What is the Gospel?

For anyone who has been checking this blog for updates, I’ll apologize for a nine month delay of silence. For those “catching up,” in future, I’ll simply observe for posterity that there have been some trying times. The topic of today’s discussion is the question, “What, exactly, is the Gospel?” We call the first four books of the bible “The Gospels,” and they truly tell the biographical story of Jesus’ time on earth. However, a biography doesn’t really define a term. The term might be simply a proper noun like the Hadith of Muhammad.

The Christian cannot fail to infer that the word “Gospel,” is intended to have special meaning, because at the very end of the book of Mark it is used in a special context. The occasion was that of Christ’s final leave taking of his apostles. By combining information from more than one account we can form a more complete picture of the circumstances. In Acts chapter one verse two, we establish that the time we will now discuss was “the day in which he (Jesus Christ) was taken up.” Verse [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion (the biblical word for his death, and the reason for the name of the movie,) by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days (time frame from resurrection to departure,) and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: In the verses that follow, Luke abbreviates the story of the closing days of Christ’s stay on earth AFTER his resurrection.

[6] When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
[7] And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
[8] But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
[10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
[11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

Mark’s account of the same time frame (also abbreviated,) picks up in Chapter 16: [9] Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week (part of a technical argument that he fulfilled prophecy,) he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
[10] And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
[11] And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
[12] After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
[13] And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
[14] Afterward he appeared unto the eleven (Judas Iscariot – the twelfth apostle had committed suicide,) as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
.
.
.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

The word from the original (coinae dialect) Greek that is translated “Gospel,” is to me, as to most people truly “all Greek.” There is a reference work called a concordance. Of these, a notable man named Strong developed one for the Bible that solves this problem creatively for those so inclined. Instead of an alphabetized dictionary of the Greek script, he numbered the words numerically. By plugging in the word “Gospel” in the appropriate field, we find a listing of all occurrences of the word Gospel in the New Testament (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.) Since the number exceeds a convenient count, the list is broken up into four groups, each linked at the very bottom of the list. By tediously going through the whole list, we establish that the word is either 2098 or 2097 in almost every occurrence. For later reference, this is one of the simpler words to study, since it has few homophones, homonyms, and synonyms. By returning to the original main link, putting the bullet in “Greek,” instead of the default “Hebrew,” we can search 2097 in another field. What we can learn from the resulting search is that the word 2097 (and in this case conveniently collected relevant results,) is that this word 2097, is Gospel -> 2097/2098 (English to Greek,) but 2097 -> declare, bring glad tidings, bring good tidings, show glad tidings AND Gospel, in the Greek to English direction. Despite this daunting amount of data, looking to the left of the double hyphen, we can still be confident of the dictionary definition of this one Greek word. It is “to announce good news ("evangelize") especially the gospel.” All that to say this: The traditional definition of the word is “Good News.”

At this point, I want to make a parenthetical observation. As such, the following paragraphs will stand alone and not modify the discussion we have underway. They are intended to settle any hypothetical nerves, and restore confidence that we can know what the Bible says. I cannot indent due to formatting limitations, but I will specify when we return to the substance of the narrative. The English we read is a translation from the original language. By verifying from outside sources, we find that Jesus himself was in a similar situation. He had access to the Old Testament in Hebrew, but quoted and memorized from a translation of his own day into his native Aramaic called the Septuagint. Despite the fact that this was a translation, he used it rather rigorously. As the inspired son of God, I need to specify that he was in a more certain position to torture an analogy than we are. That being noted, he used it with astonishing confidence. By way of observation, we can first note that in Jno 10:35…
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
…his own parenthetical comment was that “the scripture cannot be broken.” There are two places where we can go to establish that Christ put nothing less than complete faith in the text.

From there, we turn our attention to Mt 22:
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
[32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[33] And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

On this occasion Jesus was arguing with a sect (or unique group) of the Jews called Sadducees. From context they were arguing that there was no resurrection from the dead (the preceding verse giving an interesting observation on the traditional phrase used in marriage vows “’til death do us part.”) Jesus’ argument that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had eternal souls hinged on the tense of the verb “to be,” as used in the text. He implied that if the Patriarchs were dead “like the little dog rover (dead all over,)” then the text ought rightfully to read “I WAS the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The English word “astonished,” has meaning here, and denotes that the multitude understood something that was surprising from the boldness of the position. They could not have been surprised if they had not understood; if they had not understood they would have been mystified.

