Luke writes about John the Baptist, “So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people” (Luke 3.18). Arguably it should be translated as “he evangelized the people.”

So what was the content of this message?  We don’t have to guess.  Luke tells us:

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

So there you go.  Does that sound more like this or this?

I’ve already touched on how Horton’s definition of the Gospel as (and only as) “the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits,” won’t work if one considers the Bible authoritative and reads what it says, but it might help to go into more detail.

John the Baptist certainly is not where we want to stop in our understanding the Gospel, but he is not compromising it, nor teaching falsehood.  If your idea of the Gospel message excludes moral exhortations like those above, you need to re-engage in Scripture, not pass judgment on others who, whatever their problems, know better than you on this point.

It might be helpful to note the two uses of the word “gospel” or, since it is a verb in these cases, “evangelize”

Luke 2.10:

And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy [or: “I evangelize you about great joy”] that will be for all the people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Luke 4.18-19 (Jesus reading Isaiah 61.1,2):

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim the Gospel to [or “to evangelize”] the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Luke 2.10 says that a new King is coming, and in Luke 4 Jesus says he is the king (“annointed”) to announce his new kingdom is coming.  And this is precisely John’s point recorded in Luke 3 and quoted above: The King is coming so get ready.

Jesus himself preached exhortations as Jospel just like John did.  As Jeff Meyers has written:

Matthew tells us that Jesus preached the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt. 4:23), then he gives the content of his preaching of the Gospel in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. If we don’t like that, then we ought to change our narrow definition of the Gospel.

In fact, this Gospel of the Kingdom is summarized shortly earlier in Matthew 4: “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'”  Matthew clearly specifies that Jesus began this preaching after John’s arrest.  Thus, we can be certain that Mark (1.14, 15) is recording the same event:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

So the Sermon on the Mount is not at all some kind of “law” ethic for which the gospel is the needed rescue.  Rather, it is the repentance that the Gospel demands.  It is the proper response to believing the Good News of the Kingdom.

One can easily look at the data (searching for “gospel” or “good news”).  This in not an obscure point or one difficult to prove: “Gospel” is the news or story of the coming kingdom or king.  It thus entails repentance and new obedience in response to this new king.  It can be as wide as t,he entire story of Jesus (Mark 1.1) or it can be a narrower summary.  But it is not reducible to “the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits.” In fact, Horton’s definition doesn’t even include the demand for faith which, if one really tries to be sympathetic and get as much of his definition out of what we read in the (let’s point it out again) Gospels, is a a demand that is at least as prominent as the announcement of forgiveness.

But more amazingly is that Horton finds fault with the Manhattan Document for doing exactly what the Gospels do in the preaching of the Gospel they show us.  The ethical standards proclaimed in the document mean that it compromises the Gospel:

They are deliverances of the law that God inscribed on every human conscience, not of the gospel that God announced beforehand through his prophets and fulfilled in his incarnate Son’s life, death, and resurrection.

However, it is just for that reason that I stumbled over a few references to the gospel in this declaration.

Oh, OK.

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

If John can “evangelize” the people by telling people to respect property and deal honestly with others in their power, then a group of Christians can point out that the Gospel demands that babies and others not be killed and that marriage is for man and woman.

The error at this point is not marginal.  It goes to the heart of the more general confusion among Christians of every denominational stripe today, on the left and the right.

Well, yeah. That means these people read the Gospels.

There are real serious and central errors in Roman Catholic soteriology.  Accusing them of faithfully imitating the proclamation of the Gospel is not the reason for those errors and is not likely to prove to them that they are in error.  If Horton can’t sign a document with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox contributors, he is free to say so.  But this nonsense about mixing creation ordinances with the Gospel is a morass of confusion that does not help the cause of Protestant Orthodoxy nor Biblical fidelity.  And it doesn’t help the Church deal with rampant and horrific abuse, perversion, and murder by unbelieving powers that we are supposed to confront with, yes, the Gospel.

Next Up (I think) The Gospel in Acts and Paul.  Stay tuned.

Here’s my series portal.

