Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who believe in him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Not sure if this is significant… but that’s what a blog is for, right?
Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ
Paul says he is first a slave because all Christians must be slaves. And he has received first grace because we all need and receive grace. Not all are called to be apostles. So he mentions that second in each instance.
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. — Mark 1:1
In our culture today I suspect many people probably think that that “Christ” was simply Jesus’ last name. That is quite wrong, of course. Christ comes from the Greek word for “anointed.” It is the equivalent of the Hebrew term for “Messiah”—God’s promised king.
Again, this is a royal title. While other officials in Israel’s society were anointed with oil in order to call them into office, the anointing of kings gained special prominence. Samuel anointed Saul with oil to set him apart for the kingship of Israel (First Samuel 10:1). David was then anointed by Samuel when God decided to take the kingdom from Saul and give it to him. It is important to note that this anointing was not precisely the same thing as a coronation ceremony, since neither Saul nor David were able to assume the throne immediately after they were anointed. Nevertheless, was considered the starting point in the calling of the king and the basis of their rule. Thus, Psalm 89: 20 stresses, “I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him.” And in Psalm 2 verse 2, David or a Davidic king is referred to as the Lord’s “anointed.” When Samuel tells Saul “the Lord anointed you king over Israel” he is saying that God has made him king of Israel. Anointing is the essential element in giving Saul his identity as one called to be king.
Thus, if you want to explain what the term “Jesus Christ” means, perhaps a good paraphrase would be “King Jesus.” That would certainly be a good way to begin such an explanation. The word “Christ” is a term for his royal status as a descendant of David.
The term “son of God,” fits well within this royal language. God had promised David,
When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever (Second Samuel 7.12-16).
From that time on, and perhaps even before, being God’s “son” was a royal title. All Israel was called God’s son (Exodus 4.22; Hosea 11.1). It was appropriate that the king, as the representative of his people, should also bear that same title for himself. Thus, while Psalm 2 ultimately points to Jesus and his resurrection (Acts 13.33), it also describe David and his dynasty to the initial readers and hearers: “Surely I will tell of the decree of the LORD: You are my son; today I have begotten you.” Likewise we read in Psalm 89.20-27:
I have found David My servant;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,
With whom My hand will be established;
My arm also will strengthen him.
The enemy will not deceive him,
Nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
But I shall crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
And My faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his horn will be exalted.
I shall also set his hand on the sea,
And his right hand on the rivers.
He will cry to Me, “You are my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.’
I also shall make him first-born,
The highest of the kings of the earth (emphasis added).
To be the Son of God is to be Israel’s king. Thus in John’s Gospel we see the two titles put side by side: “Nathanael answered Him, ‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel’” (John 1.49). Mark’s gospel gives us the same idea. There are some manuscripts which are missing the reference to “son of God” but whatever the original reading of Mark, the idea is still quite present: This is the story of the victory of Jesus the king of Israel.
Since we have analyzed every other word in Mark’s short introduction, perhaps we should consider if there is anything to be said about the first one: “the beginning.” Given the overtones of royalty which we have already dealt with, it may be profitable if there is a royal Davidic connection with Mark’s use of this term.
Jeff Meyers, in his 1997 lectures on Mark’s gospel suggests that there is such a connection. Bearing in mind that Mark is about to quote a prophecy of making “ready the way of the Lord” and “making his paths straight,” we may have here an suggestion of Solomonic wisdom: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7a).
What follows in Proverbs is a sustained exhortation to avoid evil company. “My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path” (1:15). Rather, the “son” should
walk in the way of good men,
And keep to the paths of the righteous.
For the upright will live in the land,
And the blameless will remain in it;
But the wicked will be cut off from the land,
And the treacherous will be uprooted from it (2:20-22).
Later Solomon sums up the need for a choice of the right way:
The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom;
And with all your acquiring, get understanding.
Prize her, and she will exalt you;
She will honor you if you embrace her.
She will place on your head a garland of grace;
She will present you with a crown of beauty.
Hear, my son, and accept my sayings,
And the years of your life will be many.
I have directed you in the way of wisdom;
I have led you in upright paths.
