What to Make of the Prologue to Luke’s Gospel

I wrote this for class today. What to you think about the prologue to Luke's Gospel?

           Luke 1:1-4, NASB: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”

            The matter of foremost importance in consideration of the introduction to Luke’s Gospel account is that of to whom it is addressed. It is here that Luke presumably differs from the other Gospel writers; addressing someone as “most excellent Theophilus” implies that this Theophilus was likely a person of high importance and was the person for whom the Gospel account was written. The logical conclusion, at least on face value, is that Theophilus was in fact Luke’s patron and Luke was hired as a historian to collect Gospel accounts and write them down in a consecutive, orderly, and manageable format. However, in the Greek, Theophilus means ‘friend of God’ or ‘loved by God, ’ so it is possible that the name refers to a specific person named Theophilus, to a person addressed by that title, or a general, anonymous ‘person,’ or just a general reader. Whatever the case, Luke is clearly writing the book (referred to as a ‘book’ in Acts) to and for this person or persons. In fact, Luke basically identifies this as his prerogative; the above passage can be paraphrased as such: “many people have set about writing down the events of Jesus’ ministry and what He did, and I intend to do the same. I’ve investigated the accounts and the history of His ministry, and now I am going to write them out in an orderly, chronologically correct fashion so that you, Theophilus, and many others that have already heard about Jesus can have a more concrete grasp on the facts.” Clearly, Luke’s stated intent is to act as a researcher and a historian and record an ‘objective’ account of Jesus’ ministry. A reading of the entire Gospel account shows that it is not in fact ‘objective’ by modern historical standards, a point worth making for the sake of contrasting modern to ancient biographical/historical techniques. In the ancient world, historical accounts were written to tell about the major events and purposes of a person’s life, and were generally written to a specific audience or people group rather than some ambiguous objective editor. That is, part of the purpose of the introduction is to state Luke’s objective for writing and affirming his relationship to the project, for the purpose of offering a clear, historically correct account of the Gospel of Jesus and that he is a historian.

            The idea of Luke investigating things “from the very first,” or “from the beginning” (NRSV and NASB, respectively) in verse three probably refers to any prior gospel accounts, likely including Matthew and Mark, being that they are historically attributed to be prior to the writing of Luke’s account. Perhaps more important than this consideration is Luke’s experience being a travelling and ministry companion of Paul of Tarsus. We know from Luke’s account in Acts of the Apostles that he probably joined Paul in Troas (Acts 16 marks the beginning of the ‘we’ language), the stayed behind at Philippi (Acts 17), and then rejoined him on his way to Troas (Acts 20). Luke is also mentioned being with Paul in Colossians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy. Because these things can be inferred from other parts of scripture, we know that Luke spent a lot of time being with and presumably learning from Paul. By examining Luke’s writing through this lens, it can be concluded that Luke not only researched accounts of Jesus’ sayings (if one accepts Q-source theory) and full Gospel accounts (Matthew and Mark were widely available, especially Matthew), but also learned much in speaking with Paul and those that he travelled with, maybe including Peter, John, and various other Apostles.

            It is worth noting that Luke was written in conjunction with Acts. This is significant because it offers more insight into Luke’s method and purpose for writing the Gospel account to begin with. Throughout all of Luke’s writing there is a theme of continuity and a tradition being deeply rooted and established. It is perhaps for this reason that Luke records the beginning of John’s ministry, a lengthy depiction of Mary’s interaction with God during pregnancy, prophecies being fulfilled, Jesus as a boy, and, perhaps as a thematic capstone, when all is completed and He is resurrected, he records Jesus teaching two men on the road to Emmaus about the Gospel, beginning with Moses and the Prophets. Luke, writing presumably to a Greek audience, wants them to know that he has checked out the facts, verified and substantiated claims, and written them down in a trustworthy manner, all of which were important to a Hellenistic culture. It is also presumably for this reason that he notes many Old Testament references and fulfilled prophecies to an audience that would have to do their own research to confirm these references since they were not steeped in Jewish tradition as Matthew and Mark’s audiences most likely were. The comparison with Acts is important because in Acts Luke also records from the beginning, learning from Paul and experiencing himself the beginning of the Church, and therefore recording those events chronologically, consistent with Paul’s letters and ministry, and in direct continuity from Jesus’s own ministry and resurrection. This, obviously among many other themes, is part of the heart of Luke’s writing: consistency, truth, continuity, and historicity. It would seem that Luke was successful in his endeavor to write out the Gospel account in order and in line with other historical traditions. It also seems fitting to use Luke as the capstone for the synoptic Gospels in that it serves as a Greek-oriented historical account and caters to a more Greek audience, which was the movement of the Church at the time of his writing.

