I’m a few dozen pages into Scot McKnight’s The King Jesus Gospel and I am enjoying it, a lot. In his first chapter he exhibits three presentations of the gospel that he thinks miss the mark. One example (p. 25) he provides is none other than the famous John Piper:
“John Piper, one of America’s most influential pastors and authors–and deservedly so–at a big conference in April of 2010 asked this question: ‘Did Jesus preach Paul’s gospel?’ To answer it, he examined the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18, where we find one of the few uses of the word justified in the Gospels. Then John Piper concluded that, yes, Jesus did preach Paul’s gospel of justification by faith. I would defend the legitimacy of Piper’s question, and I would also agree that the makings of justification by faith are indeed found in that parable of Jesus. So, it is entirely fair to ask if Jesus preached a gospel like Paul’s.
“But…to begin with, there’s the problem of order and even of precedence: Isn’t the more important question about whether Paul preached Jesus’ gospel? Moreover, there’s another problem: Piper’s assumption is that justification is the gospel. The Calvinist crowd in the USA–and Piper is the leading influencer in the resurgance of Calvinist thinking among evangelicals–has defined the gospel in the short formula ‘justification by faith.’ But we have to ask whether the apostles defined the gospel this way. Or, better yet, when they preached the gospel, what did they say?”
McKnight makes two important points. First, he reframes the question rightly. Paul must be connected with Jesus. Paul would say this. Yet when we start with Paul and then seek to fit Jesus into what we think Paul says, this may be a sign that something is backwards.
Secondly, he is right about justification by faith. I was raised in a very legalistic culture, so I am very, very thankful for this doctrine, but we must not conflate the “justification by faith” with “the gospel”. Justification by faith may be the result of responding to the gospel, or a subcategory of the gospel (depending on how you frame it), but it not one and the same. The Evangelists do not focus on justification by faith and it is not a central aspect of Jesus’ preaching. As McKnight says, “When we can find hardly any instances of our favorite theological category in the whole of the four Gospels, we need to be wary of how important our own interpretations and theological favorites are.”
There are important topics to discuss. Do you tend to agree or disagree with McKnights observations that (1) we must connect Jesus and Paul with Jesus’ preaching being primary? and (2) Have we conflated “justification by faith” with “the gospel”?
See also “Christianity as Country Club”.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian thanks for this very important questions. About the #2: Justification by faith is only one effect of the Gospel indeed, because the Gospel is to preach the truth, the word of God about Christ Jesus as Lord (2. Kor. 4, 1–6!). And to preach Christ Jesus as Lord means that He is at first by God ordained »judge of living and dead« and not only the savior (»And he« i.e. God »commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify fully that it is he« i.e. Christ Jesus »who hath been ordained by God judge of living and dead — to this one do all the prophets testify, that through his name every one that is believing in him doth receive remission of sins.’« Acts 10, 42–43)
Also in Acts 17, 30–31 is similar written: »the times, indeed, therefore, of the ignorance God having overlooked, doth now command all men everywhere to reform, because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.’«
Look at John 5, 22–30; Luke 24, 47–48 and Mark 16, 15–16 about this 2 commandmants from God written in Acts 10, 42–43; 17, 30–31).
About #1: I tend to agree. BUT we must noting and nobady connect if something or somebady is already connected. Why? Because: Paul is first only in writing and Christ Jesus our Lord in preaching the Gospel (I am the true vine, the son of man, the king of the truth, to testify the truth etc.)
@Mirche: These sermons in Acts are very Ps 2 in feel, huh? It is more about God choosing Jesus as Lord than “how to get to heaven”.
Yeah, I do agree w/ McKnight, though I’d want to start even further back and ask how (not “if” so much) does Jesus’ Gospel (and Paul’s) cohere with the OT Gospel; from what I know about the book that would be my only quibble w/ McKnight.
And I do think that we assume the gospel is (or is the same as) justification. Somewhere I ran into an NT Wright interview in which he brilliantly tells the difference between gospel, justification, the calling of the Holy Spirit…goes something like this, though details are a bit fuzzy…gospel is the announcement that Jesus is God’s Messiah, justification is the declaration that someone is in the right w/ God and “calling” of/by/from the Holy Spirit is what most of us mean when we say “how did/do you get saved.”
@Sean: I do like Wright’s outline. I will pay attention to see if McKnight connects Jesus’ Gospel with the OT. He does mention the importance of Jesus as a son of David very early, so I assume he’ll cover it.
Does it matter at all that Jesus was preaching before Good Friday and Easter and Paul was preaching after? If faith in the redeeming work on the cross is important to Paul, it is a message that could only be preached after Easter. We see that when Jesus tries to talk about his coming death and resurrection the disciples — much less the crowds — don’t want to hear it.
My reading of John Wesley’s preaching is that Jesus preached the kingdom but Paul preached the way to get there. We can’t get there without the cross, but only a post-Easter apostle could tell us about that.
Anyway, that is one way of putting these two together.
@John: That is another way of saying it, though I think Jesus told us how to get into the Kingdom as well, and that was by becoming his disciples. Our confession of his death, burial, and resurrection is not merely cognitive affirmation of these events, but we realize that in them Jesus was proven to be God’s chosen King, that he was vindicated, and that he showed himself to be who he said he was through those events. There is a greater sense of fulfillment after Easter, but I think the message is essentially the same.