When you walk, your steps will not be impeded;
And if you run, you will not stumble.
Take hold of instruction; do not let go.
Guard her, for she is your life.
Do not enter the path of the wicked,
And do not proceed in the way of evil men (4:7-14; emphasis added).
As we follow the way of the Lord through Mark, we will find the basic choice of which way to go to be presented rather strikingly, especially in irony and parable and in other ways which remind us of royal wisdom.
Proverbs 14.26:
In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence,
and his children will have a refuge.
Not trembling, confidence.
Then Proverbs 29.25:
The fear of man lays a snare,
but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe.
I think we don’t use the word “fear” often because we want to flatter ourselves. But at bottom, peer pressure is fear. Wanting someone’s respect is to fear that person. You live by that person’s appraisal.
Notice that the opposite of fearing God is not to be confident in His presence but to have no respect for Him at all. Proverbs 14.2:
Whoever walks in uprightness fears the LORD,
but he who is devious in his ways despises him.
So the issues here are the same as what Paul refers to in Romans 2:
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Jesus confronted the Pharisees over the same issue. John 5.44:
How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
You fear the one who you acknowledge can give you glory.
In coming before the public with a Second edition of the Anxious Bench, it seems proper to introduce it with a short Preface.
The publication, as was to be expected, has produced considerable excitement. At least half a dozen of replies to it, shorter or longer, have been announced in different quarters, proceeding from no less than five different religious denominations. Various assaults, in addition to this, have been made upon it, from the pulpit; to say nothing of the innumerable reproaches it has been required to suffer, in a more private way.
All this however, calls for no very special notice, in return. I am sorry to say, that of all the published replies to the tract, which have come under my observation, not one is entitled to any respect, as an honest and intelligent argument on the other side. In no case, has the question at issue been fairly accepted and candidly met. I do not feel myself required at all then, to enter into a formal vindication of the tract, as assailed in those publications. I consider it to be in itself, a full and triumphant answer to all they contain against it, in the way of objection or reproach. If permitted to speak for itself, by being seriously and attentively read, it may safely be left to please its own cause. In such circumstances, it would be idle to enter into a controversial review of the manifold misrepresentations, to which it has been subjected. The only proper reply to them, is a republication of the tract itself.
With the reproaches that have been showered upon me personally, in different quarters, I have not a I lowed myself to be much disturbed. I had looked for it all beforehand; knowing well the spirit of the system, with which I was called to deal. I knew of course, that I should be calumniated as an enemy to revivals, and an opposer of vital godliness. But I felt satisfied at the same time, that the calumny would in due season correct itself, and recoil with disgrace on the heads of those from whom it might proceed. It has begun to do so already, and will continue to do so, no doubt, more and more.
Some have wondered, that I did not take more pains to define my position with regard to revivals, by writing a chapter on the subject, so as to cut off occasion for the reproach now mentioned. But this would have been, in some measure to justify and invite the wrong, which it was proposed to prevent. There is gross insolence in the assumption, that a man should at all need to vindicate himself in this way, in venturing to speak against the system of New Measures. And then, it is not by formal protestations, when all is done, that the point, in any such case, can be fully settled. A chapter on revivals would be of little account in my tract, if my own character, and the whole spirit of the tract itself, were not such as to show an honest zeal in favor of serious religion. The publications which have come out in reply to it, all affect an extraordinary interest in the subject of revivals, exhibited often with a very blustering air; but in the case of some of them, this pretension is utterly belied, to all who have the least amount of spiritual discernment, by the tone of feeling with which they are characterized throughout. They carry in them no savor at all of the wisdom, that cometh from above, no sympathy whatever with the mind of Jesus Christ. The remark is made of some of these publications, not of the whole of them indiscriminately.
Nor would any special protestation in favor of revivals be of much account, to guard the tract from being perversely used, by those who are in fact opposed to this precious interest. The only true and proper provision against such abuse must be found, if it exist at all, in the general spirit of the tract itself. Let this be right, and it must be considered enough. It may be perverted still; but men can pervert the bible too, if they please.
