Aug
21
2012
Did Jesus Preach the Gospel?
We may believe in our hearts that Jesus preached the gospel, but sometimes Christians confess with our mouths a message of the good news that never actually draws on Jesus' teaching. We frequently point to his work on the Cross but less often examine the content of his sermons. At The Gospel Coalition we hope to help you grapple with this challenge by focusing our 2013 national conference on His Mission: Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. One plenary panel, scheduled for 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 9, will explore "The Gospel According to Jesus," and all other keynote addresses will work through Luke's rich testimony to the teaching, person, and work of Jesus of Nazareth.
To give you a taste for the national conference, we asked three TGC founders how they respond to the question of whether Jesus preached the gospel. In this video, you'll see John Piper (who will preach in Orlando on "Jesus the Son of God, the Son of Mary" from Luke 1:26-38, 2:1-21) pose the question of why we so often read of the kingdom in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but no so often in the Pauline epistles. And Tim Keller (who will close the national conference on April 10 by preaching on "Jesus Vindicated" from Luke 24:1-53) notes that Luke shows the greatest concern of the biblical writers for the outcasts of society, including women, the poor, and lepers. How, then, does this loving care relate to Paul's focus on justification by faith alone?
Watch the video yourself to learn why Piper reads the Gospels backwards and sees the cross as a shadow cast over Luke's entire narrative. And see Don Carson's preview of his TGC13 address on "Jesus' Resolve to Head Toward Jerusalem from Luke 9:18-62 as he sketches the shape of the Gospel drama.
When you've finished watching, check out the Keller-recommended essay by Simon Gathercole on "The Gospel of Paul and the Gospel of the Kingdom" in the book God's Power to Save.
19 Comments
I just love watching/listening to these guys. The interaction is funny to see too as they all have so much knowledge and experience packed into them that their mouths sometimes can't even keep up with all they want to say! TKO wisely just let's J Pipes and the Don sprint it out while he just sits back and puts in wisdom here and there amongst theirs - classic!
The premise of the question "Did Jesus preach the gospel?", for me, immediately makes me want to first ask someone what they think the gospel is to begin with. It might suffice for some, based on their understanding to say simply, 'yes - Jesus lives the gospel and then Paul talks about it' but they both absolutely preach it!', but what i love is the way these men thresh out the clear verbal, spoken, preaching of the gospel message by Jesus (far beyond living it out alone) b/c i've absolutely heard people try to pit the Kingdom gospel against Paul's as though they were opposed somehow. Easy and best first question to ask would probably be, 'do you think Jesus and Paul would say they had a different gospel?'
Hello All,
I thank God for these men and for the work that they have done in demonstrating the truth about the grace of the Gospel. I can remember years ago when I would listen to our brother John Piper preach through Romans and Galatians clearly exegeting the text and showing how the grace of God and not the excercise of man is what the gospel is about. Don Carson for sure has no limit on his benefit to the Church for his countless essays talks and works clearly teaching the Scriptural-ness of the gospel in the NT.
That being said, I wonder if we have it right on this issue between Paul and Jesus. How do we reconcile them? Or did they even preach the same gospel. It is on this issue that I think that many mainline denominations have dulled the clear teaching of the Scripture.
For instance, Jesus' teaching on the tax collector and the Pharisee cannot be divorced from his entire teaching as shown in the gospels. In other words, the tax collector did not go to the temple and have simple belief in the gospel and thus was justified. The faith that this man had was one that brought him to the temple in the first place. Therefore, there was already a sense of needing to come to God for mercy, to the temple where God is. And when He beat his breasts, he is clearly turning away from his sin. If you are pleading for mercy and you are weighed down by your sin, you are right in the mix of cleansing yourself. The tax collector is doing nothing different than the people that went to John the Baptist did when he preached on "Repentance". All through the gospels, tax collectors, sinners, and prostitutes are "repenting" and "believing" which involves not just a mere taking of the mercy of God without a change in the person. The person is convicted, confesses their sin truly, and turns from their sin to the worship of God, forsaking a loveless life to care for the fellow man. The Pharisee's problem was that he was not repentant, not simply that he trusted in his obedience. He was not even obedient.
Moreover this, Paul himself teaches that right from the beginning of the Christian life, our Baptism (Rom 6:1-11) we are established as overcoming sin and death through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, when Baptism took place through Acts, throughout all the places where Paul preached, and so forth, there was an immediate need to be baptized, and this entailed the new life of obedience which must be lived out under the mercy and grace of God (Rom 6:14).
The true gospel has never been "You are a sinner, but Christ came and accomplished a righteousness for you so that you can pass the judgement of God into the kingdom, and it is all by simply believing in this truth". Rather the true gospel has included this quote as well as the requirement for repentance. Repentance is coming to the knowledge that we are so sinful and out of the despair of being in this state our hands reach out to receive the mercy of God offered in the gospel, and it is always coupled with the cleavage from a life of sinfulness. Without repentance and the new obedience, there is no salvation. Look at the house of Zacheaus, salvation came to his house because he truly changed and offered his possessions and wealth to the poor, including his restitution of those whom he has stolen from. If Zacheaus simply received this "righteousness of Christ" and held to it by simply believing in it and trusting in it, salvation would have never come.
