Recently, a Christian friend who is working in East Asia, and with whom I correspond, has been asking timely, for him, questions about how to talk about Jesus to people who have no religious background. In our dialogue, and spurred on by much that I have been reading at this site, I spent a day re-reading Acts with particular emphasis on what Luke recorded was actually said during ‘proclamation events.’ I have added below the summary I sent my friend. Some of the formatting is awkward, and someday when i have time i will come back and make it better!
Proclamation in Acts
The following is an attempt to summarize the core of each of the different proclamation events in Acts. The idea is that perhaps we can understand better what we should be saying to people by looking at the little bit of information we have of what the early church was saying to their contemporaries.
2.14 – 41: Peter addresses the crowd of Pilgrim Jews at Pentecost:
- The eschatological hope of Israel is happening now
- the man Jesus was destined by God to be put to death by you, my fellow Jews
- the same was then raised to life by God
- because he is the Messiah spoken of by David
- he has taken his position of authority (at God’s right hand) and sent his spirit, which is what you now see.
- Israel, know this: Jesus is Messiah and lord
1. The people were ‘cut to the heart’
2. Peter instructed that they should abandon their personal agendas (repent) and take up Jesus’ and be baptized
3. Their sins were forgiven and the received the HS
- He continued to plead: ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’
3.1 – 26: Peter heals a lame man
- what I have I give you
1. the man was healed
- Explanation: the Jewish god has made Jesus messiah and lord and this man’s healing is consequent to that position/title/name
- When you killed Jesus you and your leaders were ignorant of his favor with God
- This was actually fulfilling God’s purpose
- (as per the prophets) what follows the suffering of the servant is the new age (forgiveness of sins and times of refreshing), and eventually, the messiah’s return with the restoration of everything
- those who don’t listen will be cut off from the true Israel, God’s newly gathered people represented by Jesus
- the fulfillment of the prophecies and the covenant with Abraham has come true in Jesus; we Jews are blessed first by Jesus’ coming to us, even though the promise is also for the Gentiles (here, blessing = turning from wicked ways, similar to Peter’s earlier ‘save yourselves from this corrupt generation’)
4.1 – 22: Peter and John speak to the Sanhedrin
- proclaiming the resurrection of the dead (evidence of the age to come), and Jesus as evidence
- how was this man healed?
- By the name/title/authority of Jesus as messiah, though crucified, now resurrected
7.1 – 53: Stephen addresses the Sanhedrin
- God chose Abraham from among many men and gave him the promises
- God chose Joseph, who was sold as a slave and then exalted to save his brothers
- God fulfilled land-promise to Abraham by choosing Moses, who was rejected by his fellow Jews and then used as God’s instrument to save the Israelites
- Even after that Moses was rejected when the people wanted to return to Egypt and worshiped other gods
- Jesus has been chosen by God as the one promised by all the prophets, but now you have rejected and murdered him (implicit: but he has been raised to life, i.e., entered the new ‘promised land’ and will also bring his people there)
10.34 – 48: Peter speaks to Cornelius and the Gentiles
- God does not show favoritism – he accepts Jew and Gentile alike who turn fear him and do what is right
- God sent a message of peace through Jesus (Israel’s messiah and the world’s lord) to Israel: John preached repentance, Jesus was anointed as messiah, he went around healing those caught by the devil and doing good, was crucified, resurrected, and seen by a select group who would announce that Jesus has been appointed the judge of dead and living alike: the judgement for those who believe is that they are forgiven
13.16 – 52: Paul in Pisidian Antioch
- Israel was chosen by her god
- God prospered her, delivered her from Egypt, and endured her rebellion and doubt in the wilderness, gave the land to her
- God chose David to be the ancestor of the David-like messiah
- Jesus is that messiah, announced by the prophet John, put to death by your fellow Jews in Jerusalem (ironically fulfilling God’s purpose), raised out from the dead ones, seen by witnesses for many days who now continue to bear witness in Jerusalem
- The evangel is this: through the resurrection of Jesus, the promises of God to our fathers have been fulfilled
- This means sins are forgiven and the verdict that one is a member of God’s family is upon those who believe, not simply to those who mark themselves out by Moses’ law
- This is god’s message, and since you Jews reject it, we will go to the Gentiles (implicit: as I just said, it is not by Torah observance that one is a member of God’s people)
14.1 – 7: in Iconium
- the evangel is this: the lord’s grace
14.8 – 20: in Lystra
- the evangel is this: there is a living god who created all things, including what you worship as god
- this god has shown you kindness throughout history, but especially now that he is calling you to worship him alone
17.7: to the Jews in Thessalonica
- the messiah had to suffer and be raised
- Jesus is that messiah
- the message is summarized thus: there another king (besides Caesar), namely, Jesus
17.16 – 34: at the Areopagus
- the evangel is about Jesus and the resurrection
- you are religious, even worshiping an ‘unknown’ god
- I am announcing to you what you are worshiping in ignorance
- The creator is transcendent and not worshiped in temples and is himself the source of all life (contra stoics)
- He divided the world into nations (from one man, probably emphasizing the one man he wants to create in Jesus, and always intended for humanity) and determined where and when they would live (contra epicureans) so that he would be sought, though he is also close to each of us.