Fears have been expressed, that in the present position of the German Churches particularly, the publication may operate disastrously upon the interests of vital godliness. But in my own view, there is no good reason for any such fears. I believe its operation has been salutary already, and trust it will be found more salutary still, in time to come. It has engaged attention extensively to the subject of which it treats, and is likely to go farther than anything that has appeared before, in correcting the confusion and mystification, in which it has been so unhappily involved, in certain parts of the country, to the great prejudice of religion. It may be hoped now, that the subject of New Measures will be so examined and understood, that all shall come to make a proper distinction, between the system of the Anxious Bench, and the power of evangelical godliness, working in its true forms. In the case of the German Churches, this would be a result of the very highest consequence. If the present tract may open the way for its accomplishment, its mission will be one in which all the friends of true religion in these Churches will have occasion to rejoice.
But instead of lending their help to secure this most desirable object, the friends of the Anxious Bench seem concerned, to maintain as long as possible the very mystification, that stands in its way. They tell us, we must not speak against New Measures, because this term is made to include, in some parts of the country, revivals and other kindred interests and then, when we propose to correct this gross mistake, by proper instruction, they set themselves with all their might to counteract the attempt, and insist that the people shall be suffered to confound these different forms of religion as before. Those who act thus, are themselves enemies in fact to the cause of revivals. From no other quarter, has it been made to suffer so seriously. Its greatest misfortune is, that it should lie at the mercy of such hands.
It is with a very bad grace, that reference is made occasionally by some, to the idea of a foreign spirit in the tract, as related to the German Churches. It is in full sympathy with the true life of these Churches, as it stood in the beginning. The charge of seeking to force a foreign spirit on them, lies with clear right against the other side. The system of New Measures has no affinity whatever, with the life of the Reformation, as embodied in the Augsburg Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. It could not have found any favor in the eyes of Zuingli or Calvin. Luther would have denounced it, in the most unmerciful terms. His soul was too large, too deep, too free, to hold communion with a style of religion so mechanical and shallow. Those who are actively laboring to bring the Church of Luther, in this country, into subjection to the system, cannot be said to be true to his memory or name. The challenge, Why are you a Lutheran ? is one which they would
do well seriously to consider. It is most certain, that the interest they are pushing forward, in this view, is not Lutheranism, in any sense that agrees with the true historical life of the Church. It involves a different theory of religion, that stands in no fellowship with the views, either of the fathers and founders of the Church, or of its most evangelical representatives in modern Germany. It is another element altogether that surrounds us, in the writings of such men as Olshausen, Tholuck, Sartorius, and Neander. The system in question, is in its principle and soul neither Calvinism nor Lutheranism, but Wesleyan Methodism. Those who are urging it upon the old German Churches, are in fact doing as much as they can, to turn them over into the arms of Methodism. This may be done, without any change of denominational name. Already the life of Methodism, in this country, is actively at work among other sects, which own no fellowship with it in form. So in the present case, names may continue to stand as before; but they will be only as the garnished sepulchers of a glory, that belonged to other days.
But is not Methodism, Christianity? And is it not better that the German Churches should rise in this form, than not rise at all 1 Most certainly so, I reply, if that be the only alternative. But that is not the only alternative. Their resurrection may just as well take place, in the type of their own true, original, glorious life, as it is still to be found enshrined in their symbolical books. And whatever there may be that is good in Methodism, this life of the Reformation I affirm to be immeasurably more excellent and sound. Wesley was a small man as compared with Melancthon. Olshausen, with all his mysticism, is a commentator of the inmost sanctuary in comparison with Adam Clark. If the original, distinctive life of the Churches of the Reformation, be not the object to be reached after, in the efforts that are made to build up the interests of German Christianity, in this country, it were better to say so at once openly and plainly. If we must have Methodism, let us have it, under its own proper title, and in its own proper shape. Why keep up the walls of denominational partition, in such a case, with no distinctive spiritual being to uphold or protect? A sect without a soul, has no right to live. Zeal for a separate denominational name, that utters no separate religious idea, is the very essence of sectarian bigotry and schism.