I think Keller was trying to hit the nail on the head with the "Paul puts concepts and themes into terms" point. It's the terms that we often look for from Christ and yet, He was the Term...He was the embodiment of it all, so the originator should be allowed to be the originator...and Paul 'unpacked' it and 'termed' it for us Gentiles.
Everyone would be well served by acting upon Keller's recommendation and reading Gathercole's essay. It is very readable and stellar in its dismantling of the whole Jesus vs. Paul thing.
The Gathercole essay that Keller recommends, "The Gospel of Paul and the Gospel of the Kingdom," can be found here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/05/24/the-gospel-of-paul-and-the-gospel-of-the-kingdom
Thanks for the link to this!
Thanks Matt! This isn't the first time Keller has recommended God's Power to Save, I've got to get my hands on that book. :-)
If you read Paul first, you might read Jesus wrong ... but if you read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.
Let me first say how much I appreciate all three men. Yet, on this one, I must confess to a bit of uneasiness with the answering of the question “Did Jesus preach the gospel?” We know that, “Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 4:23).
Perhaps what made me feel uneasy was the effort to answer the question from the epistles back to the gospels. It seems best that the matter should be considered by moving from the OT to the Christ event and forward. If one takes this track, at the risk of oversimplification, would it be better to say, “Jesus is the gospel.”?
I feel a bit hesitant with Dr. Piper’s suggestion for reading the gospels backwards as part of the answer to the question. I understand the shadow of the cross and the movement of the narrative toward it. Yet it seems that we should only cast this vision after reading the account as it unfolds from connections with the OT and in the context of the distortions of the older covenant within contemporary Judaism as counter veiled by Jesus. I feel sure that all three men would heartily agree on this point.
The message that permeates the pages of the gospel narratives and the preaching/teaching of Jesus says, “Jesus is the summation of what has gone before." Jesus is the new locus of authority for God’s people. He “wrapped up” that era of biblical history where the law regulated the covenant relationship of the people of God.
While the gospels take us to the cross, on the way there, another shadow is exposed. We see that, “The law was only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image…” (Heb. 10:1). The earthly priesthood, temple and sacrifices were “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” (Heb. 8). Food laws, festivities and special days were “a shadow of what is to come but the substance belongs to Christ” (Colossians 2:17).
All these things come to their full and final meaning in Christ. “For as many as may be the promises of God, in Him they are yes…” (2 Cor. 1:20). “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’” (Luke 24:44).
In moving along this path, Jesus’ view of Scripture became a major concern for his audience partly because of the authoritative nature of his teaching. His use of introductory formulas like “I tell you” (Matthew 5:21-48; 7:21-29; 28:18-20) And statements about “my commands” John 14:15; 15:10), broke from the pattern of teachers in Israel who invoked, “Moses, Scripture, the Law, and the Prophets.
Thus Jesus said, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Jesus presented Himself as the one who fulfills the Old Testament. The Christ event in totality -- incarnation, life, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, second coming and glorious reign are the anticipation and fulfillment – might we even say, “the good news of the kingdom”? Prior to His ascension Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” and in his commission, new disciples were to be taught, “to obey everything I (Jesus) have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20; cf. Mark 13:31).
The entire content and tone of his teaching and ministry indicates that Jesus was, “the end (telos) of the law…” (Ro 10:4). After quoting from Isaiah 61:1-2, Jesus “rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’ (Luke 4:20-21). This included anointing to “proclaim good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18).
Jesus opened his public ministry saying, “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Descriptions attached to the first coming of Christ indicate a significant change (e. g. ”the fullness of time,” Galatians 4:4, or “the consummation of the ages” Hebrews 9:26). In these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). All the Old Testament prophecies, promises and laws came to their full and final meaning in Jesus.
Along these lines, it seems equally important to ask how the original audience (to whom Jesus spoke) understood him. For example, when Jesus said, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20), did anyone think immediately of the imputed righteous taught by the apostle Paul? Did Jesus even want them to think this? Certainly Jesus wasn’t saying, “You need my righteousness that can be received by faith after I die for the sins of the world”? The audience simply would not have heard him this way. Directly following, Jesus said, “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them” (Matthew 6:1).
This is understood through the lens of the distortions Jesus confronted. Yet it could be argued that these distortions were obstacles to a gospel of grace for the poor in spirit.
In Matthew 5:20, Jesus introduced the first of a number of what are called “entrance sayings.” An “entrance saying” is a direct statement from Jesus indicating either “who will enter heaven” or “how one must set about to enter heaven.”
