Filling out the picture - The New Testament as the Presentation of the Gospel and its Implications for His people / the Nations / His Creation:

Massive Simplification run amuck...on over drive... (supply your favorite cliche) ___________

*Is the gospel a soteriological message?

Or is it a declaration which carries soteriological implications?

Where to read / read about:

Implications

Paul's letters to communities of previous gospel reception

(new-creation, soteriology, new humanity, reconciliation)

not that the narrative Gospels are void of this,

but for the sake of simplification)

__ __ __

Christology

Paul's sermon summaries & effects recorded in Acts

The Crucified & Resurrected Jesus is Messiah /

Lord of every nation / Exalted above every power

(Acts 9:19-22; 13:16-41; 17:1-7, 22-31; 18:5;19:8-10;

20:17-35; 24:24-25; 26:12-23; 28:23, 29-31;

This is a case-in-point, NOT intended to represent

anything remotely exhaustive.)

__ __ __ __ __ __

Narrative

The Canonical Gospels

The story about how Jesus

brings the story of Israel

to its long anticipated climax

(The critical moment of the Drama)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Meta-Narrative

Jewish Scriptures

The drama of redemption

(Luke 24:18-47; Acts 26:22-23)

Presented and Interpreted in the Whole Canon

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

*Inspired by Michael Bird's follow up questions to previous questions...

Those responsible for previous lame versions of this post have recently been sacked.

Thinking about the gospel:

In some North American evangelical contexts - soteriology - theology of salvation, or the implications that follow for individuals who believe in Jesus (concerning their personal salvation) - makes up 99.9% of what is recognized as "gospel preaching"... such as:

explaining the gospel = explaining the doctrine of justification.

But if justification is a primary implicate of the gospel - who Jesus is and what he has done - does this kind of "gospel preaching" give the false impression that one may have the personal, individual results of the gospel apart from Jesus?

Do I need to believe certain things about Jesus? Certainly. Is it necessary to entrust myself to him? Just as certainly!

So who is he? This raises again the question of Christology which is a question the Bible answers primarily with a narrative (sequesnce of narratives / redemptive drama).

My persoanl tradition stresses that by faith one has actual union with Jesus Christ and that in this union with him in his death and resurrection all the benefits of redemption are ours in him

I die to sin, guilt and death itself in him and am raised to life, justification and a living hope in him. His death accomplishes my forgiveness, pardon, reconciliation with God, etc. His vindication - for he was the obedient Son - results in my vindication, qualifies me to share in his inheritance. His death was the death I deserve. His vindication is the vindication that otherwise would escape me.

I agree with this stress on the necessity of our union with Christ. Especially if we remember that "Christ" means Messiah and that the Messiah of Israel has been exalted as the Lord of the nations and above every power. That is, the Christ with whom we have union - in whom we have salvation - is also our Lord, our Head, our King.

He is engaged as God's focal point of the reconciliation of all things. [In him - the agent through whom God made all things - all things are being reconciled to God their Creator.] Do I have union with him only in regards to benefits for me? Or am I to be engaged in the reconciliation of all things?

We can not choose which Christ to follow, trust, hear or obey.

*Is the gospel a soteriological message?
Or is it a declaration which carries
soteriological implications?

Implications
(new-creation,
soteriology,
reconciliation,
new humanity)
__ __ __

The Crucified/Resurrected Jesus is Messiah /
Lord of every nation /
Exalted above every power
(Christology)
__ __ __ __ __ __

The story about how Jesus
brings the story of Israel
to its long anticipated climax
(Dramatic climax)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The drama of redemption
(Meta-Narrative)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

*Inspired by Michael Bird's questions and his fantastic quote from Luther!
The "tiers" above rest upon one another from top to bottom. That is, the top - the implications - which are often preached as the gospel, lose their meaning apart from the "layers" below.

The primary question:

When Paul referred to "the gospel" in correspondance with communities who existed as communities (Churches) because they have put their faith in Jesus - what resonances did they hear?