In opposing the Anxious Bench, I mean no disrespect of course to the many excellent men, in different Churches, who have given it their countenance. This has been done by some of the best ministers in the land, for whom I entertain the very highest regard. Not a few are to be found, who themselves condemn their own former judgment, in so doing ; which does not imply surely any want of proper self-respect. The system of the Anxious Bench, in its full development, is one which these persons have always disapproved; only they have not considered this particular measure to be a part of the system. That this should be the case need not seem strange; for in the view of the measure here taken, it is supposed to be in its simple form, on the bright side of this system, and close upon the boundary that separates it from the territory of truth. The tract exhibits the measure in this view, not as the origin of the system historically, not as necessarily conducting in all cases to worse things that lie beyond; but as constitutionally involving the principle of those worse things, under the least startling form, and legitimately opening the way for their introduction, if circumstances should permit. It would seem to show the correctness of this view, that while the answers to the tract protest against it, as a false and arbitrary classification, they all conform to it notwithstanding^ in spite of themselves, in a practical way. They defend the use of the bench as the Thermopylae of New Measures; and their argument, such as it is, has just as much force to justify the system in full, as it has to justify this measure in particular. An effort is made indeed to mystify the subject, by dragging into connection with it interests of a different order altogether ; but still it is plain enough, that this is done with violence, and the controversy falls back always in the end, to its proper limits.
The abuse of a thing, it is said, is no argument against its proper use; and therefore the object, in the present case, should be to reform and regulate, rather than to abolish. To this I reply, the whole system contemplated in the tract is an abuse, from which it is of the utmost importance that the worship of the sanctuary, and the cause of revivals, should be rescued. Belonging as it does to this system, then, and contributing to its support, the Anxious Bench is a nuisance, that can never be fully abated except by its entire removal. Its tendencies, as shown in the tract, are decidedly bad, without any compensation of a solid kind. It may be used with moderation ; but it will stand still in the same relation to the system it represents, that moderate drinking holds to intemperance in its more advanced forms. Popery started, in the beginning, under forms apparently the most innocent and safe. What might seem to be, for instance, more rational and becoming than the sign of the cross, as used by Christians, on all occasions, in the early Church ? And yet, when the corruptions of Rome were thrown off by the protestant world, in the 16th century, this and other similar forms were required to pass away with the general mass. And why is it that the sign of the cross, as once used, is now counted a dangerous superstition, not to be permitted among protestants? Simply, because it falls naturally over to that vast system of abuses, of which it forms a part in the Romish Church. Thus it represents that system, and furnishes a specimen of it constitutionally, under the most plausible shape. Such is the position of the Anxious Bench, as a particular measure, in the general case now under consideration. It is just as easy to conceive of a judicious and salutary use of the sign of the cross, as it is to conceive of a judicious and salutary use of the anxious bench ; and I have no doubt at all, but that the first has been owned and blessed of God full as extensively, to say the least, as this has ever been the case with the last.
You shall therefore be perfect. This perfection does not mean equality, but relates solely to resemblance. However distant we are from the perfection of God, we are said to be perfect, as he is perfect, when we aim at the same object, which he presents to us in Himself. Should it be thought preferable, we may state it thus. There is no comparison here made between God and us: but the perfection of God means, first, that free and pure kindness, which is not induced by the expectation of gain; — and, secondly, that remarkable goodness, which contends with the malice and ingratitude of men. This appears more clearly from the words of Luke, Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful: for mercy is contrasted with a mercenary regard, which is founded on private advantage.
Here is the Belgic Confession, Article 22:
The Righteousness of FaithWe believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him.
For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.
Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God — for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified “by faith alone” or by faith “apart from works.” [Romans 3.28]
However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us — for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness.
But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits.
When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us of our sins.
So this is traditional Protestantism: faith keeps us in a justified state.
And then this from the famous American theologian of the 1800s, Charles Hodge, when he is writing about baptism:
…the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith…
The benefits of redemption would include justification.
The real question is: Why would anyone argue against this point? Why deny that the ongoing or continual state of being reckoned righteous is by the ongoing or continual faith?
