that is obviously present in scripture and so the Catholic church is not really “Biblical.” I’m not saying its wrong. When you said there is no church more biblical than the Catholic church I thought that was a little bit off the mark. Also you said that the Catholic church “is the one who assembled and protect the Bible.” I do not read anywhere in scripture that God appointed us to protect the Bible… not a biblical idea…

No matter how we cut it, the Catholic church has a lot more ideas that have developed through papal succession. This is an accepted part of Catholicism. Catholicism does not require itself to be dependent upon the Bible because the Pope is with us and He speaks for God… right?

 

[DLClark]

No church is more Biblical than the Catholic Church. She is the one who assembled and protect the Bible. It was out of the teachings she receive from Jesus Christ that the Bible emerged.

No church is more biblical than the B churchible. If what the catholic believes and teaches agrees with the Bible great. But I am afraid that much of what you believe do not agree with the Bible. Especially concerning salvation. We are saved by grace through faith and not of works, Eph 2:8-9. We are saved by faith alone in Chirst alone. Water baptism, good works, holy communion, church membership, marriage are not part of the gospel message Christ gave to us. Read the gospel mssage in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 to find out what the message of salvation is and believing it you will be saved.

 

[Mailman]

Jesus IS the gospel - He is the good news, the Way the Truth and the Life, by whom we can come to the Father.

Jesus is Logos - the Word - God’s self-revelation.

In the same way that Jesus is both the High Priest and the Paschal Lamb, He is both the messenger and the message.

So the “of” in “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” is “about” - but of course, it is also “from” and “belonging to”

He commissioned the Apostles to go into the world and preach the Gospel - to tell everyone about Him - who He is, what He did, and “to obey all that [he] commanded.”

In “A Dictionary of the Bible” we find this commentary about the Gospel:

“In the mouth of Christ and those who, while He was on earth, He sent forth to proclaim it, it was the good tidings of the kingdom of God which He had come to establish… After Christ’s death and resurrection, it became the tidings about Christ.”

As this commentary pointed out, the Gospel that Christ and His disciples proclaimed was the gospel of the kingdom of God, but people later changed it to the gospel ABOUT Christ.

The main focus of Christ’s teaching was on His message about the Kingdom of God. Here’s what “The Anchor Bible Dictionary” says:

“The ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’ is a subject of major importance in the Bible for two primary reasons: Its frequency in the first three canonical (synoptic) gospels of the NT, and the conviction that it stands at the very center of the historical Jesus.”

“The Oxford Companion to the Bible” concurs with a similar statement:

“There is clear agreement among the synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark and Luke] that the Kingdom of God was the principal theme within Jesus’ message. In aggregate, they present some fifty sayings and parables of Jesus concerning the kingdom… It is, then, a matter of consensus within the canon that the kingdom constituted a primary focus in Jesus’ theology.”

 

[Mailman]

If I could sum up in one word the “good news” it would be – reconciliation. That was the message of Jesus in a nutshell.

St Paul said it best in 2 Cor 5:18-19 “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

Matt. 4:23 – “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom….”

Matt. 9:35 – “And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom….”

Luke 8:1 – “And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God….”

Jesus’ message or good news was about the coming Kingdom of God. But it would not be possible for man to enter into this Kingdom without first being reconciled to God (man’s sin caused him to be separated from God), thus His message of reconciliation. Jesus’ death made possible this reconciliation: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son…” (Rom. 5:10). But it is by His life – by His resurrection from the dead – that we shall be able to enter into the glorious Kingdom: “…much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

 

[Mailman]

Amen, D.L., our Lord Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, came only to Israel [Matthew 15:24]. The gospel that He preached was about the kingdom promised to Israel in the O. T. . Our Lord sent the 12 to Israel preaching the same gospel, but it DID NOT include the revelation of our Lord’s death, burial and resurrection. Compare Luke 9:6 with Luke 18:31-35. The 12, at that time, did not know about the death, burial and resurrection.

The reason why Jesus Christ preached the gospel only to the children of Israel was because it was to the Israelites, “to whom belong the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4).

These “promises” include the promise of salvation through the “One Seed,” Christ (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16), Jesus having come “to confirm [these] promises made unto the fathers” (Rom. 5:18). According to Jesus’ theology, salvation is entrance into the Kingdom of God (Matt. 19:22-23). In fact, Christ clearly taught that eternal life, salvation, and entering the Kingdom of God are all synonymous (Matt. 19:16-25). Christ confirmed the promises and proclaimed the gospel message [of the Kingdom/salvation] to Israel only: “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel…” (Acts 10:36).

