The Biblical Gospel and Jesus' Lordship

[frog]

I want to understand what the Bible means by “gospel” and to disentangle it from murky presentations that I was repeatedly told in the past.

In the past, I’d been taught that the core essential of the gospel is that “Jesus is Lord”, meaning He is the risen and exalted Ruler and will return to judge. The response demanded by the gospel is surrender and submission, to make Jesus your King and the ultimate authority in your life, else you will face His judgment. While salvation is part of the gospel, the focus is on Jesus’ kingly authority established by His death and resurrection.

The argument to support this goes along the lines:

1. Paul summarises the gospel as “Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:1-4 — AV renders this differently) and Paul’s message is summarised as “Jesus Christ as Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5). The gospel is about Jesus’ authority as judge (Rom. 2:16) and as king (2 Tim. 2:8, kingly origins).
2. The Greek word for “gospel” means momentous news, and literally means “news well told”, its components being “well” and “I announce”. The focus of the word “gospel” is on it being universe changing (Jesus now seated above all authority), rather than it being good news.
3. Whenever the gospel is mentioned in the NT, although forgiveness of sins or salvation or Jesus’ death may be omitted, His Lordship/rule is never (or rarely) omitted.
4. Priority is given to the book of Acts for understanding the gospel since it records many gospel presentations to unbelievers (the epistles address believers) where the emphasis is Jesus’ resurrection (more than His death) and Him returning as judge.

Contrast this gospel summary with the one found in the “Sum of Saving Knowledge” (Dickson & Durham):

The sum of the gospel, or covenant of grace and reconciliation, is this:
“If thou flee from deserved wrath to the true Redeemer Jesus Christ, (who is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God through him,) thou shalt not perish, but have eternal life.” Rom 10:8,9,11.

The two gospel summaries differ greatly. The first emphasises Jesus as Lord (the offended King), while the second as Saviour. The first focuses on the benefits to Jesus as gaining absolute authority (Matt. 28:18 is a favourite text of theirs), while the second focuses on the reconciliation with God. When speaking with advocates of the first, salvation was peripheral to the gospel and the core of the gospel was Jesus and Him obtaining authority as the God-man so that every knee would bow.

What is the biblical “gospel” and what does the NT mean by this word?

 

[MW]

In historic reformed thought the covenant of grace is distinguished between its essence as it relates to the elect and its administration outwardly to men in general. Likewise the "gospel" is distinguished between a narrow and broad understanding of it. In the narrow sense the gospel is a promise and a gift of salvation in Christ. In the broad sense it is an administration of the covenant of grace.

"Surrender" and "submission" are involved in the reception of Christ in the gospel. We receive Jesus Christ the Lord, Col. 2:6 and confess He is Lord, Rom. 10:9. But "saving faith" is essentially the act of receiving the righteousness of Christ, Rom. 10:10. The act of faith is not surrender or submission but receiving and resting on Christ for salvation. This ensures the gospel is not turned into a new law (neonomianism). At the same time both justification and sanctification are provided for in the gospel, which keeps believers from turning back to the law in order to be sanctified.

The Lordship controversy has had an effect of mangling the careful distinctions of the past and of polarising the truths of the gospel.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Simply put, the Gospel is the good news.
In it's simplest, Jesus came to earth to live a sinless live, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead, defeating sin and death. Through faith in this good news we can have eternal life.

But on a deeper level, we as Christians live daily in the Gospel. The Gospel shapes us and is the rule of life by which we live, affecting everything we think and do.

Also, one part of the Gospel that is not often thought about, is the ascension. This means that Jesus rules and reigns from Heaven right now. So yes, Jesus as Lord is very important.

I hope this helps!

 

[dsanch1120]

This is a fairly personal issue for me, as the Lordship Salvation theology led to my wife not infrequently questioning her assurance of salvation. The move to a more historic reformed understanding of Law/Gospel and Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace was tremendously joyful and freeing for her (and for myself as well, though I didn’t tend to struggle with assurance). I would recommend looking at this article https://heidelblog.net/2022/06/my-pilgrimage-from-lordship-to-law-gospel/
And look up R. Scott Clark’s podcast series called “The Gospel According to John (MacArthur).” Both were very helpful

 

[arapahoepark]

I'll have to put my thoughts on later but suffice it right now to say, I do think the idea of 'Jesus as Lord's is neglected in many more shallow evangelical renditions. However, I have seen an uptick (namely by Bates and McKnight) to smuggle in works, largely meaning advocating for liberal welfare causes, as a way to tame antinomianism. One even tries to sell the utter stupid notion that faith means allegiance. Both are highly suspect, to say the least. However, I do think that parts of their protest are spot on, namely saying that Jesus ascended and is Lord and will return. But it's bogus, In my humble opinion, that is, or was founded namely as, a competition with Caesar.

