Gospel

The revelation of the grace of God to fallen man through a mediator. It is taken also for the history of the life, actions, death, resurrection, ascension, and doctrine of Jesus Christ. The word is Saxon, and of the same import with the Latin evangelium, which signifies glad tidings or good news. It is called the Gospel of his Grace, because it flows from his free love, Act 20:24. The Gospel of the kingdom, as it treats of the kingdoms of grace and glory. The Gospel of Christ, because he is the author and subject of it, Rom 1:16. The Gospel of peace and salvation, as it promotes our present comfort and leads to eternal glory, Eph 1:13; Eph 6:15. The glorious Gospel, as in it the glorious perfections of Jehovah are displayed, 2Co 4:4. The everlasting Gospel, as it was designed from eternity, is permanent in time, and the effects of it eternal, Rev 14:6. There are about thirty or forty apocryphal Gospels; as the Gospel of St. Peter, of St. Andrew, of St. Barnabas, the eternal Gospel, &c. &c. &c. : but they were never received by the Christian church, being evidently fabulous and trifling.

See CHRISTIANITY.

Or God’s spell. This is a Saxon word, meaning good tidings. The Greeks called the gospel evangelical; hence the writers of it are called Evangelists. The word itself, as used in modern language, means the proclamation of pardon, mercy, and peace, in and through Jesus Christ our Lord. And so infinitely important and interesting is it in the eyes of all men that are made partakers of its saving grace, that the very feet of them that are commissioned to preach it are said to be beautiful. "How beautiful upon the mountains are thefeet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" (Isa. l2: 7.) And, indeed, the gospel is, without exception, the best news JEHOVAH ever proclaimed to man, or man ever heard. Angels thought so, when at the command of God they posted down from heaven, at the birth of Christ, as if ambitious to be the first preachers of it to a lost world, and in a multitude of the heavenly host met together, to proclaim theblessed tidings to the Jewish shepherds, saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace, good will towards men." (Luke 2: 13, 14.)

a history of the life, actions, death, resurrection, ascension, and doctrine of Jesus Christ. The word is Saxon, and of the same import with the Latin term evangelium, or the Greek ευαγγελιον, which signifies “glad tidings,” or “good news;” the history of our Saviour being the best history ever published to mankind. The history is contained in the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, who from thence are called evangelists. The Christian church never acknowledged any more than these four Gospels as canonical: notwithstanding which, several apocryphal gospels are handed down to us, and others are entirely lost.

The four Gospels contain each of them the history of our Saviour’s life and ministry; but we must remember, that no one of the evangelists undertook to give an account of all the miracles which Christ performed, or of all the instructions which he delivered. They are written with different degrees of conciseness; but every one of them is sufficiently full to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, who had been predicted by a long succession of prophets, and whose advent was expected at the time of his appearance, both by Jews and Gentiles.

2. That all the books which convey to us the history of events under the New Testament were written and immediately published by persons contemporary with the events, is most fully proved by the testimony of an unbroken series of authors, reaching from the days of the evangelists to the present times; by the concurrent belief of Christians of all denominations; and by the unreserved confession of avowed enemies to the Gospel. In this point of view the writings of the ancient fathers of the Christian church are invaluable. They contain not only frequent references and allusions to the books of the New Testament, but also such numerous professed quotations from them, that it is demonstratively certain that these books existed in their present state a few years after the conclusion of Christ’s ministry upon earth. No unbeliever in the apostolic age, in the age immediately subsequent to it, or, indeed, in any age whatever, was ever able to disprove the facts recorded in these books; and it does not appear that in the early times any such attempt was made. The facts, therefore, related in the New Testament, must be admitted to have really happened. But if all the circumstances of the history of Jesus, that is, his miraculous conception in the womb of the virgin, the time at which he was born, the place where he was born, the family from which he was descended, the nature of the doctrines which he preached, the meanness of his condition, his rejection, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, with many other minute particulars; if all these various circumstances in the history of Jesus exactly accord with the predictions of the Old Testament relative to the promised Messiah, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, it follows that Jesus was that Messiah. And again: if Jesus really performed the miracles as related in the Gospels, and was perfectly acquainted with the thoughts and designs of men, his divine mission cannot be doubted. Lastly: if he really foretold his own death and resurrection, the descent of the Holy Ghost, its miraculous effects, the sufferings of the Apostles, the call of the Gentiles, and the destruction of Jerusalem, it necessarily follows that he spake by the authority of God himself. These, and many other arguments, founded in the more than human character of Jesus, in the rapid propagation of the Gospel, in the excellence of its precepts and doctrines, and in the constancy, intrepidity, and fortitude of its early professors, incontrovertibly establish the truth and divine origin of the Christian religion, and afford to us, who live in these latter times, the most positive confirmation of the promise of our Lord, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

3. The Gospels recount those wonderful and important events with which the Christian religion and its divine Author were introduced into the world, and which have produced so great a change in the principles, the manners, the morals, and the temporal as well as spiritual condition of mankind.