Splinters and Logs

My mamma really loves making glass beads, and she is extremely good at it. Like, inordinately good. However, one time she made a crucial mistake in heating up a piece of glass, resulting in it shattering. She felt the hot glass on her face, obviously, but she didn't feel the most dangerous effect of the accident until later. A few nights after the glass rod exploded, she felt something in her eye while blinking and ended up pulling out a glass shard almost an inch long that had gone perfectly into her pupil. That's kind of a gross and scary story, but she was fortunately not harmed and she can see just as well.

Every time I think about that story, I think about Jesus saying these words in Matthew 7: "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. ² For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. ³ Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

Those are interesting words, and are often grossly misused. Have you ever had someone tell you not to judge them? Have you ever used this passage to reject something that someone had to say to you? Me too, on both counts. Let's examine this.

Judging is something that no one wants to subject to, but everyone wants to participate in. It is for this reason that we get frustrated when someone calls something out in us or when someone rejects our words for them. So, no one is satisfied with judging on either end. Why? The scriptures speak to us with these words from John 7: ¹⁹ “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” ²⁰ The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?” ²¹ Jesus answered them, “I did one deed, and you all marvel. ²² For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. ²³ If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? ²⁴ Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

So, is Jesus saying not to judge at all in Matthew 7? Probably not. It's pretty convenient to take the first verse and ignore the second, but it's pretty important to examine the entire passage in light of this question: how does God judge you? Does He want sin in your life? Does He want to gloss it over? No! In the passage in John, Jesus is saying, "you have been given the Law and claim to know all about it, yet I fulfill the Law, tell you the truth, and you're trying to kill me!" Jesus is by no means advocating passivity and no accountability for what you are doing. He is instead commanding us to be perfect as God is perfect and judge how God judges you!

It's interesting that Jesus used the analogy of the log and the splinter. It's not wrong to pick out a splinter from a friend's eye, but it's just silly if you try to do so while making yourself into a tri-pod with a 2x4 sticking out of your face! There are some major medical issues that are being completely ignored for the sake of pointing our smaller ones.

Similarly, Jesus calls me to judge my brother rightly. It just seems silly for me to call a guy out for something I have many things wrong with myself and I'm not willing to accept treatment for my own maladies. 

The root of our push-back to judgement is this: rebuke a foolish man and he will hate you. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Don't believe me?  Proverbs 9:8 says this: "Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, reprove a wise man and he will love you." Are you willing to let Jesus reveal your wounds and impediments? Are you willing to let Him heal them? If not, it is willful hatred of God. Accept the rebuke and mercy and grace of God. Who He loves, He disciplines (Hebrews 12:6, Proverbs 3:12 Revelation 3:19).

Again, how does God judge you? Has He forgiven you? Is He sanctifying you? Has He adopted you? If you are in Christ, the answers to all of these things are yes. Your Father loves you. Don't forsake judging, but instead do so rightly and in love.

What Does Scripture Say About Us, pt. I.

Most passages of scripture don't speak about us. That is, the whole Old Testament (more than half of the Bible) is not about people that follow Jesus in 2013. It's about an ethnic nation of people chosen by YHWH, and His continual pursuit of them, culminating in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus, the God-man, who came to save, heal, fulfill, and reveal God's character.