The 12 were sent to proclaim the same message to the House of Israel (Matt. 10:5-7). They preached solely to Israel, not only when Christ was still with them, but even years after the resurrected Christ had left them (The first preaching of the gospel to a non-Israelite was not made until the time of the gentile Cornelius). In Acts 2 to 5, we find that when the 12 preached to the Jews, a part of Israel, their message DID INCLUDE the revelation about our Lord’s death and resurrection. But that does not mean that this was THE Gospel that Christ commanded the 12 to preach. It was only an added element to be taught alongside the Gospel of the Kingdom after Jesus was resurrected. Even today, the same Gospel message is to be preached to the world by Christ’s ministers: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matt. 24:14).

When our Lord returns to this earth He will sit on David’s throne in Jerusalem and rule over Israel and the nations. The 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes [Matthew 19:28]. BTW, this literal kingdom is what the Lord spent His last 40 days on earth telling the 11 about [Luke 24:24-27; 44-46; Acts 1:3]. Note that the 11 asked a “timely” question in Acts 1:6.

Grace and Peace,

Quickcat

We are on the same page on this. Christ spoke of a literal kingdom that will be established on earth. That was the good news, or Gospel, that He proclaimed as Messenger of the New Covenant. Jesus is coming in supreme power and glory to set up God’s government on earth to rule all nations with the help of those who have qualified in this life (all those who shall attain salvation when He returns): “He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron…” (Rev. 2:27).

The world will not end when Christ returns. It will continue on with the only difference that now there will be a single, all-powerful, world-ruling government of a divine nature – the Kingdom of God – that will rule the earth, not only in the spiritual affairs of man, but in his temporal affairs, too. This is what Jesus came to announce – this was the heart of His Gospel.

 

[Randy_Carson]

During a mass, we hear these words at the end of a Scriptural reading: “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to St. John” – or St. Matthew, or St. Luke, or whoever wrote the particular passage being read.

Now, what about the Gospel according to Jesus? Jesus Himself preached some “gospel.” Once, when in a synagogue in Nazareth, He read from the book of Isaiah and declared that the particular passage He just read (a prophecy) has been fulfilled by His coming. One of the things prophesied there was that He was to be the Anointed One to preach THE Gospel.

“And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:17-19).

If Jesus was to “preach the gospel to the poor,” what was this gospel that Jesus was prophesied to preach?

I would like to get your ideas on the subject and see if we are on the same page on this one.

Thanks.

In answer to your question, I like this article:

What is the Gospel?
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/gospel.htm

 

[Jerry_Marino]

I think I see how you reason. The 4 Gospels can also be referred to as the Gospels of Christ, right?

yes indeed, according to matthew, mark, luke and john. the good news is we have hope in Jesus Christ,

God bless.

 

[swplan76]

…If what the catholic believes and teaches agrees with the Bible great. But I am afraid that much of what you believe do not agree with the Bible. Especially concerning salvation. We are saved by grace through faith and not of works, Eph 2:8-9. We are saved by faith alone in Chirst alone. Water baptism, good works, holy communion, church membership, marriage are not part of the gospel message Christ gave to us. Read the gospel mssage in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 to find out what the message of salvation is and believing it you will be saved.

1st Corinthians 14:26 - What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

What ever we do must be done with the intention of building up or strengthening the church.

2 Timothy 2:23
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

I am not an unopinionated person. Sometimes I speak as an authority on matters I have not authority over and instead of drawing people closer to God, I convince them through my arrogance that where ever God is, He isn’t with me. I struggle with the desire to prove myself right and others wrong, so I have to ask myself, what are my words going to produce in others? Am I doing this so God might be glorified, or for some other reason?

I have met all kinds of Christians over the years. We all have verses we use to support our various perspectives. I can share a verse with you and you might hear it, or you might just bring up another verse that you think is superior to it. I think you might just be heading into this kind of dialogue. Will it lead to anything fruitful? Maybe we should just focus on the things that will be profitable and useful for strengthening and building each other up, especially if we tend to get into these kind of arguments.

I read 1st Cor. 15:1-11
Its a great passage. I am often struck by how much simpler the church was back then. It was not structured with much ceremony or tradition. In that setting Paul tells us what the most important things are for us to understand. Thanks for bringing it up.

Catholics believe in Papal succession, so this means that there is a lot more to consider if you are a Catholic. For Catholics, the various Catholic documents are just as important as the Bible as they come from Popes.

The things Catholics believe are required are based on scripture, but are not phrased in the same way in scripture. So, here is where we enter into the logic war that might likely end up being unfruitful.

