sides
Mike and I had this email exchange a few weeks ago. It’s an email I keep reading and re-reading. I wasn’t all that sure why until this morning as I’m wrestling with “New Year” themes/perspectives and the like for the youth ministry.
Mike’s last response will be the perspective I try to live 2008 through.
Mike:
I’m teaching one of our ABFs this Sunday and as I was praying about what God wanted me to share with them he led me to Romans 1:16-17:
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
I began meditating on this passage and what it has to do with the celebration of the birth of the Christ-child. As I worked through this connection I came to the conclusion that the gospel, which is God’s power for salvation, began with the birth of the Christ-child.
Now, here’s where I need your help. I want to be theologically correct in my connection and teaching. I know traditionally the gospel has included the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but it was God who decided to bring the Messiah to earth through his immaculate conception and birth, which in some form was the beginning. So…can we expand the definition of the gospel to include Christ’s birth? Or is the gospel strictly defined by his death, burial, and resurrection?
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Grant:
I think we could argue that The Good News (gospel, literally) actually started back in Genesis 3. God loves, God redeems, God covers, God will move and search out because it is His very essence (love) to do so. The whole story of scripture is God saving us - first by one lamb for one person (Adam and Eve each got ‘covered’) to one lamb for one household (passover) to one lamb for one nation (day of atonement) to one Lamb for all people for all time - (John’s phrase - Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world…)
For a Jew - the Gospel would HAVE to include all of that (creation/fall/Abraham/judges/prophets) in order to be true to the One God they knew and worshiped. It’s a vital part of the story - we don’t have this power in and of ourselves, no matter how creative we have tried to be.
The idea of righteousness by faith is as old as Enoch and Noah and Abraham…
Christ is the fulfillment/pinnacle of the story.
Enough of my rambling - let the expert theologians now speak… 
Mike:
Dude, that’s good. So you’re saying we could expand further than Jesus’ birth all the way back to Gen 3 up to the resurrection, even the ascension of Christ? WOW! Haven’t thought it out that far back. I just know what I’ve read and been taught – even in seminary – go figure.
Grant:
From a historical perspective - Paul would have had to included the OT because it was the only text recognized as canon at the time.
From a theological perspective - the Gospel story starts with God saying - I’m keeping you from the tree of life right now because I don’t want you to live in this state of death/sin forever. I’ll (God speaking) provide a way to heal this, to cover this in good time. But for now, you can’t stay here in this state - for your own protection and benefit.
For whatever reason, God has a history of waiting until “the fullness of time.” He’s never early… from Noah, Exodus, the Judges, the prophets - he seems okay with letting sin “have its day.” So here comes Jesus in this story - and his death and resurrection are the final answer - the veil rips in half from top to bottom.
The dark side of the Gospel is the awfulness of sin. How it ruins and destroys everything it touches. So we have thousands of years of examples in front of us - even God gets “touched” by sin in the sense it’s sin that nails Jesus to the cross.
The difference is this - only God has the power greater than sin. Sin is awful and horrible and deadly….God’s grace is more. It can take the worse sin has to offer - throughout history - and redeem it. That’s the power.
Then again…I could be completely full of crap.
Mike:
But as Paul and the Apostles begin preaching salvation to the people they preached the Good News – God has sent salvation in the form of His son who came to earth – as a child to a virgin in Bethlehem – lived as a man just like us, was crucified, buried, and raised on the third day. And wasn’t Paul a missionary to the Gentiles who may or may not have had any exposure to the OT. So all he had to work with was the life of Christ. Yes?
And You could be full of crap anyway
Grant:
Couple of interesting sidenotes…
Paul NEVER deals with the virgin birth of Jesus. NEVER. Never was a part of “believing Jesus” in his economy. Chew on that for minute…can you be a lover and follower of Jesus and not buy the virgin birth?
The longest dialouge we have in scripture giving us a potential glimpse into how exactly Paul engaged a Gentile audience was in Acts 18. (…he’s in Athens and speaking about the statute to the unknown god…). He starts with creation in his gospel story.
So while he may not have quoted OT, he definitely spoke/taught from that reservoir of knowledge. He used philosophy/arts/music whatever to springboard into the discussion - but his talks were heavy in OT theology…
I’m guessing that the discipleship process was all about linking the OT to the story of Jesus. but that’s just a guess.
Mike:
“Paul NEVER deals with the virgin birth of Jesus. NEVER. Never was a part of “believing Jesus” in his economy. Chew on that for minute…can you be a lover and follower of Jesus and not buy the virgin birth?”
Never caught that before. That’s good. Then again, how often do we include the virgin birth when we present the gospel of Christ to students and adults? I don’t, not very often anyway. I don’t think that His birth is necessary in SHARING the gospel, but I also don’t believe not sharing it takes away from its importance as part of the gospel?
Wondering Out Loud:
So what would you say was the Good News that Jesus taught in the Gospels (and told us to share) and Paul preached to the gentiles? Do you think their version of the Good News included creation, God’s redemption of His people (the Israelites) through the lamb, the redemption of mankind through Christ (the last lamb)?
Grant:
I don’t either…I figure if they are going to swallow that he died and rose again - the whole virgin birth thing is easy.
But I also know this - I love Jesus and follow him. I also know that my ‘theology’ of Jesus is incomplete in some areas, incorrect in others. My doctrinal purity/correctness doesn’t save me - my faith in Christ does.
So my doctrine is sound enough to believe but I know all to well that it isn’t complete or perfect. It will be one day - when I see him.
I think it’s possible to have incorrect/incomplete theology of Jesus and yet still love him and follow him. See Woman at the well, etc…
The essence of the good news? Mark 10 - He came to serve, not to be served and ransom those who are lost. Great summary verse of ALL of scripture when you think about it.