Did "gospel" evoke:

1. the system of salvation Paul had preached;
2. the story of Jesus and his kingdom;
3. the story of Jesus and his kingdom that brings salvation to everyone who beleives?

What hints are present in his letters?

Paul can refer to the gospel he preached as:

• "the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1; 15:16; 1 Cor 7:1; 2 cor 11:7; 1 Thes 2:2, 8, 9)
• "the gospel of his Son" (Rom 1:9)
• "my gospel" = the gospel i/we preach (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8; cf. 1 Cor 15:1; Gal 1:8; and "our gospel" 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Thes 2:14)
• "the Gospel of Christ" = the good news concerning Messiah (Davidic King) Jesus (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 9:13; 10:14; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27; 1 Thes 3:2; and cf. 2 Cor 4:4)
• "the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes 1:8)
• "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph 1:13)
• "the gospel of peace" (Eph 6:15)

It is interesting that the good news so frequently has reference to God himself and to his Christ (Jesus, his Son who is enthroned as King on David's throne / at the Father's right hand) .

Where to start:

Below are (two, presently) longer posts for those with the time and interest. But one may find here brief bullet point summaries of the details (abstracts - if you will).

Intro to a very important question:

Paul is a missionary spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. He plants many communities who believe his message about Jesus Christ. Later he writes letters to these (and other) communities. When doing so, does he introduce them to his gospel - so that if we read his letters we can learn what the gospel is? Or, does he write to them with their acceptance of his gospel as already the shared starting point for their communication / relationship? If the later, he might write to clarify the meaning and implications of his gospel. If so, his letters are a great place to have one's understanding of the Gospel matured, clarified, transformed... redeemed!

In other words, if we want to know what the gospel is, should we be looking at Paul's letters for a "definition" or looking elsewhere to see what Paul and his audiences shared as common ground which both would recognize as "the gospel"?

Intro - Part 2:

Let's assume for the moment that when Paul writes, in general, his gospel is the common ground, the primary shared assumption from which he writes / seeks to shape his fellow believers. This would mean that he is writing to communities who already share his faith in Jesus of Nazareth.

But what did they believe about him? What did Paul believe and spread as good news about Jesus? Did Paul spread a message of personal salvation that might or might not bring about interest in Jesus as King of the Jews and Lord of the nations. Or did Paul have a message about Jesus as King and Lord that carried as a major implication the salvation of the nations (everyone who believes)?

“The gospel is a story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. This is the gospel in a nutshell.” (Martin Luther, “A brief instruction on what to look for and expect in the Gospels,” in Luther’s Works [ed. E. Theodore Bachmann; 55 vols.; Fortress: Philadelphia, 1960] 35.118.)

Scot McKnight is writing interesting things about Jesus and the kingdom of God on his blog, Jesus Creed. Here is a link to a handful of articles on the kingdom of God.

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?cat=3

I include these because he discusses Jesus and Paul in ways that overlap with our primary question: when Paul referred to "the gospel" in his letters, what was his primary reference?

Here is the post from Scot McKnight that most directly links to the interest of this blog:

Kingdom of God 7

Filed under: Kingdom of God — Scot McKnight @ 10:50 am

"The Apostle Paul’s view of Ecclesia is consistent with Jesus’ view of Kingdom (Basileia).

For Paul, Kingdom is primarily Eternity or the Final Future Kingdom (see 1 C or 15:24), though he does use it in a way that makes me think he sees the Ecclesia as the primary manifestation of the Kingdom in the present world (Rom 14:17).

If we recall our comments on The Magnificat and Jesus’ inaugural sermon, and recall the socio-economic emphasis on restoring humans to the Table, then I think we are body to see three themes in Paul’s Ecclesia that derive directly from these central teachings of Jesus.

First, for Paul the Ecclesia is the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12–14). It is a society that functions properly.

Second, for Paul the Ecclesia is a pneumatic body (again, 1 Cor 12–14). It is a society enlivened and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Third, for Paul the Ecclesia is a radically new society wherein old distictions are gone and new creation lives. “Neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female…” (Gal 3:28).