However, all of scripture speaks to us. See the distinction? It's a pretty important one. Jeremiah 29:11 may not talk about you, but what God is saying to His people is not meaningless to us or to anyone. The proper response to these passages is not to expect to be swallowed by a whale when you disobey God and then jump off the side of a ship, but instead to learn more about the nature of humans and the character of God by remembering that you are often faithless like Jonah and how God is just, perfect, wise, powerful, and merciful.

My writing is pretty vacuous, but the text of Scripture is not. So examine for yourself! Jeremiah 3 is a passage that is not about us, but goodness gracious does it talk to us. Read here.

Scriptural Cliffnotes

I am sure that you know of at least one person who has worn a shirt, posted on the internet, written on their face, or otherwise through various media espoused a short little blip of wisdom or encouragement by way of posting one poignant verse of scripture. The point of this is presumably to condense scripture so that it is powerful, yet brief enough to shout at someone as you drive by on an interstate. Let's use Jeremiah 29:11 as an example.

Here's what people take away from this verse: God loves me (check) and has a plan for me (hmmm... smells fishy in context) and therefore everything will turn out with me being happy (yeah, definitely not) and everything being okay (depends on your definition of okay).

Here's what the verse means in context. God has a plan for Israel. That plan is that He is going to restore them. This will be accomplished by them submitting themselves to exile to Babylon. We later learn that the people that stayed behind were no longer part of Israel; they became the Samaritans. The word 'Samaritan' sounds good because of Jesus' parable about one dude (again, context) and the Billy Graham ministry with a questionable name, but it isn't such a positive thing here.

There are some books and verses of the Bible where using one verse is pretty useful. Proverbs is pretty much a one verse kind of deal. John 3:16 is not. Philippians 4:13 is not. Isaiah 26:8 is not. In these cases (and many others), it is simply a matter of bad practice to use one verse of scripture and nothing more. Use your head and enjoy the full truth of scripture!

Mark’s Narrative of Jesus’ Miracles

The four different gospel accounts vary widely in nature and purpose. Therefore, it is often useful to examine the gospel accounts through different lenses. This is an examination of Mark's depiction of Jesus' ministry as it would pertain to miracles.

             In his gospel account, Mark depicts Jesus as something of a suffering servant, often focusing on his lament and frustrations with the disciples for not understanding his purposes, the religious officials for being hypocritical, and the people for wanting something from him that He had not yet come to bring. It is with this frame that we can best understand Jesus’ miracles and Mark’s depiction of them. In his gospel, miracles are tied to points that Mark wants the reader to understand. Some of these points are Jesus’ power and authority over all things, his compassion for the lowly, and His righteousness surpassing all others (especially the religious leaders).

            The central message of Jesus’ teaching was without question the gospel of the kingdom of God, which is illustrated in all of the gospel accounts. Mark’s account begins with John the Baptist prophesying and preaching concerning Messiah, which Mark uses to segue into the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, presumably to help the reader understand what they are about to see in the actions of Jesus in the form of foreshadowing. Although it is not clear exactly how out of order the stories of miracles are, it is clear that they are not perfectly chronological. Therefore, it seems to make sense that Mark records miracles of healings and exorcisms tied to Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom at the beginning of His ministry. Thusly, we see Jesus healing, preaching, and exercising authority over unclean spirits in the very first chapter.

            In short order, Jesus is confronted with accusations of blasphemy and violating the Law because he heals and forgives a man (in a crowd), plucks grain on the Sabbath, and does not instruct his disciples to fast. The healing of the man is strategically tied to the other aspects of the second and third chapters; although it is almost certain that there were other random instances of controversy and conflict with religious officials (and many are later mentioned), Mark’s ordering of the story is meant to illustrate Jesus’ authority as Lord over everything rather than speak about a certain doctrine. The second and third chapters primarily deal with the matter of what authority Jesus has and why He has it more than the actual nature of the miracles. That is, Mark does not seem to focus on the uniqueness of the miracles (which is valid, since similar miracles are noted elsewhere in his gospel account) but instead on what Jesus said concerning His authority and His purpose. Right after the episodes with controversy, Jesus is seen launching into teachings about the Kingdom, both in direct metaphor and in parable, which, along with the miracles of healing and calming the storm, bring to a close the portion of the text in which Mark establishes the premises of Jesus’ power, authority, mission, Lordship, and prerogative. The purpose of recording these miracles as they were recorded is important because they do not serve as a treatise on behavior and the like but instead on attitudes toward Jesus; that is, the message Mark wanted his audience to understand was not so much how to act, but instead how to think about the identity of Jesus.