- God has overlooked you ignorance of him in the past, but now commands that all people turn from worshiping idols and to him, the living god.
- Because he has appointed Jesus as judge of the world, proven by his resurrection
25.1 – 12: Paul before Felix
- faith in Jesus Christ
- righteousness/justice, self-control, judgement to come
26.15 – 18: Paul’s description to Agrippa of his commission by Jesus:
- sent to Gentiles
- open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, power of Satan to God
- so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and become a part of the Jesus family
- repent, turn to God, prove repentance by deeds
- the Messiah would suffer, be the 1st to rise from the dead and proclaim light to Jews and Gentiles
The challenge in summarizing all of this is that there appears to be generally at last two different messages, depending on the audience addressed (Jew or Gentile). However, both center on Jesus and his resurrection. To the Jews, the message is that the promises and covenants to the fathers are now fulfilled in Jesus, who is the messiah. This has happened through the prophesied and necessary suffering, death and resurrection of the messiah, the first among all who will one day be resurrected – those who follow Jesus. God has forgiven Israel for her faithlessness to the covenant (presumably because of Jesus’ faithfulness to it, as Israel’s anointed representative). To the Gentiles, the message is that the creator is the only true god, and he is calling them to allegiance to Jesus, the new ruler of the world, who will return to bring justice to the creation. He has been appointed as the only one who can do this, proven by his resurrection from the dead. The time for the creator to deal with all the nations is now, since Israel’s messiah was always intended to be the world’s lord. Gentiles can be forgiven of their sins and enter the family of truly human beings.
The following is an attempt to find the synthesis of these ideas, notably embellishing where a term needs further explanation.
We are part of a wonderful creation that has become corrupted by our own selfishness and desire to live independently of the creator who gives us life. Although we were formed to be image-bearers to and for the rest of creation, we have lost our glory (which was only ever reflected glory, anyway) by worshiping other gods. The creator desires to restore his creation, and intends to do it through humanity, his chosen image-bearers. One man has faithfully reflected the creator’s glory and heart and good intent by demonstrating the depth of the creator’s own love and passion for us and the rest of creation. Although rejected and killed by his contemporaries, the creator started the restoration of creation by raising Jesus to new life that cannot be corrupted. Jesus is the man appointed by the creator to set things right in the world, beginning by ruling his people, those who are faithful to him. He will one day make a climactic appearance to judge the world and to give his people the same life he has, which will then overflow to all of creation. He has sent his spirit into the lives of those whose lives are entrusted to him so that we can begin to experience that life even now, by having our hearts and minds and lives turned toward him.
Atonement and Acts
I forgot to add that my friend’s response was a surprised awareness of the almost total lack of traditional atonement theology in the actual proclamations.
Apostolic Preaching
C H Dodd’s seminal work on the apostolic preaching is available online at:
http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=539
johnmtait
Proclamation only?
I note that you presented your interest as “how to talk about Jesus to people,” then proceeded to summarize the verbal content (with some exceptions) on selected messages about Jesus. Are there other factors that might be significant to your question? For example, what kind of people were spoken to? What sorts of responses were solicited or offered? What sorts of settings were preferred? I mention this in view of the Evangelical tendency to see conversion in terms of theological assertions to be believed.