 

[frog]

In historic reformed thought the covenant of grace is distinguished between its essence as it relates to the elect and its administration outwardly to men in general.

Is the distinction that its administration conditionally promises salvation (if you believe, you will be saved) while its essence unconditionally confers salvation by the Spirit working the condition, faith, in the elect? Is Durham & Dickson referring to the gospel as the administration of the covenant of grace?

In the narrow sense the gospel is a promise and a gift of salvation in Christ.

Does this mean the gospel is about salvation purchased by Christ, rather than about Christ ruling? They would summarise the gospel as “Jesus is Lord, because of His death and resurrection”.

They would object to the focus on salvation with:

• Why does Peter’s gospel presentation (Acts 2:14-36) labour almost exclusively on Christ’s rule—raised up, seated on a throne, exalted at the right hand of God, trampling on His enemies, Lord and Christ/King—and only briefly mentions salvation (v.38) after the crowd asks what to do (excepting the quotation v. 21)?
• Why does Peter’s gospel presentation to Cornelius’s household (Acts 10:34-43), focus mostly on Jesus’ power, resurrection and being Judge, with only brief mentions of salvation (v. 36, 43)?
• Why does Paul’s sermon in Athens (Acts 17:22-31), focus exclusively on Jesus as resurrected judge which is the basis for them to repent/submit?
• Why does Paul summarize the gospel as "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Rom. 1:1-4; 2 Cor. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:8), which they say refers to His rulership and judgment over enemies, rather than as "Jesus Christ is Saviour" or Redeemer or Mediator? They argue this shows that His role as Saviour/Redeemer/Mediator is subordinate to and serves His Lordship (think first, Judge who crushes His enemies).
• Why do the four gospels climax in the establishment of Jesus’ authority as king, by His death and resurrection?
• Why, according to them, is the Bible's storyline focused on God's rule and not man’s salvation: God ruled over Adam, Adam rejected His rule, God's rule is re-established in King Jesus (Matt. 28:18), and eventually all will bow to God's rule through Jesus (Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:28)?

The act of faith is not surrender or submission but receiving and resting on Christ for salvation. This ensures the gospel is not turned into a new law (neonomianism).

Could you elaborate how this ensures the gospel is not turned into a new law?

The Lordship controversy has had an effect of mangling the careful distinctions of the past and of polarising the truths of the gospel.

Most certainly. I feel burdened by the negative effects of its mangling and desire greatly to be free from it.

 

[frog]

Simply put, the Gospel is the good news.
In it's simplest, Jesus came to earth to live a sinless live, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead, defeating sin and death. Through faith in this good news we can have eternal life.

I heartily agree. But my mind sadly rings with their objections (I wish they would fall asleep):

• They'd object that the greek word for "gospel" means "momentous news", not "good news" (cf. original post). I don't know greek, but I'd like to hear a rebuttal of this from someone who does.
• They'd accept that His work accomplished those things, but that it's all in the service of the main thing of establishing His Kingship.
• They'd emphasise less by faith we have eternal life, and more by submission we do not incur His wrath (cf. Acts passages in post #6, which have a call to repentance/submission after talking about Jesus' authority as Lord and Judge).

 

[frog]

This is a fairly personal issue for me, as the Lordship Salvation theology led to my wife not infrequently questioning her assurance of salvation. The move to a more historic reformed understanding of Law/Gospel and Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace was tremendously joyful and freeing for her (and for myself as well, though I didn’t tend to struggle with assurance).

Thank you, those are very helpful links. I hope to make the same move as your wife. I’ve begun to grasp the law/gospel distinction (it is new to me), however it seems it is not enough to fill my mind with truth but I must also pluck out its error.