Fourth, for Paul the Ecclesia is an alternative society to the Empire of Rome and the intended goal for all peoples. When we begin to think in terms of the future, kingdom language takes over.

Finally, for Paul the Ecclesia is a saving presence for the entire world. Notice these words from Romans 8:

Rom. 8:18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Put together now:

The Kingdom of God is the society in which the will of God is done and, in the hands of the early Apostles, this Kingdom society morphs into the “Church” as they move into the Roman Empire. But, in so doing, they do not drop the central social and global concerns of Jesus but demonstrate that they think through the Spirit these social concerns will be enlivened and empowered. What is also important is that they see the Church in more “sectarian” terms than Jesus saw the Kingdom — which makes sense: they are small part of a huge machine (Roman Empire) while he had claims on the entire nation of Israel.

(A nice little survey of this can be found in David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? and in Paul and Jesus: The True Story.)

The Church, as I see it, is an alternative society of Jesus designed to witness to and work for the redemption of the world.

So what does this tell us?

The first and most important lesson is that we need to be very careful when we make comments that suggest Jesus’ teachings are not consistent with Paul’s when it comes to Kingdom and Church. Paul (and Peter) were driven by their status in the Roman Empire and by the smallness of the movement to set up local missional communities of faith and to concentrate their concerns there — but their vision was the same as Jesus’. Kingdom of God, when “on earth” looked like “in heaven.”

Second, it means that Paul’s whole theology of salvation — terms like justification, atonement, and the like — are part and parcel of how the Ecclesia is formed, and this too is consistent with Jesus. Paul was not a radical individualist who thought exclusively in terms of individual salvation. This misunderstands Paul. Paul is an Ecclesia-theologian — a practitioner who starts up churches, revs them up, and then moves on for more of the same. But, always, Paul is concerned with missional communities and not just isolated worship centers.

Third, and my final comment on this series of Kingdom blogs, is that the gospel is designed to accomplish just this: the Kingdom of God, in the context of a community of faith (Ecclesia), for the good of others and the world. The gospel does its work through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the empowerment that comes from the Holy Spirit."

by Scot McKight - you can go directly to his blog to see responses there or post your own here.

Here's a brief post from Michael Bird's blog for your consideration (see link to his weblog euangelion on side bar).

Here's a brief post from Michael Bird's blog for your consideration (see link to his weblog euangelion on side bar).

Wright, Luther and the Gospel

N.T. Wright has argued, relying mainly on Romans 1.3-4, that Paul’s gospel is fundamentally the christological announcement that Jesus is the Messiah (in fulfilment of the great Jewish hope) and the true Lord of the world (over against the claims of the imperial cult). I think Wright is correct in what he affirms, but he unfortunately marginalizes (though he certainly does not deny) the soteriological aspect of Paul’s gospel as exhibited in 1 Corinthians 15.1-8, which focuses on the saving benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection. Nevertheless, Wright’s exegesis of Romans 1.3-4 finds a staunch ally in 2 Timothy 2.8 (side stepping the issue of authorship): "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel", and here the gospel is again christologically packed and eschatologically driven by the resurrection – soteriology is not present, but strongly implied I think. I would like to see Wright bring 1 Corinthians 15 a bit more into discussion of the Pauline gospel, all the same, those who think Wright has distorted the gospel or else is too enamoured with narrative approaches to Paul should consider the following quote from Luther:

“The gospel is a story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. This is the gospel in a nutshell.” (Martin Luther, “A brief instruction on what to look for and expect in the Gospels,” in Luther’s Works [ed. E. Theodore Bachmann; 55 vols.; Fortress: Philadelphia, 1960] 35.118.)

This sounds almost like Wright! And here in Luther’s passing remark we find three elements of the gospel interwoven together, Christology, Soteriology and Narrative – this is a succinct and poetic description and I couldn’t have put it better myself. It also means that Luther was doing narrative theology 400 years before it became fashionable! Which reminds me of the words of Stephen Westerholm who states that in case of Luther “exegesis is learned from the masters” (pace those who want to emancipate NT study from its Lutheran spectacles!).

by Michael Bird, euangelion http://michaelfbird.blogspot.com/

One Big Story Side Note?