So, I’m thinking about “The Gospel in the Gospels” as the first elaboration one why Michael Horton has it backwards, and it occurs to me that I’ve heard this before.  I don’t know if Jeff signed or would sign the Manhattan Declaration or not.  As I’ve mentioned, I’m not trying to prove anyone should do so.  I’m just saying that Horton is very wrong.

So here are Jeff’s great posts.

The Gospel in the Gospels

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four

And, since I’m making links. I’ll use this post to help keep the series together.

The issue is The Manhattan Declaration which Michael Horton condemned according to his falsely reductionistic definition of the Gospel.

So far I have only opened with the first of my responses:

So Is the Bible Wrong about the Gospel: Horton Takes Manhattan I

12/5/2009: The Gospel in the Gospels: Horton Takes Manhattan II

12/7/2009: What was I thinking forgetting the Gospel in the OT? Horton Takes Manhattan 2.5

12/12/2009: The Gospel of the Apostles, Part One: Horton Takes Manhattan III

12/26/2009: The Gospel of the Apostles, Part Two: Horton Takes Manhattan IV

And, due to internet static, three notes on the margin.

The Pretence of Defending Justification: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0001

When substitutions do or do not prove anything: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0002

Yes, you can agree with my absurdly obvious point and still not sign: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0003

postscript

Protestants should stop promoting Tridentine merit soteriology: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0004

Who’s denying the Gospel?: Horton Takes Manhattan Marginalia 0005

Sarcasm alert: the post linked below attacks me as believing in works salvation (quoting Romans 9.32) simply for disagreeing with Horton’s reductionistic and unbiblical definition of the word Gospel.  The attacker believes in salvation by grace, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the finished work of Christ.  See his post below for more details.

This post claims that believing in a Biblical definition of the Gospel means one must believe in justification by works (in the Tridentine/mythical-Pharisee sense, not in the Jacobian one). One would expect to read such a thing on a Roman Catholic apologetics blog.  But this is from “Covenant ‘Radio'”

Many Roman Catholics have wished it were true that a biblical definition of the Gospel proved merit soteriology.

It isn’t and it doesn’t.

And they should not be getting encouragement in such error from Protestants. 

Here is what I believe, teach, and preach about being personally justified before God.

Someone wrote:

Horne is correct that the gospel entails more than propitiation of sins.  But Horton is correct that the gospel is not something that Protestants share with the EO and RCC, because they deny sola fide and thus fall under Paul’s anathema.

I disagree with the second sentence above, but it is worth noting that such is outside the scope of my outrage.  I’m not saying there is no reason to not sign the document.  I’m saying the document shows a more Biblical conception of what it means to proclaim the Gospel in what it states than Horton does in his definition.

If one wants to pursue the more general issue raised in the quotation, I suggest starting with Charles Hodge, “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church.”

PS: I left out the “not” that is in bold above.  Sorry to cause confusion.

The desire for status can be a huge temptation.

Lacking status in the eyes of other people, or at least thinking you lack such status, can be a horrible feeling. If you’ve ever been to a meeting where you didn’t know anyone but everyone knows each other and greets each other warmly but ignores you, then you know what powerful emotions can result from the perception that you have no status, no standing.

And when you go to such a meeting, you have to psyche yourself up to do what needs to be done in order to achieve standing in the sight of the people there. You can go to a Bible conference or seminar in our own denomination and it is very likely you will face this challenge unless you happen to be really well known. People will greet each other as old friends and no one will have time to look at you. It happens all the time.

There is a Greek myth about a handsome man named Narcissus who stared at his reflection in a pool until he died because he was so entranced with his own appearance that he didn’t care about food or sleep. Because of that myth we still use the term “Narcissistic” to describe someone who is incredibly selfish–who adores himself.

But the fact is that, in real life, Narcissists don’t go off by themselves to admire themselves. Even selfish people want admiration from other people. They may expect too much and show they don’t care about other peoples’ feelings, but they still gain their status from other people. They either expect recognition, acceptance, and/or admiration from others, or else they maintain their own sense of status by denying it to others and mistreating them as if they were worthless.

People want status and they get it, or try to get it, from their relationships. Often a young man or woman will crave the attention of some popular person in school, not because he actually likes that person but simply because that person’s social acceptance entails a sudden rise in status among his classmates.