Some people seem to think that justification is no longer “forensic” if it is continued by faith. I use quotation marks here because I don’t think the word is being used right to arrive at this conclusion. But set that aside. The argument proves too much. If ongoing faith cannot be the means of being continually justified, then why should initial faith be any different? We end up without any justification by faith at all.
It is true that I can think of no precedent for faith being required to receive a judicial verdict or status. Certainly God’s condemnation does not have to be received by faith.
The solution is found in the Belgic Confession, as well as in John Calvin and Westminster, and in John Murray and in John Gerstner…
In other words, it is just Reformed Theology.
Have you ever known any official verdict pronounced by judge and jury that only applied to the person over whom the verdict was announced if he or she received it by faith?
When God condemns the wicked is that verdict received by faith?
The whole idea of receiving a forensic declaration “by faith”–if that is all we know about the situation–destroys the very idea of a forensic justification.
So how can justification be God’s judicial act and yet be received by faith?
Union with Christ is the only thing that keeps these two together.
God doesn’t pronounce an audible sentence every time a person is converted. Rather, he publicly justified Jesus by raising him from the dead. (1 Tim 3.16; Romans 8.1ff; See more here.)
All people who entrust themselves to God through Jesus–who confess that Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead–belong to Jesus and share in the verdict pronounced over Jesus.
Jesus got the verdict he deserved after suffering a condemnation he did not deserve so that we might receive a vindication we don’t deserve and escape a condemnation we do deserve.
Jesus is the incarnation of God and, by his resurrection, the incarnation of God’s verdict, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”
All who are joined to Jesus (which is by faith alone) have his status as pronounced by his resurrection.
See also:
- John Murray on Justification by Union with Christ
- Ridderbos on the justification of the ungodly in union with Christ.
- Peter Leithart, John Calvin, and Westminster on justification as a legal benefit of union with Christ
- Real Union or Legal Fiction? John Williamson Nevin’s Controversy With Charles Hodge Over the Imputation of Adam’s Sin (with a Comparison to Robert L. Dabney)
So justification by faith alone is really true, both at the first conversion and in ongoing faith.
Another dreary Protestant doctrine post, but I was thinking about it and thought I should briefly point out what the universal consensus of Reformed Orthodoxy has been on this matter. Justifying faith consist of three things or elements (to use the Language from Berkhof’s systematic theology). They are:
The only caveat to this, is that it is just as rooted in the Reformed Tradition (and the Bible) to admit that infants even in the womb can somehow exercise an appropriate level of seed faith or possess an inclination to faith that justifies them before God.
Here is a pretty typical example of the historic Reformed Position on infants and faith:
An objection to infant baptism: Those who do not believe are not to be baptized; for it is said “He that believeth and is baptized,” etc. But infants do not believe. Therefore, they are not to be baptized. Faith is necessarily required for the use of baptism, for he that believeth not shall be damned. But the sign of grace ought not to be given to such as are condemned.
Answer 1: The first proposition is not true, if understood generally; for circumcision was applied to infants, although they were not capable of exercising fait. It must, therefore, be understood of adults only, who are not to be baptized. Neither can our opponents say of adults that they certainly do believe. If infants, therefore, are not to be baptized because they do not believed, then neither are those to be baptized who have arrived to years of understanding, because no one can certainly know whether they have faith or not. Simon Magus was baptized, and yet he was a hypocrite. But, say our opponents, the church ought to be satisfied with a profession of faith. This we admit, and would add, that to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith.
Answer 2: Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. There are, therefore four terms in this syllogism, or there is a fallacy in understanding that as spoken particularly, which must be understood generally. Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized. But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.
Answer 3: We also deny the minor proposition; for infants do believe after their manner, or according to the condition of their age; they have an inclination to faith. Faith is in infants potentially and by inclination, although not actually as in adults. For, as infants born of ungodly parents who are without the church, have no actual wickedness, but only an inclination thereto, so those who are born of godly parents have no actual holiness, but only an inclination to it, not according to nature, but according to the grace of the covenant. And still further: infants have the Holy Ghost and are regenerated by him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb, and Jeremiah is said to have been sanctified before he came out of the womb (Luke 1.5; Jeremiah 1.5). If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with everything that is requisite for baptism, according to the declaration of Peter, “Can any man forbid water to them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” It is for this reason that Christ enumerates little children amongst those that believe, saying, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me.” Inasmuch now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm.