The rulers of this age (1 Cor 2:7-8) meant the crucifixion for evil - but God meant it for good (Gen 50:15-21; Acts 2:23-24, 32-36; 1 Cor 1:17-25; Col 2:13-15)...

that one special, beloved son would be:

• rejected by his own "brothers" (Joseph / Jesus),
• suffer condemnation when he is falsely accused (Joseph /Jesus),
• be exalted to the right hand of the most powerful throne (Joseph / Jesus)

so that the people of God (Israel / the Church) might be:

• unified under one exalted son (Joseph / Jesus)
• experience blessing and full provision (Joseph's brothers / Jesus' siblings)

in order that the nations might bow down before the Son and be blessed (then / now).

Learning to read Scripture from Paul's Use of Hebrew Scriptures with Gentile Churches
(A Proposal - and trying to keep it simple)

Paul understood Scripture as presenting:

1) one (unified)

2) ongoing and

3) inclusive story of redemption.

Evidence?

• Paul saw Christian communites (including Jews and Gentiles) as God's Temple (1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:19-22).
• Paul saw Gentile Christians in Corinth as "descendants" of the generation that experienced the original Exodus (1 Cor 10:1 - "I want you to know, siblings, that OUR fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea...").
• Paul believed that Christians lived in between the great moment of redemption (like the original Exodus event) and the great future when we obtain a glorious inheritance (like the land God promised to the Patriarchs and their descendants (Rom 8; Eph 1:11-14; 6:1-3).
• Paul believed that Christians were destined for an inheritance that matched but far surpassed the original inheritance (the land promised to Abraham and his seed, Rom 8; Gal 3-4:7; Eph 1:11-14; Col 1:11-14).
• [Side note?] Paul believed that this in between age (1 Cor 10:11) would be characterized by suffering for those who identify with Jesus in the present age (Rom 8:14ff; Phil 1:29-30; Col 1:24-29).
• This story includes all the nations and the whole creation (Gen 12:1-3; Rom 1:5; 15:18-21; 16:25-27 and Gen 3:14-19; 5:28-29; Rom 8:14-30; Col 1:15-20).
• God's people (Eph 1:22; Col 1:18), Jews and Gentiles in one glorious preview, (show family), are right in the middle of this drama - the present theatre (Eph 3:10) and participants of his unfolding purpose for all things (Eph 1:10, 18-22; cf, Col 1:6 w/ 1:10).

What is the best explanation of these things?

What is the best explanation of these things?

• Paul believed that Jesus was Israel's true Messiah, the promised seed of Abraham, meant to defeat the evil one and rescue the creation from human rebellion.
• This meant he was the rightful ruler of the nations (Gen 37-50; Isa 9:6-7; 2 Sam 7; Psalm 2; 8; 110).
• The rulers of this dark age did not recognize him - so they crucified him (1 Cor 2:7-8). [See big picture side note presently at top.]
• Everyone from every land that believes in this Messiah is accepted (adopted) in him in God's family.
• The Spirit indwells those who believe in order to lead us through this age [corresponds to wilderness wandering and taking the land?] to our inheritance and as a pledge from our Father that our inheritance is secure (a true gift) with him "in heaven" (Rom 8; 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13-14; Col 1:5,12).
• This family has the privilege of participating in God's plan - set forth in Christ - to bless all the families of the earth and renew God's good creation (Rom 8:18-28; Eph 1:9-10, 15-22; Col 1:15-20).

All that blogged...