Mike:
You spoke the words of my heart today.
I don’t think I have to know all there is to know…but that doesn’t keep me from pursuing and asking, and serving, and loving my God.
Thanks again for the dialogue. I really appreciate it. Wish we were closer. Would love to this kind of discussion on the slopes or over some coffee.
Thank you, Mike. For the insight…the wordsmithing…and a friendship that allows me to fumble my way to God.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Heath // Jan 2, 2008 at 2:14 pm
man… that is AWESOME. I’m gonna have to let that rattle around in my head for a while.
thanks for sharing that exchange!
2 MikeS // Jan 3, 2008 at 9:08 am
G - taught the lesson to 2 different small groups - included our dialogue. It really enhanced the lesson when we discussed the Good News.
I’m still amazed at God who still loves me, pursues me, and redeems me - even though I’m sinner and don’t deserve it. Go figure.
Don’t understand it, but I’m grateful for it.
3 MarkE // Jan 3, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Grant:
Interesting exchange. But I am curious why you don’t go with Jesus’ definition of the gospel? Paraphrased by Willard: ‘the gospel’ is the good news of the presence and availability of life in the kingdom, now and forever, through reliance on Jesus the Anointed”
Should Paul’s gospel be interpreted in light of Jesus’?
4 Grant // Jan 3, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Probably because the question wasn’t about “my” gospel.
ha ha.
On a more serious note…I guess I don’t see the disconnect from Mark 10 and Willard’s summary.
Although, I prefer the ‘consumed by Christ’ phrase over the ‘reliance.’
5 MarkE // Jan 3, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I guess that would depend on how you interpret ransoming those who are lost and what he meant by the kingdom of heaven being at hand. But this may be going too deep!
It is rare to hear the gospel framed like Jesus did. It just make sense to me to start there and figure out what he meant. We tend to go with Paul’s gospel. I wonder if Paul’s gospel needs to be interpreted in light of Jesus’.
To go emergent on you, maybe it is both/and, or as Scot Mcknight likes to say, maybe we need a more robust gospel (I think he is going to start a thread on the kingdom next week which may get at some of this.). Going to heaven when we die does not seem to be that good of news for many post-moderns. They seem to what to know what you have done for me lately.
Anyway, peace, love and joy.
Mark
6 daveb // Jan 4, 2008 at 7:24 am
“Paul NEVER deals with the virgin birth of Jesus. NEVER. …can you be a lover and follower of Jesus and not buy the virgin birth?”
I’ve seen you ask this question twice now and I think it deserves a response. Here is my “unpolished” reply:
1) So what? Since when is Paul the one and only authority? I thought ALL of Scripture had authority…and Paul agrees (2 Tim 3:16). Last I checked both Matthew and Luke were included in Scripture…and they certainly deal with the Virgin Birth (MT 1:18, LK 1:34-35).
2) Can I not believe this and still be a Christ follower? Sure…but that applies to most issues doesn’t it? Do I have to believe in the innerancy of Scripture to love and follow Jesus? NO. Etc, etc, etc. However, there is an underlying issue that may “catch up to you” at some point if you don’t. The virgin birth is more about the Incarnation and the purity of Christ than anything else isn’t it? And there are HUGE implications if you don’t believe in that! (Much more to go into here, but it’s not my blog so I’ll reserve it for later)
3) Not sure why this part of the discussion even applies to the discussion above…but I may be missing something here??
For what it’s worth (and I’m sure it’s not much) that’s my initial thought.
7 daveb // Jan 4, 2008 at 7:28 am
Oh, forgot one:
4) Isn’t it a little bit of a leap to say that because Paul doesn’t deal with it that he therefore doesn’t believe it? Paul doesn’t ever state it’s not true or not important…maybe it was so basic he didn’t feel the need to address it. There are probably bigger issues (some that come out of this basic belief), but his silence doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t important–that’s why we have the totality of Scripture to guide us.
8 Grant // Jan 4, 2008 at 10:37 am
Mark - good insight on ‘both/and’ and I too am looking forward to McKnight’s new ’series.’
Dave - for what it’s worth, Jesus didn’t major on the virgin birth either. Neither did the gospel of John or Mark. So in the entire New Testament we have 2 books that address it.
Did Paul believe in the virgin birth? I have no idea. As a Jewish scholar he more than anyone could have argued the point that ‘virgin’ in Isaiah doesn’t necessarily mean a girl who hasn’t had sex but then again…it could.
All I was pointing out was that when ‘cornered’ on the issue of following Jesus, neither Jesus nor Paul majored on doctrinal positions. They both focused on the heart of obedience and trust.
Paul’s primary audience - the Greeks - would have had no problem with the concept of Jesus being God yet born of a human - virgin or not. That was part of their system already. So I don’t think it was so basic he didn’t address it.
I THINK for Paul (and it’s always dangerous speaking for someone who can’t confirm or deny their position) the doctrinal issue of virgin birth was non-vital to the major point he was making - Jesus is here, available to ‘ransom’ us into a new life starting here and now.
Good dialog.
9 daveb // Jan 6, 2008 at 9:33 am
I agree with everything you stated above–but you didn’t ask if I thought it was vital to an issue Paul was making about Jesus. You asked how I handle the fact that Paul never mentions it–as if it isn’t an important doctrinal issue because he never mentions it.
Maybe the follow up question is how do you handle the fact that Matthew and Luke DO handle the Virgin Birth?
It’s not vital to my day-to-day walk with Christ, but it is a foundational doctrnal issue.
Leave a Comment