 

[iainduguid]

I heartily agree. But my mind sadly rings with their objections (I wish they would fall asleep):

• They'd object that the greek word for "gospel" means "momentous news", not "good news" (cf. original post). I don't know greek, but I'd like to hear a rebuttal of this from someone who does.
• They'd accept that His work accomplished those things, but that it's all in the service of the main thing of establishing His Kingship.
• They'd emphasise less by faith we have eternal life, and more by submission we do not incur His wrath (cf. Acts passages in post #6, which have a call to repentance/submission after talking about Jesus' authority as Lord and Judge).

BDAG would beg to differ (p. 402):

εὐαγγελίζω
bring good news, announce good news
proclaim the divine message of salvation, proclaim the gospel

εὐαγγέλιον, ου, τό
God’s good news to humans, good news as proclamation

The gospel proclamation can certainly include the resurrection and exaltation of Christ - since we are united with him in the heavenly realms, his triumph is our triumph. Cf. 2 Cor. 4:4: "the gospel of the glory of Christ". But the gospel is also "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), which comes to us by simple faith.

If you start with the OT context, the original "good news" is this: "Here is your God, coming with strength and power" (Isa 40:9). The triumph and lordship of Christ is wonderful news - but only because this mighty king is coming as a gentle shepherd, gathering his flock in his arms (40:11), sustaining the weak and strengthening the powerless (40:29-31). And don't forget how this good news victory is won: through the suffering and death of the Servant in our place (Isa 53).

 

[Phil D.]

BDAG would beg to differ (p. 402):

LSJ concurs, and gives examples from classical Greek

εὐαγγελία, ἡ, good tidings, Lxx4Ki.7.9, J.AJ18.6.10.​

​

εὐαγγελίζομαι, impf., Paus.4.19.5: fut. part. -ιουμενος J.AJ6.4.2, 18.6.10, Luc.Icar.34: aor. (v. infr.):—Act., only in later Gr., Lxx1Ki.31.9, Apoc.10.7, PGiss.27.6 (ii a.d.): plpf. εὐηγγελίκειν dub. in D.C.61.13: (εὐάγγελος):—bring good news, announce them, λόγους ἀγαθοὺς φέρων εὐαγγελίσασθαί τινι Ar.Eq.643, cf. Phryn.Com.44, D.18.323; τὴν εὐτοκίαν Sor.1.70; εὐτυχίας τῇ πατρίδι Lycurg.18; πρός σε ταῦτα Men.Georg.83; also τινά τι J.AJ18.6.10 (codd.), Alciphr.3.12 (codd.), Hld.2.10; (v.l. σοι), εὐ. ὅτι .. Thphr.Char.17.7; τινι ὅτι .. Luc.Philops.31: c. acc. et inf., Plu.Mar.22:—Act., εὐ. τὰ τῆς νίκης PGiss. l.c.; τισιν ὡς .. Polyaen.5.7:—Pass., receive good tidings, ἐν ᾗ -ίσθη ἡ πόλις ἡμέρᾳ AJA18.323 (Sardes, i b.c).​

​

II. preach or proclaim as glad tidings, τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ev.Luc.4.43, etc.; εἰρήνην ὑμῖν Ep.Eph.2.17, etc.​

​

2. abs., proclaim glad tidings, πτωχοῖς Lxx Is.61.1, cf. Ev.Luc.4.18, etc.: c. acc., preach the glad tidings of the gospel to, τὸν λαόν ib.3.18; κώμας τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν Act.Ap.8.25:—so in Act., Apoc.10.7; τινι Lxx1Ki.31.9:—Pass., have the gospel preached to one, Ev.Matt.11.5, Ep.Hebr.4.2, 6; also of the gospel, to be preached, Ev.Luc.16.16, Ep.Gal.1.11.​

​

(Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 704–705.)​

 

[arapahoepark]

Are you concerned that the Gospel has too often been preached about salvific benefits and not enough about the Kingdom?

 

[arapahoepark]

Might be helpful. Up through page 6 is mostly about what you are talking about about. The rest is a no mercy annihilation of the allegiance = pistis view.

 

[RamistThomist]

Could you elaborate how this ensures the gospel is not turned into a new law?

Receiving and resting is a passive act. It is not something you actively "do."