Bullet points relating to the first essay (below):

1. Paul is a missionary generating new communities of faith in Jesus.
2. He ends up in prison for his faithfulness to his commission to make Jesus known to the nations.
3. Two of his prison companions are Mark and Luke.
4. Mark and Luke wrote two long stories about Jesus being the true King of Israel and the true Lord and Saviour of the nations.
5. We, following very early Christians, call these long stories "the gospel according to Mark" and "the gospel according to Luke."
6. Since early churches recognized what Mark and Luke wrote as the gospel, perhaps Paul would have done the same.
7. If we want to know what Paul preached as the gospel, the common narrative that he shared with his churches as a shared founding story, perhaps we need to look no further than the Gospels according to Mark and Luke.
8. I do not mean, of course, that Paul went around reading these as though the documents existed from his first missionary journey.
9. Perhaps it is just the other way around. Perhaps we've read the narrative gospels through a "Pauline" grid when we should have been reading the narrative gospels as good examples of what Paul would have recognized as faithful (and thorough) gospel presentation.
10. Perhaps Mark and Luke grew in their understanding of the Jesus traditions / sources becasuse they were 1) often together 2) often with Paul and 3) engaged in faithful missionary service to their Lord about whom they wrote.
11. This does not begin to reflect upon their use of the Hebrew Scriptures in their narrative portrayals of Jesus as Meesiah and Lord - another post - perhaps in another life...

The goal of this blog is NOT to convince those who doubt Pauline authorship of the six letters often relegated to deutero-Pauline status to re-think questions of authorship, pseudonymity, etc. Rather, the goal is to help those who assume Pauline authorship (like myself) to integrate some primary source material more fully in our reflection on the nature of Paul's life and his "gospel." As you will see below, this blog will raise questions based upon passages from Colossians, 2 Timothy and the book of Acts. Thus, if you have no regard for those documents as helpful for reconstructing Paul's life and mission, please fell free to consult other blogs! This blog is not an apologetic for Pauline authorship of disputed letters. All that blogged...

How does it help us to think about the content of Paul's gospel if we take the following passages seriously:

Col 4:10-14 - Paul (in prison) sends greetings from companions - including Mark and Luke
Philemon 23-24 - Paul (in prison) sends greetings from fellow workers - including Mark and Luke
2 Timothy 4:9-13 - Luke is with Paul (in prison), refers to Luke's presence with him and asks Timothy to bring:

1. Mark, who is "very useful to [Paul] in ministry", and
2. -books/scrolls [ta biblia] and parchments.
   

Thinking about Paul and Mark (w/ much help from Luke):

Now, what if the "Mark" in all three passages is the John Mark of Acts 12:12, 25; 13:2-5? And what if this John Mark truly is the "Mark" who wrote the Gospel according to Mark? Then one of Paul's companions in ministry on the first missionary journey and late in his life during imprisonment is the Mark who wrote the second (canonically speaking) gospel.

It is interesting to note the Greek word Luke chooses to describe John (Mark)'s service of Paul and Barnabas on this first "missionary journey." David Seccombe writes about how Luke describes John (Mark) in Acts 13:5 - as a hyperetes, in King of God's Kingdom, (Paternoster, 2002), 41-42. He connects this with Luke 1:2 and 4:20. Quoting Seccombe, "Luke uses [the term hyperetes] to describe the synagogue official who had charge of the scripture scrolls in the synagogue (Luke 4:20), and of those who provided him with material and prototypes for the writing of his gospel (Luke 1:2)." Further, Seccombe suggests, "it may... be that Mark had the special task of providing the gospel story to help the newly formed churches sustain their ongoing Christian life" (ibid., 41).

The excellent Luke scholar, David Moessner, has pointed out that this same term appears later in Acts in a passage that paralells Luke 1:2 quite deliberately. This time it comes in a speech from Paul as a self-reference. Luke reports Paul's reference to his Damascus road expereince where Jesus appointed Paul as a hyperetes (a servant) and witness to the things he has seen (Acts 26:16; cf. with Luke 1:2).

If we compare this w/ the post-reconciliation ministry shared between Paul and Mark referred to above one wonders, is a primary reason why Mark is "useful" to Paul in ministry that he has the skills to compile oral and written traditions into useful narratives for ministry? (2 Tim 4:9-13) That Paul wants Timothy to bring Mark and also bring books and parchments, is interesting esp. in light of how Luke describes John [Mark's] "service" in Acts 13:5.