Rob Bell, in speaking tour titled, Everything is Spiritual, said something like this:
In a 2 dimensional world a circle and a rectangle cannot be the same thing (He drew a circle next to a rectangle on a white board). All the circle people argue with the rectangle people about the benefits of trusting the circle instead of trusting the rectangle and vice-versa. In 2 dimensions it appears that a circle and a rectangle are incompatible, but in 3 dimensions, a circle and a rectangle might just be part of the same thing (at this point Bell held up the marker and showed everyone). On one end, this marker is a circle, but if we turn it just a little, we see a rectangle. Who is right, the circles or the rectangles? God might just be sitting there holding the marker outside of our dimension saying, “yep.” We might want clarification: “Is it the circle or the rectangle?” To which He might respond, “YEP.”

In 2 dimensions, it seems that the circle and the rectangle do not function together, so be a Catholic, or be a Protestant (or be both), but turn your focus toward building others up - be sure that is the heart of your activity.

 

[Mailman]

In answer to your question, I like this article:

What is the Gospel?
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/gospel.htm

Thanks for the link. In answer to the question, it says: “The gospel is the message that Jesus Christ died and rose for our sins so that we may be saved.”

There is a problem here. When Christ first preached the gospel (Mark 1), it was AT THE BEGINNING of His 3-1/2-year earthly ministry. He has not yet died and risen. Also, Christ’s disciples preached the gospel without even knowing that Christ would die and be resurrected (Luke 9:6). In fact, they “understood none of these things” (Luke 18:34) even after Christ told them about it a few days before entering Jerusalem to be scourged and be put to death. Yet, they had already been preaching the gospel long before that.

In fact, they had been preaching the gospel without ever telling the people that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. After Christ sent out His disciples “to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick” (Luke 9:2, 6), Christ asked His disciples: “Whom say the people that I am…” (v. 19). Matthew 16 contains a more complete passage paralleling this account: “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” (v. 15) “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (vv. 15-17).

Clearly, Christ had not even told His disciples that He was the Son of God, but He had already sent them out preaching the gospel. Notice verse 20: “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” The reason He commanded this is that he did not want to be crucified prematurely. But what is absolutely certain from this verse is that the Gospel cannot be a simple proclamation stating that Jesus is the Christ or that Christ died and rose for our sins. Luke 9:11 tells us that they had already been preaching the gospel, yet had not even told the people that Jesus was the Christ.

After Peter recognized that Jesus was the Christ, “he [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things… and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). Notice that it was only AFTER Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Christ that Jesus BEGAN to teach His disciples about His coming crucifixion and resurrection. But Peter did not receive this teaching very well at this point, so it is clear that a proclamation that Jesus died and rose for our sins was not part of the gospel that Christ had previously sent Peter out preaching.

 

[SHW]

Yes, indeed. Paul was not shy in claiming that it was by his gospel that men would be judged at the end of time. (Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel) See also Rom.16:25 and 2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: . Unfortunately his gospel did not make it to the inspiration table and we are now left the poorer by having to rely on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s accounts that were written much later than Paul’s.

We call certain books of the Bible “gospels” but this is only to distinguish them from “epistles” (letters) which were sent to individual persons or churches, either to augment their oral teaching of the faith, or to encourage and/or admonish; and also to instruct some of them for a specific role in leadership. The four Gospels chronicle the life of Christ in written form whereas the Epistles do not chronicle the life of Christ.

Paul’s “gospel” is the same as Jesus’ gospel. It is no different than the other apostles’ gospels. They all taught the same things, each using his own personal style, to fit the intended audience and the circumstances which made the teaching necessary. Jesus’ gospel was proclaimed to the world, by His apostles and disciples, through oral teaching. (Matthew 28:19-20) Paul did not actually “write” a gospel manuscript like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did.

The “good news” (gospel) is everything that Jesus taught and commanded, and this good news is passed down through His Church by word (orally) and by epistle (letter). These teachings of Jesus and His apostles/disciples are called traditions.

1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

Paul explains the gospel of Jesus:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

Some of Jesus’ gospel was written down, but not all of His gospel was put into the book we now call the Bible. Some of Jesus’ gospel was shown by Jesus to the Church such as the Holy Mass and the Sacraments, and these things were passed down from bishop to bishop. These things were not included in the Bible and it was not necessary to do so.