@Brian: It is indeed just like you said »It is more about God choosing Jesus as Lord than “how to get to heaven”.«
The Gospel as I understood the Bible word »evangelize« (euangelizesthai) means 2 things:
1. bringing victory message (joyfull, triumpfal) that Jesus is raised from the dead as Lord (Judge) who is ready to judge the living and the dead (1. Pet. 4, 5; Acts 2, 36!)
2. bringing redeeming news (good news about saving grace i.e. freedom from sin) that Jesus is Lord of living and dead (Rom. 14, 9: »because of this Christ both died and rose again, and lived again, that both of dead and of living he may be Lord«)
This Gospel was predicted since Adam und Eve (in Ps. 2 too) and was revealed through Christ Jesus our Lord like it is written, like it was done, like it is witnessed in the Church history until now (1. Cor. 15, 1–8)
@Brian – No argument from me about Jesus as King. I agree that “follow me” is a road map to the kingdom. I agree with the evangelical reformers, though, that “follow me” brings us to a moment of crisis at some point where we realize that we cannot, of our own resources, do that, not fully.
We are brought to the cross, so to speak, and pass through the crisis only when we realize that it is by grace alone that we we are made capable of defeating the powers that try to pull us away from the Jesus way.
For me, Jesus and Paul are preaching the same thing, but some of the aspects of the gospel as “way” become possible to speak of in explicit terms after Easter.
Not that I expect to persuade anyone.
@John: Actually after Pentecost we have new way, new approach that is saving us not only from our past sins but also from our potential possibility to sin. But that is only a effect, the message is that Jesus is Lord and this is possible only after pentecost (1. Cor. 12, 3; Rom. 10, 9–13!)
Yeah, this is exactly what Wright hits at in so many of his books. The one I am currently reading, What Did Saint Paul Really Say, has a whole chapter on how Paul’s gospel was connected back to Jesus’ gospel (the correct way to approach it) rather than seeing Paul as having a more Greco-Hellenistic approach and somehow laying aside any Jewish foundation.
The essential message of the gospel for Jesus was the rule of God had arrived to release His captive people. It was extremely Jewish. Paul maintains his Jewish roots, but considers some other important factors post-death and post-resurrection of the Messiah and how to engage with a Greco-Hellenistic society.
But, as a side point, I’d love to one day flesh out the larger point of contextualising the gospel. I think both Jesus and Paul did this, Jesus more with Jews and Paul more with Gentiles (though again, Paul did not sever his gospel from Jesus/Jewish roots). And so, while we do not abandon the gospel they proclaimed, even using it as a foundation, I believe we must ask how to proclaim the good news today. My question I am asking in my context, a post-modern and post-western Christendom society, is this – What makes the good news good news to Belgians? Rather than, how can I quote a smattering of Pauline verses and stamp and seal it as the gospel.
@Scott — Is the first move to make in answering your question to ask: What is the implication of saying “Jesus is Lord” in Belgium today? What must happen for that to be lived reality? How must we live to witness to that truth?
John –
I think that is a question today, though I am not sure it should be couched in the normal question of, ‘Is Jesus your personal Lord and Saviour?’ I think we normally connect Lord with that term Saviour, which we normally envision as the person who helps us get to heaven.
But lordship is extremely important. But, again, what would this mean to a people riddled with a division between the 2 major language groups?
As I once was pondering how to proclaim the good news to those non-believers who are extremely drawn to the ‘green’ discussion, I thought of the reality that, to proclaim ‘Jesus is Lord’ is to proclaim that ‘Jesus is making all things new’. I think that would be quite a drawing proclamation, good news, to those stirred towards being ‘green’.
@Mirche: Those do appear to be central aspects to Gospel-proclamation. In Acts 17 it is good or bad news depending upon whether one wants to acknowledge that God has chosen his judge in Jesus by resurrecting (vindicating) him.
@John: I don’t doubt that we cannot follow Jesus on our own. The Fourth Gospel uses a lot of language wherein we see the Father must draw people to Christ for them to becoming his disciples. I agree with your general observation on that matter though I am not as versed in the language of the Reformers.
@Scott: That is a good question. While I don’t know the context of Belgium it is one that I’ve had to ask in places like Portland, OR, and San Francisco, CA (closer to Europe in mentality than much of the US). You are right that we cannot limit our proclamation of Jesus as King to first century Judea or Corinth. We must recontextualize it, and I agree that Jesus and Paul did contextualize it. It does start with Christ, the Kingdom of God (which he embodies), and how that plugs into the story of Israel in every context, but how that is framed is relative to the context.
I need to get this book. I guess I still see the cross and resurrection as central to the gospel message….
@Brian: McKnight does as well, but he frames it as having to do with the person of Christ, and how it relates to the Kingdom of God, rather than some abstract way to “get saved”. To qualify, he sees “salvation” as a subcategory of the Gospel, not unrelated. He just doesn’t like that so many have conflated the two.
Like I said, I need to get the book. When you say “conflate the two,” you mean to say that in some fashion people confuse the “gospel” with the cross of Christ (as the only means of reconciliation between God and man), which I assume to be the heart of the Gospel (e.g., Romans 3)?
@Brian: In other words, the “Gospel” is not merely how one avoids eternal punishment for eternal life. If we are speaking of Romans I agree with McKnight that 1.1-5 is his Gospel introduction: the gospel of God, foretold by the prophets in Scripture (i.e. = Israel’s story), concerning the Son who is a descended of David (Davidic Kingdom), who was vindicated/enthroned by the Spirit through the resurrection, who called people like Paul to announce this message to the Gentiles so they can come to obey the King (think Ps. 2 motifs).