I’m just reading over your posts. I noticed our discussion here. Just so you know, I thought about it and I tend to agree with you brother!

Great question! The Galatian agitators were definitely preaching a works-righteousness that undercut the gospel of grace that Paul was preaching. Does the fact that Paul says they are preaching another gospel mean that justification by faith alone IS itself the gospel? I don’t think so. (Don’t get me wrong though. I believe that justification by faith alone is integral to a right understanding of what Christ has done. It’s just that I don’t believe Paul equates justification with “the gospel.”)

So what is the “other gospel” Paul is referring to? Taking the context of Galatians into consideration, I would say that the works-righteousness that the agitators were preaching was actually undercutting the gospel proclamation that Jesus is Lord OF ALL. By adding works to the picture, the Galatian agitators were saying, “Jesus is Lord – but only of the Jews, and if you are to believe in his gospel, you have to do this and this and this…” That message not only contradicts justification by faith alone, but also the gospel that Jesus has died for our sins and is Lord of the whole world.

Notice that in Chapter 2, the reason that Paul calls down Peter is because he refuses to eat with the Gentiles – an action that calls into question both justification by faith and the gospel proclamation that Jesus is Lord of Jew and Gentile alike.

Thanks for posting on Piper’s book. It gave me good food for thought. I’ve been wrestling back and forth with Wright’s and Piper’s definition of gospel for a few months now. I think you make excellent points but there is one sticking point for me. How do you explain Paul’s comment in Galatians 1 that implies that the Galatian agitators are preaching another gospel? The Judaizers’ message doesn’t seem to challenge Jesus resurrection or lordship, it seems to be about how to get (or stay) saved. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,
Marcus

Thanks for your comment.

I hesitate to argue against “for our sins” being part of the good news. It obviously is good news for sinners like you and me. In telling the biblical story which includes the gospel of Jesus’ lordship, it would be a mistake to leave out the personal redemption that Jesus’ death brings us. So I am not setting up a false division here. Neither am I trying to promote a minimal gospel.

On this point (Wright versus Piper) however, I believe Wright has the better case that what Paul means by “the gospel” is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship. Let me elaborate again…

If “for our sins” is an essential component of what Paul means by “the gospel” (royal announcement), we would expect to find these three words every time he uses the word “gospel;” would we not? But alas, that is not the case.

But in Romans 1, we see the gospel is “the gospel … concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David … and set apart as Son of God in power by the resurrection of the dead.”

The gospel concerns Jesus. When Paul uses the word “gospel,” he is giving us a message about Jesus. Of course, that message is for us… that’s why it’s no surprise that a phrase that gives theological meaning to a historical event (Christ crucified “for our sins”) would find its way into Paul’s discourse. That also explains why Paul does turn to justification at the end of his sermons as he is calling people to believe in the gospel. Paul effortlessly moves from gospel proclamation (Jesus is Lord) to gospel implication (repent and believe), and so should we.

Even in Acts 13 (which Piper points out) though, the “gospel” itself is about the resurrection of Jesus and his enthronement.

But let’s look back at the Old Testament. What does the gospel refer to there? “How lovely on the mountains are the feet of them who bring good news… who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.’” Sounds like proclaiming the gospel is proclaiming God’s reign to me.

Likewise, Jesus’ own message, the “gospel” he preaches in Mark 1:15 is about the Kingdom coming (and he is the king).

I hope this clarifies the point a bit. Thanks for the feedback!

It seems absolutely clear in this passage that Christ dying for our sins is an essential component of the proclamation of the Gospel. I know you’ve read it a hundred times so can you tell me how Paul is telling us that Christ dying for our sins is “the personal result that stems from the gospel message” and not a part of that message. It seems to me that Paul is essentially saying, “I am reminding you of the gospel I preached to you which is the fact that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead.” The matters of first importance are both “Christ dying for our sins” and “Christ rising from the dead”. Is one gospel and one not?

I do not want to underexegete or overexegete those three words.

For the most part, when Paul speaks of the “gospel” he means the objective announcement of Jesus’ lordship over creation. Yet, that objective truth has subjective results for those who hear its message and believe.

The news that “Jesus is Lord” is objectively good. In other words, it is good news regardless of whether one accepts it as good new or not. As Trevin articulated in his post, even Piper’s definition of the gospel is not “good news” for everyone as it includes the demand of repentance.