Evangelistic proclamations in Acts - Advice requested
Eric’s summaries (of evangelistic proclamations in Acts) may initially seem like grist to the mill of ‘revisionist’ views of the atonement on this site and elsewhere. (Also a useful resource for untrained preachers like myself). However, isn’t the (apparent) discrepancy between theology in Acts and Pauline theology something of a phenomenon that has been noted in the academic world? Can anybody comment on this - and whether the (apparent) discrepancies have been addressed with a view to possible reonciliation/explanation? Chris seems to be suggesting one possibility. Which authors/commentaries should be consulted on this issue? I’d appreciate the guidance.
Not much help
I can’t help with most of what you are asking, Peter, but I want to commenton the (apparent) discrepancies. Maybe it is over-simplified for me to throw this out there, but isn’t it the case that no actual discrepancies exist between the two, only perspectives and aims for what is written? Luke seems concerned to explain (among other things, of course) how the faith in Jesus spread from Jews to Gentiles, asserting that the Jewish messiah is now lord of the world? Paul’s letters are much more focused on a particular situation that needs to be addressed among these new communities. He relies on a development and explanation of the story about Jesus and the Jews (and creation and fall) to ground his specific arguments.
I just got the New Interpreter’s Bible volume 10, which has Acts, Romans and 1 Corinthians in it in commentary. Romans Commentary was written by our friend, N.T. Wright. You might try that (it’s pricey, though).
What was preached?
Your point(s) are noted, Chris. There certainly were/are other factors that might not only be significant to the question, but also inspired my friend to ask it (and the summary I give you of his question and our dialogue is, believe me, a summary). You correctly noted some of the selection criteria (audience, speaker, any signs given, content, etc. )
I certainly don’t think I, any longer, fit into the camp of Evangelicals who see conversion the way you describe, and my intent in the summary was not to come up with some list of things to be believed. Paul indicates that he preached the ‘gospel’ and when he did that, the spirit was at work and people believed. He almost seems surprised himself that a message about a crucified messiah and a defeated lord, who has now been resurrected was believed. For my own and my friend’s sake, I was trying to get at Luke’s account of what Paul was actually telling people when they came to belief in Jesus. In other words, is there a necessity to give people a message about atonement in order for people to believe? Certainly Luke didn’t record everything that was said at each proclamation, but it is interesting, isn’t it, that penal substitution is absent?
I hope I understood your question correctly.
What is "gospel"?
I take your point, and I think you understood where I was coming from. I’m inclined to agree with you that no particular view (or at least not a full-blown one) of the atonement is required for salvation. In fact, I believe that most people become Christians with “defective” views of the atonement, or of Christ, and certainly of God. It seems to be important that they have some sort of commitment to correct their thinking and behavior throughout their lives as they learn better.
So, going back to your original post, this got me thinking about how DO we define “gospel,” or the minimum a person needs to hear to effectively come to Christ. On one extreme, I could support a minimalist definition based on the Great Commission: Any person who understands that Jesus is Lord—who is willing to obey Jesus always—may be considered a convert.
However, surely we could learn from apostolic example, as your exercise attempts to do. In that case, I have some specific questions. What do we do given the fact that some things are mentioned in just one case, while others are mentioned in several? Do we assume only what is mentioned in every case is “core”? Or do we assume that some core elements of the gospel were left out of Luke’s accounts because “everyone knew” (at least he thought his readers would know) the kind of thing preached? Or perhaps synechdoche is the explanation—that mentioning certain parts of the gospel was considered mentioning the entire gospel (e.g. asking for someone’s “hand” in marriage). Does the fact that people were almost always baptized in Luke’s accounts mean that baptism was always part of the apostolic preaching, or is this explained rather by some cultural expectation or direct divine influence or something else? Does God directly and mystically ensure (as many Christians believe he does) that his “true” followers will not be deceived on doctrine? What sorts of things must be repented of as a condition for conversion, and what sorts of things may be left to subsequent “sanctification”?