Thinking about Paul and Luke:

There are only three Canonical references to Luke as "Luke" (the 3 listed above, ignoring for the present the "we" passages in Acts) thus, every canonical reference to Luke by name is found

1. in a personal greeting from Paul because of their close relationship and
2. with a reference to Mark in the immediate cotext.
   

What if the Luke with Paul mentioned in Col 4; Philemon 23-24 and 2 Tim 4 really is the author of the third Gospel and the second volume, Acts? Then the "we" passages in the latter half of Acts fit quite well with Paul's references to Luke as a companion in prison. If this is the case, does this data help us reflect upon the content of Paul's gospel?

What if half of the narratives we call "Gospels" were written by men in ministry with Paul? What kind of faithful reconstructions might this suggest? What implications follow for our understanding of the nature of Paul's Gospel? If Paul's Gospel is essentially about Jesus - culminating his death and resurrection - and Mark and Luke wrote long narratives where Jesus is the central character announcing the kingdom of God as his good news/gospel, how likely is it that Paul's gospel is radically different? What happens if we read Mark, Luke and Paul as missionary companions dedicated to proclaiming the Gospel about Jesus the Christ?

How does this help us reconstruct what was going on with Paul and his company of "fellow workers for the kingdom of God" (Col 4:11, words about Mark and Aristarchus)? Interesting choice of words for the Apostle of Messiah Jesus... and the companion of Mark and Luke.

Pauline Companions - different companions, different angles:

Examples of Cruciformity:

What did Paul teach everywhere in every church? Most Christians would answer "the gospel" and most would mean by that a system of personal salvation. If I replied that a good answer comes in 1 Corinthians, many would think quite naturally of 1 Cor 2:1-5 or 15:1-10. These are excellent places to reflect upon what Paul taught in every church, everywhere!

However, elsewhere in 1 Corinthians Paul answers our question explicitly.

1. In 1 Corinthians 4:9-13 Paul describes his own cross-shaped (cruciform) lifestyle. If you are unfamilar with this passage, please read it!
2. Then (4:14-16) he writes that his goal for this self-description is not the Corinthian's shame but rather that they would immitate his manner of life.
3. Then (4:17a) he tells them that this is why he has sent Timothy to them - to remind them of his manner of life in Messiah Jesus.
4. Finally, this is what Paul taught "everywhere in every church" - (4:17b) a manner of living that fits the servants of a crucified and then vindicated King and Saviour.

Now, I grew up in evangelical america, went to Church my whole life, went to a christian college and graduated from a seminary, all of which see themselves as VERY Pauline. So why have I never heard one sermon about what Paul taught "everywhere in every church" from this passage? Why have I never heard a devotional, been to one Bible study, or read a single article on this passage? Why have I never heard it integrated in our devotion to "Paul's theology / Paul's gospel?"

Paul urges the Corinthians - since he is their "father through the gospel" - that they imitate him in his "folly" in the world's eyes - in weakness, dishonor, hunger, thirst, poor attire, beatings, sojourning, laboring, blessing enemies, enduring persecution, entreating slanderers, that is, being a theatre of God's ways revealed in the cross of Christ but that appear foolish to the world.

This relates to this blog's desire to think about the nature and content of Paul's gospel by paying attention to Paul's ministry companions. The initial post (above) reflects upon what we might make of Paul's gospel in light of his relationship with other gospellers. If Paul, Mark and Luke labored in the gospel / as "fellow workers for the kingdom of God" (Col 4:11 - reference to Mark and Aristarchus specifically), does the existence of Mark's narrative and Luke's narrative about Jesus as the true Messiah of Israel help us think about Paul's "gospel"?

This post wishes to point out another way Paul refers to another set of companions. Paul's references to Tychicus and Epaphroditus in Col 4:7-13 form an interesting parallel with 1 Cor 4:9-17; and 9:-11:1 (as well as 2 Cor and 2 Timothy). Moreover, his references to Timothy and Epaphroditus in Phil 2:19-30 also provide an interesting parallel which is strengthened by what Paul writes of himself in Phil 3:17-4:1.

Phil 3:17-18 alone is striking in light of the above:

"...join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many... walk (live) as enemies of the cross of Christ."