            With the beginning of chapter six, the tone of the accounts changes dramatically, a change that is articulated with two episodes: first, Jesus is rejected at Nazareth, His hometown, and is greatly troubled and saddened by their unbelief; secondly, Mark recalls John the Baptist’s execution at the hands of Herod, which had presumably happened beforehand. Mark also notes that Jesus “…could do no miracle [in Nazareth] except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them” (6:5). It is important to note that Mark purposely relates these two seemingly unrelated events to signal something about a change in Jesus’ ministry; the point he attempts to illustrate is perhaps the influx of more resistance, Jesus’ heaviness of heart at unbelief, or that Jesus would have to struggle through His ministry. Whatever Mark is attempting to show, it is quite obvious to see that there is a vast departure from the upbeat and confident nature of the first five chapters, signaling that Mark is no longer speaking directly about Jesus’ power, authority and perhaps divinity.

Through chapters six, seven, and eight, the accounts of Jesus’ miracles are used as part of a section of text that illustrates Jesus’ compassion on the lowly and humble (Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, blind man at Bethsaida, feeding of the thousands) and frustration with those that should understand Him but do not (Pharisees looking for a sign, His disciples not understanding the significance of the number of bread baskets they gathered). The point of this part of the text is to tell more about the nature of Jesus: His humanity, compassion, and willingness to be a servant. This notion of serving is much more prominent through these miracles than the miracles from before chapter six; more is said about Jesus’ compassion than His identity as the primary impetus. In this section of text, we also see a mounting sense of frustration with the Pharisees, who are coming across as increasingly more invasive and scheming than asking legitimate questions.

The next change in tone is found when Jesus first predicts His own death in chapter eight. It is at this point that Mark shows Jesus plainly describing what He had been alluding to and gravitating to before: Jesus tells His disciples that He must suffer death, and also tells them that if they continue on as disciples it will also lead to difficulty and death.  Mark makes little mention of miracles the Jesus is doing at this time, save for two. The first miracle is Jesus healing a demon possessed boy, which Mark writes about in such a way that it speaks to Jesus’ compassion of the suffering, but also expresses His grief over unbelief. The second miracle is the cursing of the fig tree, which Mark blatantly writes in such a way that it shows Jesus’ frustration with religious authorities of the day. The purpose of this section of text is to show Jesus’ mounting sorrow over unbelief and religious arrogance, and to set the emotional stage for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Mark’s use of miracles is meant to compliment his records of Jesus’ ministry by offering examples of Jesus’ actions to speak about His identity and purpose. These miracles were often quite similar in deed, but certainly dissimilarly used in varying contexts to help illuminate a particular aspect of Jesus’ character. Just as Mark’s account is written slightly out of chronological order, it seems likely that he mentioned miracles not out of their particular context, but in a specific light so as to show how they were a part of Jesus’ real thought process and ministry and not a detached footnote. That is, Mark portrayed Jesus’ miracles as an integral part of His ministry by showing that they were useful for illustration of a point in addition to serving others.

Putting Paul in Some Context

Paul was not just some guy that sat in a room a wrote letters to people that didn't exist; he was a real person in real history. Consider the following ideas based on Acts 17 and 19. And give yourself some time to think on it, this isn't a quick read.

Although Paul was not born in the geographic Israel, what is very apparent by all accounts is that he was an expert in Mosaic Law, both in the Torah and Talmud. Being a descendent of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11) and being trained under the famed rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), he was qualified to be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6) and was therefore highly regarded as a Jew. In fact, Paul was so closely involved with the Temple Jews that he was for a time responsible for the persecution of the followers of Jesus (Acts 8:1), a group that he would eventually join as a result of the Messiah revealing Himself to him on the Damascus road (Acts 9). In such a way, Paul established his authority to relate to and reason with Jews and preach to them how Jesus is the Messiah from their perspective and context.