That quest for status is often idolatrous, but even at it’s worst it reflects something fundamental about us as human beings. We are alienated from God. We have no status with him. Of ourselves, we are estranged from him. We are on the outs with him.

WE NEED RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE GOD
Our need for status ultimately has to do with a need for status from God. We hunger for acceptance because we were created to be acceptable to him but we’re not anymore.

Now that need for standing with God is another way of saying that we need to be found “righteous” before him. Yes, “righteousness” can refer to ethical uprightness but it can have other nuances as well. It can mean that one is accepted, so that one is rightly related to another and has status with that person.

This is what James tells us about Abraham when God reckoned him righteous in Genesis 15.6: “‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness,’–and he was called the friend of God” (James 2.23). Being counted as righteous means being reckoned as one of God’s friends. He accepts your company. You are all right by him.

For sinners to be justified, to be declared rightly related to God, is an amazing thing. Judged on our own merits, we more than deserve being alienated from God. We would, of ourselves, never have any standing with him. It is of his mercy that he somehow declares us righteous–that he gives us that status before him.

WHY WAS JESUS JUSTIFIED?
But why does our text declare that Jesus himself was justified by the Spirit? Jesus was God’s Son. Why did he need to be justified? Jesus was an eternal member of God’s own family, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why would he need to be given that status by God?

By the way, your translations probably say that Jesus was “vindicated in the Spirit,” which is a fine translation except that it is not consistent with the way the Greek word is translated in the rest of the New Testament. If we are going to use the word, “vindicate” in our translations, then we need to do so consistently and speak of how “vindication is by faith.” If we use the word “justify” elsewhere, we should do so here.

But again: why did Jesus need to be justified?

because jesus was condemned
The answer is actually not that mysterious. Jesus needed to be justified because Jesus was condemned. “Condemn” means exactly the opposite of “justify.” Think of a court of law where a defendant is being tried for murder. The prosecutor will speak on behalf of “the people.” By virtue of his office his case will be “the people’s case.” When he rests his case, he will tell the judge, “The people rest, Your Honor.”

And so, if the jury finds him guilty, he will no longer have the standing he once did in his society. He will no longer have the status of a full citizen with rights. Rather, he will be a prisoner for a time with severely limited rights. He won’t be a full member of the society. He will be alienated. He will no longer have status in the eyes of “the people”–represented by the judicial system.

On the other hand, if he is declared “not guilty”–declared righteous, in effect–by the jury, his status will be affirmed. Our country claims that one is innocent before the law until proven guilty, but the fact is that in most cultures historically it is recognized that being hauled before a judge gives you a questionable status in society. You want the judge (or, in our case sometimes, jury) to give you a new status and you don’t want to leave the courtroom without it. You want to be vindicated before the law and declared to be innocent so that you can enjoy the standing you had before you were accused.

Now, it is not an accident that our gospels all climax in a courtroom. Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate as a condemned prisoner already. He is bound and has been beaten. Because the local leaders who did this don’t have the authority to inflict the death penalty they have come to Pilate, as the representative of the Roman Empire, to get him to condemn Jesus to the ultimate penalty, death by the torture of the cross.

In many ways, this is shown to us readers to be an amazing miscarriage of justice. Jesus is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Pilate sentences Jesus to die and God even indicates that he back’s Pilate’s sentence. Jesus himself confesses it with his own lips by crying out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Jesus needed justification because Jesus was under condemnation. Even in the grave his official condemnation was evident to all because his grave was sealed with a Roman seal. Even in death he was not permitted that basic care that was ordinarily given to the deceased by those who loved them. He was condemned.

because we were condemned
The reason Jesus was condemned, not only by his enemies, but by his own Father, had nothing to do with his own sin. He was innocent. He was guiltless. He never did anything to jeopardize his status before the Father but rather trusted him faithfully to the very end.

The reason Jesus was condemned was because of his people’s sins. In the Bible, people can suffer because their leaders sin and leaders can suffer because their people sin. Once, when King David sinned, his nation was plagued by God.