Zacharias Ursinus was the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism. The above is found on pages 369, 370 of this Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.
For the record, I think Reformed and Protestant Orthodoxy was right that justifying faith in adult believers is a compound of three elements and that regenerated infants also have some kind of faith or inclination to faith which justifies them as well. These doctrines are Biblical, worth recovering, and worth preserving.
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: ‘Follow thou me!’ and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.
—Albert Schweitzer
Mark’s beginning is characteristically succinct. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The danger here is that we are so accustomed to speaking of and reading about a “gospel,” or even “the gospel” and also “the Son of God,” that we don’t bother to think about what these terms meant in their original context.
Let’s take the term “gospel” first: What does it mean? We kick the word around a lot in Evangelical circles. It is derived from the old English word godspell, and is used to translate the Greek term, evangelion. The best transliteration of the term is “good news” or “good message.” However, we might have a better understanding if we consider some prominent ways in which the word was used at the time of Jesus.
Consider this inscription from 9 BC
The providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a deliverer for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere . . .. ; the birthday of the god [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through him.
[Quoted in N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 43. A slightly different reading of the same inscription is found in John Dominic Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 191994), 1.]
Here we have the announcement of the birthday of Augustus Caesar dubbed as a gospel—“glad tidings” or good news. As Biblical and historical scholar, N. T. Wright, sums up the evidence: “In the Greek world, as is well know among scholars, evangelion is a regular technical term, referring to the announcement of a great victory, or to the birth, or accession, of an emperor.” [ibid]
The point here is that a “gospel” refers to a public announcement of victory.
Wright also points out two passages from Isaiah which bear on the original meaning of the word “gospel.” The first is Isaiah 40:9 (I include verse ten for context).
Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of good news.
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
Behold, the Lord God will come with might,
With His arm ruling for Him.
Behold, His reward is with Him,
And His recompense before Him (emphasis added).
In the common Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the word for “good news” is evangelion. The same is true of Isaiah 52:7.
How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace
And brings good news of happiness,
Who announces deliverance,
And says to Zion, “Your God is King!” (emphasis added).
These texts are about a return from exile for God’s people when their land will be returned to them and God will again dwell in their midst on Zion in Jerusalem in the Temple. It is important to remember that the Temple was God’s palace. In fact, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the narrative of First Kings and First Chronicles to describe the construction of both God’s “Temple” and King Solomon’s “palace.” Both structures are given the same name because they are both royal houses wherein a king is enthroned. At the time of the exile, God abandoned his palace and allowed Nebuchadnezzar to destroy it. Instead or ruling from there, he came on his throne and dwelt with the exiles in Babylon, as revealed in Ezekiel 1.
Thus, prophesying the return from exile when God’s presence will again be in Jerusalem is an announcement of his enthronement. It fits in quite well with the pagan use of the term in the first century. Both Jew and Gentile alike use the term to refer to the victory or ascension of a king—perhaps the triumphant beginning of his rule. For the Jews this meant the one true God who had chosen a people and chosen to dwell enthroned among them at the Temple in Jerusalem. For the pagans it meant some other god had begun to rule as king—often these false gods were might men like Caesar who claimed to be divine.
What is the upshot of all this? Quite simply, while the gospel does result in changed lives and forgiven individuals, the gospel message is not simply a method for changing one’s life or receiving forgiveness. In other words, the gospel is not a description of how one goes about getting “a personal relationship” with God. When a new King has conquered and, as a result, ascends to his throne to rule, the news causes his enemies to tremble in fear. It causes those who want to benefit from his rule to bow their knees in submission to his authority. That is the kind of news the Gospel is. That is what Mark is writing about—the conquest and triumph of a new king.
NEXT INSTALLMENT: The Meaning of the word, “Christ”
People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?”: or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said – so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully – “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.