            While Paul’s qualification as an expert in the Law was an important factor, he also clearly states that he is the apostle to the Greeks or gentiles (Romans 1) (these are taken to be interchangeable in context). In the book of Acts, there are two instances where Paul operates explicitly in the context of dealing with traditional Greek and Roman beliefs about deities. In both cases, Paul is actually dealing with Greek religious beliefs, but Roman and Greek traditions can be considered as interchangeable, at least in an operational sense. This is for two reasons: 1) the Greek and Roman belief systems involve a nearly identical set of deities, but with different names and 2) the Roman Empire encompassed every geographic location that Paul is known to have traversed. Outside of the context of talking specifically about religious belief, the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen by birth also plays into his interaction with Greco-Roman culture.

            In Acts 17, Paul was in Athens after being separated from Silas and Timothy. Being distressed by the overt worship of idols that he saw, he began to seek out the Jews and Greeks that feared God and then reasoned with them concerning Jesus and His resurrection. Soon after, he was overheard by Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who subsequently brought him to the Areopagus so that they could debate him. The Epicureans believed that everything was material and that there was no creator God, but Stoics believed that nature is God and fate is sealed for all of time, thusly leading them to brag about their own righteousness and about how they would become a piece of God in the scheme of eternity. Paul, advocating for the existence of Elohim, opposed each of these on the grounds that God both created and rules over everything that exists. Upon his arrival at the Areopagus, Paul preached that the Athenians were ignorant of God, but still knew He existed on the basis of their having a temple to ‘An Unknown God.’ Paul then went on to argue that God made everything and He is supreme over everything, using quotations from Scripture and even from a Greek poet. It is interesting to note that Paul is familiar with such a poem. Being trained in the Law, Paul would be skilled in debate and argument; however, it is unclear whether he researched the society of Athens whilst in the city or whether he was just familiar with such poems or the culture from his upbringing in Tarsus. It seems more likely that Paul made an effort to learn about Greek society while in Athens so that he might have a common ground with which he could reason with the Athenians. This seems more likely because Paul would have spent nearly all of his years in Jerusalem training to be a rabbi. It is, however, not ruled out that Greek culture was present in Jerusalem and he attained said knowledge there from.

            Another place in Acts that Luke recorded Paul’s mission clashing with Greeks is in chapter 19. Although Paul was not directly involved in the confrontation (his disciples did not allow him to enter the place that housed the discussion even though he so desired), his disciples and his teaching were involved directly. Demetrius, a silversmith that made a living of making statues and shrines of Artemis, accused Paul and his followers of taking business from local craftsmen by teaching that Artemis and other gods that were ‘made by human hands’ were false. Demetrius went on to say that Paul had convinced many in Ephesus and ‘nearly all of Asia’ that Artemis was not to be worshipped. When people heard this charge, they began to chant saying, “great is Artemis of the Ephesians” and grabbed up Paul’s traveling companions, gathering a large crowd in a theater. Confusion and discord ensued for a time and then they were convinced by the town clerk that Paul did not blaspheme Artemis, presumably to quiet the crowd and avoid an all out riot. After assuring them that they could complain through the courts if they so desired, the crowd dissipated. What can be gathered from this situation is that Paul’s message had spread far and wide across the Roman Empire and the news of Jesus was well known enough to affect the business of those that were craftsmen of idols. While this doesn’t show much concerning Paul’s ideological training and background, it does show that he made disciples and had a large network of influence, an idea supported by his epistles to churches that compose the New Testament. Furthermore, the response of the craftsmen to Paul’s teaching reflects the response of much of the Roman Empire at large. In this case, Paul’s message of Christ undermined the power of Artemis, an idea that seemed absurd to the Ephesians. Similarly, Paul was often accused of undermining the Roman government and the Jewish authorities with his teaching. As a note, however, Paul did in fact endorse submission to government (Romans 13).