I guess all these questions without answers means I’m finding your thread provocative!
What is Gospel?
I’ve always thought that 1 Cor 15:1-4 is a relevant passage if we’re talking about core beliefs or a minimalist gospel. This is Paul calling the Corinthians back to the gospel that they first received, and so you would think that it would contain what Paul regards as essential.
John.
Hopefully, John's (John M. Ta
Hopefully, John’s (John M. Tait) post is not overlooked or ignored. He suggests I Corinthians 15:1-4 (which I would broaden to include verses 5-15) is a valid “mimimalist” gospel to consider as a starting point for discussion of this topic.
In addition to placing this scripture in the arena, he has called attention to a set of theological propositions Paul reiterated to his audience which they had believed. He urged them to remain steadfast in those beliefs and implied that their salvation in some sense depended on their steadfastness of belief in the propositions.
The writer of Hebrews(St. Paul or not-it does not matter)makes what appear to be similar assertions on the merits of belief and the dangers of unbelief. To spare readers the tedious scriptural quotation I refer them to the third and fourth chapters of the epistle.
Of some relevance I think, the writer asks who was God so angry with for forty hears? He answers his own question saying it was them who had sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness and who, God swore, would not enter into his rest because they “believed not”. Lest we place an overemphasis on an alternate translation of “disobeyed”, the writer further states they could not enter in to this rest because of unbelief.
A brief quote is necessary. ” For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest…” Hebrews 4:2,3
I think it’s interesting the writer of Hebrews says the gospel was preached both to “them” in the wilderness and to “us” and that belief (evidenced by obedience?) was an expected “saving” response to this gospel. How does this impact our understanding of the gospel?
On the topic at hand-any reasonable search in even a mediocre concordance will fill a page or two with scriptural references of believe, believed, believeth, etc., many of which specifically call for or assume belief, assent, faith in a proposition.
I believe John’s post has raised an important scripture as well as the importance of belief in statements of proposed truth. I hope he is not ignored. Alario
Belief--a given
Alario, I agree with you that it would be very easy to put “belief” in our short list of “core gospel.” This leaves the questions (1) Believing what propositions? (2) What other senses of pistis—trust, faith, etc.—should be understood? (3) What else to add to the list? and (4) Should a call for the correct response what we have so far—“Believe this” or “Do that”—be considered part of the gospel itself, or just some added-on conclusion to the message?
I think that we should be careful not to make “gospel” a technical term wherever it is found in Scripture. The records we have as to what was said to the Israelites in the wilderness do not include anything about the death, burial, resurrection, etc. of Jesus of Nazareth. And somehow I don’t think you’re trying to argue that what we do find in the Old Testament (e.g. ethical instruction, temple system, whatever] is to be identified with the Christian “gospel.” Certainly one could argue that God’s plan of redemption in Christ was known in some form very early, but for our purposes are we willing to consider as “Christian” someone who accepts that “gospel” in that earlier form (e.g. “Through your seed all nations will be blessed”)—without actual knowledge of Jesus himself and his resurrection?
One problem I have with the term “gospel” is that it is meaningless in English. For Christians, it is some kind of code-word for “stuff about being a Christian” or “good news about Jesus” or “what the Bible says.” I use “gospel” sometimes to head a category that is opposed to “cultural” (meaning “stuff that applies to all Christians in all situations in all cultures” and “stuff that applies to certain Christians only, those who are in certain situations or cultures”).
Expanding the gospel.
Chris: You posted two responses related to 1 Corinthians 15. One, agreed with the relevance of the text, noting Paul’s summary of the gospel was a tool to address a deeper issue.
I agree. (Rightly you suggest looking past verse 4. I think verse 11 is a natural break, though in my post I believe I mistyped verse 15 instead.)That Paul uses a summary of the gospel as the springboard to elaborate on the resurrection does not diminish the importance of that summary. Dealing as he was with the particular problem perhaps validates an idea that the particular elements of his summary are crucial foundational material.
As you suggest, It is possible, not certain, that St. Paul’s gospel contained more that the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It is certain he preached on many more things, some sublime, some rather prosaic, many of which are currently out of favor.