John 21:25 “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”

 

[swplan76]

When Christ first preached the gospel (Mark 1), it was AT THE BEGINNING of His 3-1/2-year earthly ministry. He has not yet died and risen. Also, Christ’s disciples preached the gospel without even knowing that Christ would die and be resurrected (Luke 9:6). In fact, they “understood none of these things” (Luke 18:34) even after Christ told them about it a few days before entering Jerusalem to be scourged and be put to death. Yet, they had already been preaching the gospel long before that.

In fact, they had been preaching the gospel without ever telling the people that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. After Christ sent out His disciples “to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick” (Luke 9:2, 6), Christ asked His disciples: “Whom say the people that I am…” (v. 19). Matthew 16 contains a more complete passage paralleling this account: “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” (v. 15) “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (vv. 15-17).

Clearly, Christ had not even told His disciples that He was the Son of God, but He had already sent them out preaching the gospel. Notice verse 20: “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” The reason He commanded this is that he did not want to be crucified prematurely. But what is absolutely certain from this verse is that the Gospel cannot be a simple proclamation stating that Jesus is the Christ or that Christ died and rose for our sins. Luke 9:11 tells us that they had already been preaching the gospel, yet had not even told the people that Jesus was the Christ.

After Peter recognized that Jesus was the Christ, “he [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things… and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). Notice that it was only AFTER Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Christ that Jesus BEGAN to teach His disciples about His coming crucifixion and resurrection. But Peter did not receive this teaching very well at this point, so it is clear that a proclamation that Jesus died and rose for our sins was not part of the gospel that Christ had previously sent Peter out preaching.

Very interesting point!!
the good news of Jesus is not centered around His death and crucifixion… Paul also points to this in Acts 17… the idea is that the crucifixion and resurrection was “proof” of Jesus’ authority as a messenger of the gospel.

Most of His message centered around the idea of the “Kingdom of heaven.” I think we can also gather the gist of the message/gospel through how Jesus lived. James (Jesus half brother) says in ‘James’ that “pure and faultless religion is this: to take care of the orphan and the widow and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

The Message of Jesus’ gospel is pretty much the same message that God had been sending to Israel for so many generations: “return/repent.”

Israel in slavery… they cried out to God. He called them to return/repent. He brought them out of Egypt in a memorable way so they wouldn’t not forget who He is and what He did (because Adam and Eve, in the garden, forgot who God was and ate the apple, going against the one thing He had asked them not to do). He led them out to enter into a promised land - Adam and Eve were in a land of promise, but they messed it up so they were expelled - God leads Israel out of exile into a promised land “of milk and honey.” While in the desert, as Moses is up on the mountain getting the 10 commandments, Israel is betraying God by worshiping a golden calf, so they blew it again, so God refuses to let that generation enter into the promised land - it takes 40 years before they can return to the land He has waiting for them.

God gets specific with them about what He means when he invites them to return/repent. To sum it up God says, do not become like your oppressors. One thing He tells them, is don’t use slaves to rebuild, but they do.

As a result they are exiled again and find themselves once again in a foreign land - Babylon. They cry out again. Does God put on a big show again like He did in Egypt? No, not this time. This time God raises up prophets to speak to Israel… and what do they repeatedly tell Israel?

Repent/Return
Return to the Way I created you to live… the Way I created you to live in Eden… and the Way I pointed you toward after Egypt. Return to me…

After Babylon Israel returns to the land, but it is occupied by Rome. They have come back to the land, but they are still in some form of exile, so they call out again.

Throughout the Old Testament God has been preparing them like a farmer prepares the land to receive a seed of something that will really liberate them. In the way He liberated them in Egypt and the way He liberated them in Babylon, God brings both of those back together through Jesus. Jesus puts on the big show like Egypt, yet speaks to them like the prophets. He heals them and challenges them… You’d think he would put together an army because that is what everyone else was doing, but he doesn’t. God isn’t interested in oppressing us the way everyone else tends to. God wants us to be free. The gospel of Jesus is this: Repent (return to me) - back to who we were first created to be.

Its interesting that you make the point that there is a progression of things through Jesus’ message… He is leading up to something. Later in the NT it is described as a “culmination of the ages.” He is ushering in a new age. In the Gospel of John 14-16 He explains how this new age will work. The Paraclete - the HS.

God wants us to join Him in the restoration of creation. In order to do that we cannot go our own way, we have to return.

 

[swplan76]

I’d say the message of Jesus’ Gospel was to liberate the oppressed and join God in that work. That is what Jesus did and that is what Jesus taught. The response is to return to God’s Way, to repent and join Him in what He is doing. He’s been leading up to something … and did it through Jesus, but Jesus tells us that God is still leading up to something - “the restoration of all things.”

Thats the nuts and bolts of what I said previously.

How does that sit?