            Throughout Acts, Paul was involved with government- often being imprisoned for preaching about Jesus. What can be determined from all of these interactions is that Paul was quite familiar with his rights as a Roman citizen and knew the laws that he was to obey, a notion that can be supported by his remarks in his letter to the church at Rome. The last several chapters of Acts show an interesting idea, which is that Paul probably planned to go to Rome all along (also chapter 19) and his appeal to Caesar was likely the means by which he planned to do it, based on his knowledge of what the judges were and were not going to convict him of. That is, Paul, knowing that charges brought by the Jews would not be enough to convict him, used the opportunity to reason with the council (that is, the Sadducees and Pharisees) and also to go to Rome.

What is a Gospel?

The following post is a little more lengthy of a document, but a useful one nonetheless. This paper, written on the idea of "Gospel" was actually an assignment for a class I have this semester. 

            In common conversation concerning Christianity, the term ‘gospel’ often means various and sundry things, even within the same context or statement. In the most basic sense, the word means good news; however, the term has a history associated with an announcement of victory. To offer an example, Pheidippides ran 26.2 miles back to Athens to deliver the gospel of the Athenian victory at the Battle of Marathon. So, a Christian gospel is probably most closely associated with some sort of victory. What we find, however, is that ‘gospel’ is commonly used to be an adjective to describe some sort of knowledge, that by which one attains salvation, or, more simply, a type of book.   

            Firstly, we will examine the treatment of ‘gospel’ as a type of book. In common discourse about scripture, it is quite common to refer to the first four books of the New Testament as ‘the gospels,’ in such terms as “The Gospel of Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Matthew,” or “Matthew’s Gospel.” This notion of a gospel is also extended to pseudepigraphic books from Coptic, Gnostic, or otherwise traditions that are commonly considered to be related to, but not authoritative as scripture. These books, like many other books, often have writings that contradict or depart from the themes and statements of scriptural, yet attempt to gain authority or notoriety by way of attributing kinship to scripture. This attempt at kinship is mostly attempted through common names and themes of Biblical characters, events, and book names. For this reason, we find numerous ‘gospels,’ such as “The Secret Gospel of John,” “The Gospel of Judas,” and, perhaps best well known of all apocryphal New Testament era writings, “The Gospel of Thomas.” What unites these non-biblical and biblical writings is that they are both writings that more or less are centered on Jesus. Therefore, we can understand that the idea of a written gospel could be rightly defined as some sort of antiquated writing that speaks about Jesus of Nazareth, but also understand that this definition is more of a descriptive, vernacular-driven notion.

            In modern Christian terms, the idea of the gospel is the entity or idea by which someone attains salvation. This notion is especially predominant in Protestant traditions, especially in the Reformed faction. This idea of gospel is often spoken of as a proper noun, ‘the Gospel,’ implying that there is but one true gospel and it is the central teaching and purpose of Jesus of Nazareth; that is, when one has a conversation about ‘the Gospel,’ the conversation is basically about Jesus, His role in atonement for sins, and various and sundry aspects of soteriology. This notion is not entirely incorrect, but also does not seem to fully encapsulate the idea of ‘gospel’ that is spoken of in scripture. It is important to note that this use of gospel is by definition centered about both people and Jesus and their response to one another. Another factet of mainstream Christian use is the notion of ‘gospel’ being an adjective to describe a type or quality of truth. For example, in response to a statement about scripture with which one vehemently agrees, another might respond by saying that the first has proclaimed some sort of ‘gospel truth.’ This notion might also apply to one preaching or teaching concerning salvation or another scriptural concept.