With respect to what we might call a gospel pronouncment, St. Paul seems something of a one trick pony. It might be an over simplification, but I read his letters and read of the “cross of Christ”, “glory, save in the cross”,”the blood of his cross”, “we preach Christ crucified” and “Jesus Christ and him crucified.”.
Without doubt, this message was only the door to additonal “good news”-things such as adoption by God and the breaking down of the dividing wall between Hebrew and Gentile-brought about by Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection.
My point in narrowing the gospel to Paul’s concise summary is to reduce it to a small set of propositions to be believed, embraced and trusted.
Which leads to your other post where you ask: what additional propositions can we add to the list of gospel proclamations?
I an afraid I have no concrete answer, only questions and observations which lead to more questions.
In the introduction of his gospel, St. Luke asks his reader to accept the document as a reliable compilation of first hand witnesses and other reliable ministers of “those things which are most surely believed among us.” so Theophilus might “know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”. What follows is a document of some length and detail. Among other things Theophilus is given assurance that the Emmaus road incident took place and Jesus, in essence, explained to the two downcast disciples what has come to be called the gospel was to be found in the law of Moses, all the prophets, the psalms-the scriptures. This is a bold assertion and proposition we are “instructed” to assimilate as one of “those things most surely believed among us.”. It is an expansion of the list of gospel propositions and proclamations we are (expected?) to believe.
I mentioned the gospel preached to the wilderness Israelites/to us from Hebrews 4:2 because it is perplexing. I wonder, rather than contrasting Christian and wilderness Israelite, if we substitute the term people of God, will that make the statement less perplexing? I also wonder if a people looked at the Eden story and saw that the skins of dead animal(God’s way?),not vegetation(Adam’s way?),covered the awareness of nakedness brought about by sin and looked at the recent passover experience might have sufficient gospel by which to steer their course. If so, does that make Hebrews 4:2 any less perplexing? It’s just a thought. Given the degree of revelation they had and what we have today it is difficult to cast a stone in their direction for rebellion against God.
I’ve gone way long here. I apologize. Thank you Chris for your insightful observations. I have enjoyed reading them as well as the other posts.
Alario
Gospel and Covenant
I wonder if the gospel Paul preached might have changed depending on his listeners, though with an unchanging core. Thus we might include something like “man’s plight” as part of the gospel (having to do with the Law for Jews, having to do with Creation for pagans). I also think that some specified response might also be properly considered part of the gospel—some call for faith, repentence, baptism, etc.
It is certainly possible to equate Israel=Christians, both being God’s people; but I think in this instance it would be confusing and obfuscatory. The Jews enjoyed one relationship with God, defined by one covenant, and Christians enjoy quite another sort of relationship with (the same) God, defined by a different covenant. Either covenant might be considered “good news” for those to whom they applied, but I’m fairly certain we don’t want to be preaching the Law of Moses today and call that “the gospel,” and that it would be inappropriate to say that Moses told the people that Jesus would come, be crucified for their sins, buried, and would rise on the third day—and that these details somehow escaped inclusion in the OT canon.
However, I think it is fair to say that God’s plan concerning Jesus was made known to old covenant people from time to time—but in broad strokes. In this way Jesus’ death and resurrection can be said to be “according to the Scriptures,” while at the same time “the people of God” could mistake him for a blasphemer and crucify him. I don’t believe that, prior to Jesus’ instituting the new covenant, such vague knowledge would make one a Christian or place one in the new covenant. I note that pious Jews and god-fearing Gentiles alike had to explicitly acknowledge Jesus as the Christ before they were considered “saved.”
When is it helpful to equate Jews=Christians? Probably when wondering how faithful God will be to my covenant (“He was always very faithful to his word with the Jews”), maybe when wondering what things mean in my covenant (by analogy).
1 Cor 15 is certainly relevan
1 Cor 15 is certainly relevant. The problem is, it is polemical. This is not a case of Paul writing, “I just thought it would be a good thing for me to summarize the core of the gospel for you, just in case it ever comes up as an issue.” Rather, Paul apparently is writing to address an issue that was causing some people to waver in their faith—the idea that there would be no literal resurrection.