Lordship teaching also marginalizes the 3fold Office of Christ. We do not need to worry about making Jesus Lord (usually a guilt-ridden sense) when he is already our prophet, priest, and king.

 

[frog]

Are you concerned that the Gospel has too often been preached about salvific benefits and not enough about the Kingdom?

No, my concern is almost the opposite. I come from a background where there was little focus on salvation per se and great focus on Jesus' reign which will crush His enemies, and us submitting and obeying Him that we not be included in the enemies rebellion against the King.

 

[MW]

Is the distinction that its administration conditionally promises salvation (if you believe, you will be saved) while its essence unconditionally confers salvation by the Spirit working the condition, faith, in the elect? Is Durham & Dickson referring to the gospel as the administration of the covenant of grace?

Does this mean the gospel is about salvation purchased by Christ, rather than about Christ ruling? They would summarise the gospel as “Jesus is Lord, because of His death and resurrection”.

Could you elaborate how this ensures the gospel is not turned into a new law?

Yes, you have accurately summarised the distinction. D&D are referring to the administration.

The either/or is not helpful. What is promised in the gospel is salvation which Christ has purchased. He is called Jesus because He saveth His people from their sins. This promise or gift is sometimes presented narrowly as forgiveness of sins or justification, and sometimes broadly as salvation or redemption. The broad term includes the whole range of benefits which translates us from death to life. The fact that Christ is ruling underwrites the gospel, Acts 2:36-39; 5:30-32. His ruling is necessary for the application of salvation. There could be no gospel without it. However, the "promise" is not that Christ will reign. It is because Christ reigns that we have the promise.

It is hard to elaborate without knowing a particular direction to go in. Receiving and resting do nothing to "add" to what is offered in the gospel. What we receive in the appropriating act of faith is precisely what Christ has obtained for us. Nothing more is required. It is sola fide. At the point someone introduces other requirements to the appropriating act of faith, like submission or surrender, the sinner is required to do something which adds to the quality of salvation. These requirements turn the gospel from being a free offer to a conditional arrangement.

To clarify, it is not as if there is no surrender or submission to the Lordship of Christ when we are saved. It is present and it gives an impetus to the future life of the saved person. But it is not "the gospel" which a sinner believes upon for his salvation.

 

[frog]

His ruling is necessary for the application of salvation. There could be no gospel without it. However, the "promise" is not that Christ will reign. It is because Christ reigns that we have the promise.

This is especially helpful, and I think part of my struggle is in (mis)understanding Christ's offices, especially His Kingly office, and its relation to our redemption.

If I am understanding your comment right--and WSC23 "as our Redeemer"--Jesus is King to save. He takes on the office of a King in order to fulfil His office as a Redeemer so that the elect may be brought "into an estate of salvation" (WSC20). On this understanding, Jesus is King so that the elect may be saved for the glory of God (WSC7). He died, rose and lives to save us. However in the misunderstanding, salvation is peripheral and a by-product of Jesus' Kingship. Jesus death and resurrection was not mainly for our salvation, but for Him being (re)instated as King (cf. post #6 on Bible storyline). On this understanding, Jesus' Kingship (for the glory of God) is the end.

Is this framing correct? Jesus Kingly office serves, and is a means to the end of, saving the elect? I'm unsure that "means" and "end" is the correct framing, when passages such as Phil. 2:11 indicate otherwise.

 

[MW]

Luke, It is good you are wrestling with this subject. Keep at it.

The first part about taking on the office of a King to be our Redeemer is the key point. Christ is already king as God. Assuming our nature and undertaking His offices was all for the sake of the elect. In the words of Heb. 7:25, “He ever liveth to make intercession for them." As Calvin says on this verse, "The life, and the kingdom, and the glory of Christ are all destined for our salvation as to their object. Nor has Christ anything, which may not be applied to our benefit; for He has been given to us by the Father once for all on this condition, that all His should be ours." Another excellent insight is made in Eph. 1:23, the body of the church is His fulness. The elect complete Him so far as His office as Redeemer is concerned. A redeemer requires someone to redeem. What is a king without a kingdom?

Jesus' death and resurrection was all for our salvation. It was arranged in such a way that He would have the pre-eminence, which befits His divine nature. Hence His exaltation. His kingship is right in the just government of God over all things. The benefit of it is ours.