Jesus was David’s descendant and the rightful king of Israel, but he never did anything to cause them to suffer. He was Israel’s representative. He spent his life trying to get Israel to repent, but then he was the one who was condemned to judgment. He died as Israel’s king suffering because of his people’s own sin. He was condemned, not Israel.

And furthermore, Israel’s king was the king of the whole world. God had chosen Israel back from the time of Abraham to be a light to the nations and bring them deliverance from condemnation. The prophets promised Israel when she lost her independent throne that God would again establish her king and that all the nations would eventually recognize his authority over them. Incidentally, the New Testament Church was quite confident that these prophecies were fulfilled in the preaching of the Gospel, resulting in masses of Gentiles as well as Jews submitting to Jesus as Lord. When Jesus suffered condemnation he suffered it as the embodiment of the whole human race. He was stripped of his status as righteous in God’s sight because humanity had no such status, even though he personally was righteous and faithful from beginning to end.

AS JESUS WAS CONDEMNED IN HIS DEATH; HE WAS JUSTIFIED BY NEW LIFE
Three days after Jesus died in condemnation, the Bible teaches us from multiple witnesses that he was raised to a new more glorious life. In Romans 8, the Apostle Paul states emphatically that the Spirit of God was the one who raised Jesus from the grave.

That deliverance from death and exaltation to life and even to his right hand was God’s justification of Jesus. Jesus, who by right should have always been able to stand before His Father, gave up that status in order for God to give it back to him in a public declaration that he was the faithful righteous son of his Father. And he went through the condemnation and alienation because he knew that his people needed that status of righteous in God’s sight to end their condemnation.

Jesus was not justified for himself alone. His righteousness counts to all who belong to him. His vindication is our salvation. What does the Apostle Paul say? Romans 8.1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus.” If we belong to Christ by faith, he tells the Galatians, then we have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. What happened to Jesus counts for us. His cross and resurrection are counted as our past history.

We have standing with God because we are in, and belong to, Jesus—who has standing before God. We are no longer condemned. We are no longer alienated. Jesus went into the courtroom ahead of us and attained a verdict that would have been very different had God dealt with us as we deserved.

APPLICATIONS
Now there are many implications of all this. Let’s mention some.

First of all, we all have been taught that justification is a legal declaration. But it is hard to understand how our belief corresponds to a declaration on God’s part that we can’t hear or experience. Perhaps understanding how Jesus was justified will help. When we are marked out by God by the gift of faith we are joined to Christ by that faith. At that point, the verdict God declared about Jesus applies to us because we belong to Jesus. The declared verdict was almost two thousand years ago. We share that status when we share in Christ by faith.

God tells us in many ways that we belong to Jesus: By arranging providence so that we are baptized into his Kingdom; by showing us we are his family in feeding us at his table in the Lord’s Supper as a Father feeds his children; by enabling us through the power of the Holy Spirit to declare that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead; by summoning us to corporate worship as his army under his command and care; and by many other means.

Let all those things give you confidence in knowing that Christ’s status as acceptable to the Father—as a friend of God’s much more than Abraham was—is yours as well. Your sins are already dealt with so God now forgives them freely for the sake of Christ. He took your curse and condemnation and God receives you as having the status of his own beloved son.

Secondly, this might help us understand that, even though we have, in substance, our entire salvation in Jesus Christ, we really are still waiting for it to be revealed. Right now, we look and feel like the wicked around us. We too get cancer and deal with old age, and have our children get sick, and struggle with finances, just like all the unbelievers around us. We too are under the general curse that was imposed on the sinful human race.

But one day, we will experience for ourselves the declaration that we are righteous in God’s sight through Jesus our Lord in a new way. Just as Jesus was declared righteous—justified—in his resurrection, so in our resurrection we too will be personally justified. That’s why now justification is by faith. We must believe that we have status with God as his friends even though we don’t see much difference between how we are treated and how God treats his enemies. But then we will see with our own eyes as we are reborn from the grave in the image and glory of the resurrected Jesus Christ our Lord!