So, while it would be safe to say that the gospel Paul preached contained teaching about the death, burial, resurrection, and subsequent appearances of Christ, I’ll bet he preached more than just that.
Just out of curiosity, why stop at verse 4?
Apostolic Preaching - a belated because.
To reply at last to Chris’s query, I stopped at verse 4 because I consider that the next bit is fairly obviously an expansion of, and evidence for, the core belief that ‘he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.’ No doubt Paul did include all this detail in his original preaching, but it was detail. He returns to the core again in v 12 ‘if Christ is preached as raised from the dead.’
Since we seem to be talking about a ‘new look’ in theology, I wonder if a shift from the old preoccupation with the death of Christ, and a new preoccupation with the resurrection, wouldn’t be a good thing.
Chris also mentions the fact that Paul is here addressing a specific problem. This is true, but the phrase ‘For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received’ is still pretty definitive. He no doubt preached a lot more (ask the man who fell out of the window!) but I would suggest that here he’s distilling the essence.
This is turn raises the issue of what is essential - of what is ‘mere’ Christianity (what is ‘preached’, presumably) as opposed to other things (like rules about wearing hats, or whatever) that were part of Paul’s ‘teaching’.
John
persuading or dialogue
This is an absolutely important question for how we deliver the message of the good news to religious others and I’m pleased to see someone addressing it. I want to contribute a couple thoughts on the subject.
1. In reading Luke’s Acts it seems important to understand that Luke is writing from a particular context as has been noted. One aspect of that context is the understanding that Luke is not necessarily concerned with all of the responses from those who have heard the message. This is evident regarding Paul’s engagement of Pagan audiences. Nevertheless, we have to assume that the “proclamation” was not one-sided delivering of “truth” to an audience who did not have “truth.” Take for example Paul’s stint in Athens. When we read that Paul was “reasoning,” “debating,” “persuading,” we should read “dialogue.” This is completing in line with what we know of “cultural engagement” of this time. While Luke only records the detail of Paul’s dialogue, we know that conversation was occurring for this is what happened in Athens as well as the rest of the Greco-Roman world. We know for example that the traveling sophists employed this same form of engagement and there is no reason to believe that Paul was any different.
2. While at times Paul’s message to religious others seems very aggressive, Luke does help us understand that Paul, more often than not, waited for an invitation before he spoke. This was the case in Athens; it was the case when he attended the synagogue as well.
3. Paul had a wonderful respect for religious others and religious others had a wonderful respect for him. At Athens, he relates the notion that “we are all children of God” and recounts God’s blessings on Jew and Gentile alike. His stint in Ephesus was remarkable. Consider for example what Luke records as far as his relationships with others. At the instigation of the idol makers, a great uprising occurs in the city and it appears that imminent persecution of Christians is about to take place. Paul, desirous of claming the uprising, wants to address the mob of people gathered in the theater when word from the Asiarchs come to warn him not to go. I find this interesting and enlightening as I consider that the Asiarchs, rulers of the area, are not necessarily Christian. Nevertheless, the apparently value Paul’s relationship enough to be concerned for his safety. Later on in chapter 19 after two disciples are dragged into the theater, a town officials stands up to clam the crowd and remarks that the men had neither blasphemed their goddess nor stole from their temple; quite a testimony to the respect that the disciples had for the religious beliefs of others. This is by no means an indication that the Christians agreed with the views of religious others.
4. After examining Paul’s message to religious others I find two rather startling absences. One, Paul does not take about Hell as the place of punishment for those who do not believe. Two, at least when dialoguing with Gentiles, Paul does not talk about sin. This by no means suggests that Paul did not address these issues in his epistle. However, considering that Acts is primarily a document written for a Gentile, non-Christian audience and that Paul was talking to non-Christians, I do not find it surprising that he does not address these issues. Granted, Paul talks about repentance, but repentance from what? I would suggest that Paul requires a change of allegiance from a former manner of worship to the worship of the true God rather than require a necessary behavioral change. After all, if we truly worship the true God corresponding behavior is normal.