Entrance sayings in Matthew:
• 5:20- surpassing righteousness is required
• 7:21- doing the will of the father is required
• 18:3-4- childlike humility gains entrance (cf. 19:13-14; Lk.18:9-14)
• 18:8-9- radical amputation of sinful offenses
• 19:16-24- the love of riches as an obstacle to entrance
• 25:21,23- the faithful servant entering the joy of their Master
How should these sayings influence our approach to evangelism?
As I listened to the answers to the question, I also wanted to ask how our understanding of the message of salvation under the older covenant should factor in. I am sure all would agree (as B.B. Warfield wrote) that, “Nowhere is the demand of faith treated as a novelty of the new covenant, or is there a distinction drawn between the faith of the two covenants; everywhere the sense of continuity is prominent (Jn. 10:24, 12:38,39, 44; I Pet. 2:6), and the proclamation of faith (Gal. 3:2,5; Rom. 10:16) is conceived as essentially one in both dispensations, (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38) (pp. 404-405, Biblical and Theological Studies).
Steve Cornell
Well said. I too struggle and was a bit disappointed with how these men answered the question. It's as it we can skip over the narrative of Jesus (mostly), skip all he said and did, and jump straight to the cross (because, of course, that's Pauls gospel) while selecting a parable or two to try and prove that Jesus got Paul right.
I world like to hear more from Keller because a couple of times he seemed to move in the right direction.
[...] at the TGC, three men whom I greatly respect (John Piper, Tim Keller and D. A. Carson) answered the [...]
I really love all these guys and they have made an amazing influence on my life and growth as a believer.
I believe the question arises from the alternative paradigm posed by N.T Wright and other Second Temple scholars on the idea that the the "Gospel" is the good news of God's Coming Kingdom in every aspect of the world - which has redemptive elements in personal salvation but also the rest of life as well.
To more narrowly define gospel represented in the four Gospels in terms of personal salvation based on:
1. The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
2. The overall structure of Luke
seems to be a very thin argument. However, I do think that there is plenty of middle ground for discussion and collaboration on such an important topic!
Well said, Joseph.
I think Wright, as well as others (such as McKnight), have already worked hard to build middle ground and I hear Keller desperately trying to pull the conversation into balance in this video. I really appreciate his influence in TGC (Trevin Wax too!).
I love this discussion and the responses of these men. I had the opportunity to preach a sermon on this a couple of months ago and would love to offer it and its notes into this discussion. You can check it out at the following link: http://www.beltwaycollegepark.org/2012/05/30/paul-about-jesus-like-jesus/
[...] a CommentBecause of the number of folks writing me to respond to this question here goes… TGC, as I understand it, will devote some of its energies this year to the gospel and if Jesus preached it, but a video was put up on their site in which there is a conversation [...]
I love Piper, Carson, and Keller dearly. Their insights (both in sermons, lectures, and books) have been a great influence on me. Yet, I am uneasy with Piper's approach here. I think it's too susceptible (and rightly so) to the kind of criticism of N. T. Wright or Scot McKnight that an individualist gospel 1) downplays or ignores the Old Testament story of Israel (Piper is especially guilty of this), and 2) elevates the Pauline corpus into a canon within a canon, making Paul the cipher through which we interpret the Gospels. I think these charges are worth considering (even if, at times, they are overstated).
I would humbly add 1 more criticism to Piper's approach: a lack of redemptive-historical emphasis. That is to say, Piper focuses more on, in the terms of John Murray, the "gospel applied" (ordo salutis) than the "gospel accomplished" (historia salutis). This is something that has long bothered me considering how influential George Eldon Ladd is to Piper's thought.
As Carson pointed out, Paul does preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (ex: Acts 28:31). Likewise, as Piper correctly noted, the emphasis for Paul on kingdom gets centered on the reign of the king, king Jesus. But Jesus taught more the inauguration of the kingdom in his own message and actions. Paul reflects back upon the accomplishment of Jesus and applies that to the various issues of his (largely Gentile) church plants. Jesus doesn't need to teach double-imputation (a doctrine I embrace) in order to "preach the gospel." Jesus IS the gospel. The Gospels are called the Gospels for a reason. Jonathan Pennington of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary makes this point wonderfully here: http://wp.me/p30a1-16K
I've taken my swing at defining the gospel in terms of the whole drama of Scripture here: http://wp.me/p30a1-xt and especially here http://wp.me/p30a1-xJ
[...] Gospel? TGC Conference in 2013August 26, 2012 By Michael F. Bird Leave a CommentOver at TGC is the announcement that the 2013 TGC conference will be His Mission: Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. That is a great [...]
[...] Piper, DA Carson, and Tim Keller on Did Jesus Preach the Gospel Simon Gathercole (he’s the man) “God’s Power to Save” – recommended [...]
Keller was getting at the right answer, but he deferred most of his time to Carson and Piper. I'm noticing a pattern in their videos together of Keller passively allowing Carson and Piper use most of the air time. It's a real shame because as great other Carson and Piper are Keller has always struck me as the least reactionary and/or defensive.