Thirdly, if we understand that we have this status and yet God has not seen fit to yet reveal it as he will at the Final Judgment–that last courtroom scene which will end human history–then we might be able to understand some of the frustration we feel. Living by faith means living by hope for what we do not yet see. And, as Paul writes in Romans 8.25, “if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.” If you are dissatisfied with your present life, maybe you should not be discouraged by that fact, but realize that the reason you are dissatisfied is that God has promised to bring you into something better–something you will not just hope in or trust him for, but that you will actually experience for yourself. Your resurrection in glory, when you see Jesus face to face and reflect his image as a mirror, will be God’s public declaration that he accepts you. You have status with him and you will see it then with your own transfigured eyes.

Finally, among many other things we could say, know for certain that all the status the world has to offer is worth less than nothing in comparison to the friendship with God and adoption into his family that is given in the Gospel. If you are excluded from your classmates or even your own family, for the cause of Christ, that is nothing in comparison to the glory into which he welcomes you. Don’t be seduced by the allurements of acceptability in the world.

• When someone makes a joke at your workplace that you know is wrong and yet feel pressure to join into, remember that your workplace is temporary and fleeting but God’s resting place is forever.
• When a class peer offers you something to drink or smoke that your not supposed to use, remember that they probably won’t be friends with you in a few years no matter what you do, but that God’s friendship is everlasting.
• When you find your not getting the prom date you want because of what you will or won’t do afterwards, remember that you are part of the bride of Christ and that Jesus is a better husband than anyone else ever could be–even if they weren’t merely lying to you for their own selfish reasons.
• If your own children or your parents were to reject you in some way because of the Gospel, remember that all the love and loyalty you could ever wish for, from your family, is but a dim reflection of God’s love for his children.

Let God’s regard for you, the status he gives you, satisfy that craving we all have for acceptance in the eyes of others.

Let me close with some of what I think are the most challenging words written in the Bible. Listen to this as a charge to you in how you ought to value the status that Jesus Christ won for you by being condemned in order to be justified for your sakes. Romans 2.28 & 29:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

In order to establish the doctrine of penal substitution we are not dependent on a few isolated proof-texts here and there in Scripture. The doctrine is woven indelibly into the very fabric of the account of the crucifixion, with numerous threads drawn from the Old Testament. Rather than instinctively looking to the gospels to provide the facts about the crucifixion, and to the letters to supply the meaning of those facts, we must turn to the Old Testament as the vantage point from which we are to survey the cross. Antecedent Scripture provides us with all the categories we need to understand the cross.

Read the rest of this great article: The Condemned King: Mark 15 and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution – Reformation21.

Wish I had noticed this back when I was writing about propitiation!

A blogger claims my method is flawed in arguing against Horton.  I don’t think it is flawed but I do think it is incomplete, which is why I plan to follow up with more about the Bible’s use of the word “Gospel.”

However, notice the difference.  Here’s his counter example:

For who is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things,most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth? (Psa. 18:31; cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 7).

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present,almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, therefore a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (Rom. 1:28; cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 7).

But what if I said that God was a Spirit who was infinite in being and Horton responded that I was denying the definition of God which is exclusively that he was gracious?  That is the real problem here.  Horton’s defenders are not facing up to what he has done.

Thus, my use of Romans 2.15-16 is a good example to use:

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom. 2:15-16)

Paul is doing here exactly what Horton accuses the Manhattan Declaration of doing.  And importing Horton’s alleged definition, from which any deviance is according to him such a serious matter, does show up  the contradiction to those with eyes to see.

To use the Westminster Confession in a parallel way, suppose some heretic claimed:

The Westminster Confession defines God as a finite being.

Then, I might quote him in a blog post with bold face print thus:

The Westminster Confession defines God as a finite being.

And then I could right a quick rebuttal by quoting from the Confession

There is but one only, living, and true finite being, who is infinite in being and perfection

And in this way I would demonstrate that the claim is false.

Of course, since there is development in how the Gospel is understood, from the time of John the Baptist to the preaching of the Apostle Paul, I agree there is more to be said.  So I’ll write more about that development as I promised to do.  At the moment I’m thinking of a post on the Gospels, then on Acts, and then on Paul’s Epistles.  But we’ll see how things shake out.  I may just be writing marginalia for the rest of my free time..