As I reflect on these considerations I find myself asking the question of why we insist on aggressive, one-sided evangelism which focuses on the sinner and his/her destiny to hell if they do not believe like us. One reason for this is the eschatological shift from postmillennialism to premillennialism began at the close of the 19th century and on into the middle of the 20th. Since the world was not getting increasing better more emphasis was given to salvation of the lost before the end of the world because of the imminent return of Christ. Out of a zealous desire to see the lost “saved” from their sin so that they would not have to fear Hell, evangelism became aggressive and hence our culture played a great role in the way the message is delivered as well as in the way Acts is read (i.e. debate, persuade, argue in place of dialogue).
I have begun to address these issues from more of an academic perspective. If you are interested I presented an academic paper at a secular conference addressing new religious movements. That paper can be found at http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_cooper.htm
I look forward to this continued dialogue.
Wright on 'gospel'
I add the following excerpt from Wright’s “Gospel and Theology in Galatians” which you can access at http://ntwrightpage.com. Just an FYI that some may want to comment on in light of the discussion of “what is the gospel”.
Hebrews 4:2
The Race is Run http://www.raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/
Sorry to arrive so late but I’ve just found this thread and would like to add to Alario’s thoughts on Hebrews 4:2
In my view, the ‘gospel’ referred to in Hebrews 4:2 is defined in Acts Chapter 7:
“This Moses, whom they refused, saying,’Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ God has sent him as both a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This man led them out, having worked wonders and signs in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel,’The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me.”
In Jesus, then, we have the prophet like Moses in Deut 34:10-11, the prophet from among the brethren like Moses, the ruler and deliverer like Moses, the worker of signs and wonders like Moses, the one whom YHVH knew ‘face to face’ like Moses.
Thoughts anyone?
For many people, the iconic
For many people, the iconic Moses would be an elderly patriarch with a long white beard holding the two stone tablets; the iconic Jesus would be the man dying on the cross. I think this illustrates a major role of each man—covenant mediator.
Moses read those tablets (and related everything else God told him), and when the people agreed to the covenant, he had the blood of a cow sprinkled on the people and on an altar to God, formalizing the old covenant. Jesus, anticipating what was about to happen, lifted a cup of wine and said, “This is my blood of the new covenant,” putting his death into a (underappreciated) covenant perspective. (Paul would later call Christian baptism “union with Christ in his death,” signifying IMO a covenant perspective on that rite.)
The point I draw from Hebrews 4:2 is simply that one does not automatically receive covenant blessing simply by being party to the covenant; one must actually keep covenant. The generation that perished in the wilderness did not believe they could prevail against the Canaanites, as God commanded; we must “fear” (4:1) lest we also be found “disobedient” (3:18).
essential content of the gospel
First, thanks for rediscovering this thread! I’m new too…
One factor that has been on my mind for some time now is my understanding of our 4 canonical ‘gospels’. Certainly they exist partly because of their historical and catechetical value, but what I have been pondering is the question of what happens if we assume that these 4 gospels are actually the “remnant” of the kerygma itself?
What we have in the epistles are generally afterthoughts - in the sense that the fellowship of believers has already been established. The gospel was preached, people believed and became followers and formed communities. Now, they have some questions or problems and these - mostly ecclesiastical - matters are what the epistles are about. So, whatever references there are to the preaching of the gospel (or content) will be, at best, reminders and passing refs.
Acts has a different purpose, as has been pointed out above, and in any case, none of the speeches recorded there are complete. In any case Luke refers to his ‘gospel’ right in the beginning, implying that nothing in Acts will make much sense before Luke’s ‘gospel’ has been read.
Bailey’s thesis on oral tradition is taking a bit of a beating but Gerhardsson’s work has stood the test of time and scholarly critique. The simple fact remains that if the gospels are recorded in written form rather later than the earliest epistles this itself points to the tremendous concentration on accurately teaching the life and actions of Jesus in the fledgling communities.
I wonder whether we can take Paul’s statement very literally “I preach Christ (read Messiah)…” as a summary of what the kerygma actually contained - select pericopes from the life and teaching of Jesus with proof of the fulfilment of messianic prophecy and the incredible fact of the resurrection - a “combo triple whammy” that brought the hearers to the realisation that Jesus indeed is the promised messiah.
Live to serve : Serve to live
The 'gospel' in Hebrews 4:2