Jesus Christ was not alone in being able to argue syntactics. The apostle Paul turned right around and did the same thing in Gal chapter three. Picking up in verse
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live (be justified) by faith.
[12] And the law (Old Testament covenant made with Israel,) is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[15] Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (direct quote from Old Testament.) He saith not, And to seeds (plural,) as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed(singular,) which is Christ.
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of (by) God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the (Old Testament) law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
[20] Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
This passage is pretty thick with semiotic argumentation. What I have done is lifted exactly one of them out of the text for observation. On that point, Paul is arguing that the promise God made to Abraham and to his seed meant “Abraham and Christ,” NOT “Abraham and all his descendants.”

For clarity I have italicized the narrative of the discussion, and underlined that Paul was not calling on some kind of moral superiority, but rather regarded something about the discussion to be demeaning. I’ll conclude by supplying that “the promise by faith…given to all them that believe,” was forgiveness. The blue text in verse eleven shows that the Old Testament was given for a reason independent of faith, and was not independently sufficient for “justification.” I might profit from a more intensive study of that word. Use Jas 2:24 to understand that while faith was required for justification, it was not sufficient in and of itself, and I hope I have answered more questions than I have raised.

Returning then to the discussion of the word Gospel: It means “Good News” but of all the various themes and stories of the New Testament, which one can we say distills the essence of the relevant newsflash? As Christians we cannot ignore the responsibility of deciding what it is, because of I Pet 3: [15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of (for) the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: What is the hope that is in us? We hope for salvation from spiritual death and associated punishment in Hell. How can we even begin to hope for this when Ro 6: [23] For the wages of sin is (spiritual) death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. True, God has given us the promise of eternal life “through” Jesus Christ our Lord, but how was it delivered? Since Jesus paid our debt of sin on the cross, New Testament Christians have something that Old Testament Jews did not have: namely FORGIVENESS. (Heb 10: [4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.) For further study, contemplate that the sins of Old Testament Jews were rolled forward chronologically by blood sacrifice using a principle embodied in the term “scapegoat.” I hope that anyone reading this will find the Gospel to be abridged synoptically in the sentence “In the New Testament, we now have forgiveness of sins.” This is important when approaching the Jew or the Atheist, but it should not be overlooked in approaching the Muslim as well. The Quoran has no precedent for forgiveness, making the Islamic religion one of works and penance; a constant effort to compensate for bad deeds with good. If the Muslim has any desire for forgiveness he arguably will find this a very attractive quality of Christianity. I will stipulate that the best place to begin presenting the New Testament to a Muslim is the book of Luke (starting at Chapter One, verse One,) because the story of Zacharias (the father of John the Baptist – Jesus’ cousin,) has a parallel in the life of Muhammad.

In closing, let’s review how this forgiveness is acquired. In Mk 16: [15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth (faith) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

We have just established what exactly should be the content of the message preached. The Gospel is the good news that men can now have forgiveness of sins. The meaning of verse 16 is best illuminated using tautology. The first clause can be restated: IF faith AND baptized THEN saved. The contrapositive to this statement is: IF NOT saved THEN (either) NOT faith OR NOT baptized (by DeMorgan’s Laws.) Since the second clause takes a different form, logically it can be said to contain new information. It can be restated: IF NOT faith THEN NOT saved. If you build a truth table, you can find out that most people stumble by trying to argue what is called the converse in the technical sense. This is properly stated: IF saved THEN [(both) faith AND baptized (and nothing else at all.)] By rule of logic, the converse is not implied from the statement. By reviewing other scriptures, this is confirmed by the observation that Grace and Hope (among other less specific things,) are also involved in salvation. If the verse read “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that does not believe and is not baptized shall be damned,” then we would be able from rules of logic to conclude that Grace is not necessary for salvation. I personally have always found the agreement in logic of biblical statements to be remarkable, and a good reason to conclude that it was intelligently written.

I hope to come back soon with more “stuff.” I’ve been getting ideas and writing them down. The “Great white bull,” makes it hard to get started sometimes, but “God willing and the creek don’t rise,” there will be more to come soon. L8r.