            If I was asked to explain “the” gospel and what scripture says about it, I think that I would also phrase my response based on one ‘the Gospel’ spoken of in scripture, but probably in a different sense. It seems that scripture does indeed speak of one ‘Gospel,’ which is evidenced by Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, and many other apostles and followers exhorting people to “repent and believe the gospel.” In most conversations you will have with laity and with pastors, this statement is explained as a person being told to turn away from sin and trust in Jesus for salvation. However, a brief survey of scripture shows that this definition is quite lacking and may be aligned with a low Christology. To examine what those who in scripture spoke about the gospel meant, it is useful to define the notion of repentance. In very basic terms, this idea is changing one’s mind. So, what scripture speaks of about the believing the Gospel is about changing one’s mind, presumably from unbelief therein. The key departure from the some understandings of the Gospel and one that is probably closer to scripture is that the focus of the idea is both on Jesus and on the person in question. The Gospel spoken of in scripture is not nearly as concerned with what individual people do as most churches teach; the Gospel of scripture is indeed the announcement of victory, the announcement that Jesus, Lord of literally everything, became flesh, lived perfectly and died, thus fulfilling scriptures, and raised from the dead, thus defeating death as righteous and proven King. In the scriptures, the Gospel is not what you do to go to Heaven; the Gospel is the announcement that Jesus and God are one, that He is the Messiah of Israel, and that He has perfectly exemplified YHWH’s character.  

The Gospel is about salvation, but that is secondary to the announcement of Jesus’ victory over sin and death. In scripture, salvation is attained by way of depending or standing on this Gospel, depending on Jesus being who He says he is and that He is indeed sufficient to atone for sin. The Gospel is not about what people do, but about what Jesus has done. The repentance involved cannot be rightly explained as behavior or action, or even cessation from any sort of action, but of changing one’s mind and believing that this Gospel is true, a notion that assumes one’s unbelief. This idea is in some cases quite a departure from common thought and teaching concerning the Gospel and what it entails; many local traditions interpolate their own ideas and theologies, teaching about the requisite of righteousness or of some action. This does not seems to be explained by scripture. In sum, the Gospel isn't about me or about you. It's about Jesus, who came as Lord, died as Savior, and Rose as King. He killed sin so that by depending on Him, we might be adopted back into His family. That's the Gospel: the good news that Jesus has done everything that we need and that we lack the ability to do it ourselves.

The Sun Also Rises

          A big thanks to +Erik Coonce, who was a faithful and patient friend to me in helping me sort through something that I do not quite understand! The essay below is about the truth of the fullness of life that is found in the reality of the Risen King, Jesus of Nazareth. It is because of the historical fact of His resurrection and truth of His Kingship that we can always find hope, even when life is full of mess. Friends move, relationships die, seasons come and go, but the Son of Man is the same yesterday, today, and forever.


“The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. ‘Vanity of vanities,’ says the Preacher, ‘vanity of vanities! All is vanity.’ What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun? A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. Also, the sun rises and the sun sets and hastening to its place it rises there again.” -Ecclesiastes 1:1-5

A few weekends ago, I was faced with the truth that a season of life is ending and fading into a new one. For the last two years, I have enjoyed a close relationship with many brothers and sisters scattered about NC, SC, TN, and GA, and many of those relationships have either died or are changing. I have feasted on biblical truth with great joy, and now it doesn't seem to be coming so easy. I had the comfort of knowing I had a couple years left in college to figure things out, but now my future is approaching quickly.

Quite honestly, it’s both uncomfortable and painful. I've had the passage in Ecclesiastes on my mind over the past few days, and it has echoed deeply in my soul. The sun is setting on many things that I am quite comfortable with, and I absolutely hate it. I have been waiting on the Lord to answer questions and give me direction, but right now I have nothing. I am not sure what to make of changing seasons, and I have no answers for uncertainty.

Today, like every day of my life, my heart needs repentance. When I don’t understand why things are happening as they are, I must not lean on my own understanding. I must remember that He is faithful even when we are not and that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His power is made perfect in our weaknesses.  Whatever comes of this season and this life, He is at work to continually renew us. He has set us free as His children. Jesus is eternally willing to give the life I so desperately crave and I so desperately need.

Hear this: it was His death and resurrection that gave us life and hope. Do not look away from Jesus in your pain. He is enough for us.  Do not weep when the sun sets; the sun also rises.