How do these passages help us think about Paul's gospel?

Since Paul is the Corinthian's "father" through the gospel of the Crucified King (1 Cor 2:2; 15:1-5) they are urged to imitate his cross-shaped life.

Timothy is not like so many who seek their own interests but rather serves with Paul in the gospel. This is why Paul wants to send him to the believers in Philippi (Phil 2:19-24). Epaphroditus deserves their honor because "he nearly died for the work of the Messiah, risking his life" (2:29-30).

I realize that 2 Timothy is highly disputed as Pauline. So for the moment and the sake of the argument, accept it as reflecting Pauline convictions. The entire letter confirms the importance Paul and those who followed in his footsteps placed upon lives which share in and show forth a crucified (and resurrected) Messiah. See especially 2 Tim 1:6-12a; 2:1-3, 8-10; 3:10-13; 4:1-5.

Some think of Paul's Gospel as a system of personal salvation - a message about how to get saved. Others see Paul's Gospel as an announcement about Jesus as Israel's true King (thus the One who fulfills God's promises to Israel) and the rightful Lord of every nation (also fulfilling ancient promises). If Christians are going to read the narrative Gospels and Paul's letters together in a canon, how will we take their relationship? Some read the Gospels as raw material telling us what Jesus did and then proceed to read Paul's letters to find out what it means to us. In other words, the long narratives called "Gospels" do not include the "gospel" - only the materials for it. The Gosples provide material; Paul writes the gospel.

Now, no one says this too explicitly. But american evangelical use of these texts often falls out this way. The goal of pointing it out is to raise the following questions.

1. What is the best way to understand the relationship between Paul's letters and the narratives about Jesus called "Gospels"?
2. What is the best way to think about the nature and content of Paul's gospel?
3. What is the best way to think about the relationship between Paul's Gospel, what he preached when founding or visiting churches, and what he wrote in letters to communites of those who already believed the gospel?
4. In the three synoptic narratives about Jesus called Gospels, Jesus preaches a gospel. His gospel is the good news of the kingdom of God (Matt 4:17, 23-24; 9:35-39; 10:4-8; 24:9-13; Mark 1:1-3, 14-15; Luke 4:18-21, 40-44; 8:1-3; 9:1-6; 16:16-17). Must Paul's gospel be a substantially different gospel? (See Acts 28:23, 31)
5. If Paul's gospel is essentially the same as Jesus' - just from a different moment in the drama (after its climax rather than just before / during its climax), do the reflections above about Paul with Mark and Luke and then Paul and his co-laboring, co-suffering companions make much sense? Or would they fit better into a system of salvation orientation?

Which way of viewing the data comports best with missionary companions who write long narratives later called "gospels" (by the earlies communites who believe in Jesus), with a central character announcing a kingdom and being killed because of it? Which way of viewing the data fits best with ministry companions who suffer for allegience to this Messiah set forth as examples to be followed by those who have heard and believed Paul's Gospel?

SIDE NOTE > Thinking theologically...

Implications of an ordo salutis:

How does Jesus save us?

i once heard a preacher/teacher tell me (among others) that my salvation comes in a particular order. He emphasized three things (he could have chosen more).

His language was very interesting. He kept saying that "the gospel" is not merely about "justification." The "gospel" is "about regeneration, justification and sanctification."

This led me to ask a simple question. If the "gospel" is "about regeneration, justification and sanctification", what am i regenerated to believe?

This teacher had no real answer to this question. I believed everything he said that night about regeneration, justification and sanctification - all important biblical themes. He presented all three in lively, clear colors with great biblical support. But very little was said about putting one's faith in Jesus (it was assumed of course).

Jesus' interaction/discourse with Nicodemus reported in John 3 is often cited as a proof-text for the necessity of regeneration. This is fine. But what Jesus tells Nicodemus is "unless one is born again one cannot see the kingdom of God... unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God." My guess is that this passage might be the #1 proof-text for the doctrine of regeneration. However, the result of regeneration - seeing and entering the kingdom of God - in the very passage, is often left to the side.

How does this relate to our questions about the gospel?