They relate the first appearance of Christ upon earth, his extraordinary and miraculous birth, the testimony borne to him by his forerunner, John the Baptist, the temptation in the wilderness, the opening of his divine commission, the pure, the perfect, and sublime morality which he taught, especially in his inimitable sermon on the mount, the infinite superiority which he showed to every other moral teacher, both in the matter and manner of his discourses, more particularly by crushing vice in its very cradle, in the first risings of wicked desires and propensities in the heart, by giving a decided preference to the mild, gentle, passive, conciliating virtues, before that violent, vindictive, high-spirited, unforgiving temper, which has been always too much the favourite character of the world; by requiring us to forgive our very enemies, and to do good to them that hate us; by excluding from our devotions, our alms, and all our virtues, all regard to fame, reputation, and applause; by laying down two great general principles of morality, love to God, and love to mankind, and deducing from thence every other human duty; by conveying his instructions under the easy, familiar, and impressive form of parables; by expressing himself in a tone of dignity and authority unknown before; by exemplifying every virtue that he taught in his own unblemished and perfect life and conversation; and, above all, by adding those awful sanctions, which he alone, of all moral instructers, had the power to hold out, eternal rewards to the virtuous, and eternal punishments to the wicked. The sacred narratives then represent to us the high character that he assumed; the claim he made to a divine original; the wonderful miracles he wrought in proof of his divinity; the various prophecies which plainly marked him out as the Messiah, the great Deliverer of the Jews; the declarations he made that he came to offer himself a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind; the cruel indignities, sufferings, and persecutions to which, in consequence of this great design, he was exposed; the accomplishment or it, by the painful and ignominious death to which he submitted, by his resurrection after three days from the grave, by his ascension into heaven, by his sitting there at the right hand of God, and performing the office of a Mediator and Intercessor for the sinful sons of men, till he shall come a second time in his glory to sit in judgment on all mankind, and decide their final doom of happiness or misery for ever. These are the momentous, the interesting, truths on which the Gospels principally dwell.

4. We find in the ancient records a twofold order, in which the evangelists are arranged. They stand either thus, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; or thus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The first is made with reference to the character and the rank of the persons, according to which the Apostles precede their assistants and attendants (ακολουθοις, comitibus.) It is observed in the oldest Latin translations and in the Gothic; sometimes also in the works of Latin teachers; but among all the Greek MSS. only in that at Cambridge. But the other, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is, in all the old translations of Asia and Africa, in all catalogues of the canonical books, and in Greek MSS. in general, the customary and established one as it regarded not personal circumstances, but as it had respect to chronological; which is to us a plain indication what accounts concerning the succession of the evangelists, the Asiatic and Greek churches, and also those of Africa, had before them, when the Christian books were arranged in collections. It is a considerable advantage, says Michaelis, that a history of such importance as that of Jesus Christ has been recorded by the pens of separate and independent writers, who, from the variations which are visible in these accounts, have incontestably proved that they did not unite with a view of imposing a fabulous narrative on mankind. That St. Matthew had never seen the Gospel of St. Luke, nor St. Luke the Gospel of St. Matthew, is evident from a comparison of their writings. The Gospel of St. Mark, which was written later, must likewise have been unknown to St. Luke; and that St. Mark had ever read the Gospel of St. Luke, is at least improbable, because their Gospels so frequently differ. It is a generally received opinion, that St. Mark made use of St. Matthew’s Gospel in the composition of his own; but this is an unfounded hypothesis. The Gospel of St. John, being written after the other three, supplies what they had omitted. Thus have we four distinct and independent writers of one and the same history; and, though trifling variations may seem to exist in their narratives, yet these admit of easy solutions; and in all matters of consequence, whether doctrinal or historical, there is such a manifest agreement between them as is to be found in no other writings whatever. Though we have only four original writers of the life of Jesus, the evidence of the history does not rest on the testimony of four men. Christianity had been propagated in a great part of the world before any of them had written, on the testimony of thousands and tens of thousands, who had been witnesses of the great facts which they have recorded; so that the writing of these particular books is not to be considered as the cause, but rather the effect, of the belief of Christianity; nor could those books have been written and received as they were, namely, as authentic histories, of the subject of which all persons of that age were judges, if the facts they have recorded had not been well known to be true.

5. The term Gospel is often used in Scripture to signify the whole Christian doctrine: hence, “preaching the Gospel” is declaring all the truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity. This is termed “the Gospel of the grace of God,” because it flows from God’s free love and goodness, Act 20:24; and when truly and faithfully preached, is accompanied with the influences of the divine Spirit. It is called “the Gospel of the kingdom,” because it treats of the kingdom of grace, and shows the way to the kingdom of glory. It is styled, “the Gospel of Christ,” because he is the Author and great subject of it, Rom 1:16; and “the Gospel of peace and salvation,” because it publishes peace with God to the penitent and believing, gives, to such, peace of conscience and tranquillity of mind, and is the means of their salvation, present and eternal. As it displays the glory of God and of Christ, and ensures to his true followers eternal glory, it is entitled, “the glorious Gospel,” and, “the everlasting Gospel,” because it commenced from the fall of man, is permanent throughout all time, and produces effects which are everlasting.

The Greek word, which literally signifies glad tidings, is translated in the English Version by the word Gospel, viz., God’s spell, or the Word of God. The central point of Christian preaching was the joyful intelligence that the Savior had come into the world (Mat 4:23; Rom 10:15); and the first Christian preachers, who characterized their account of the person and mission of Christ by the term Gospel. This name was also prefixed to the written accounts of Christ. We possess four such accounts; the first by Matthew, announcing the Redeemer as the promised King of the Kingdom of God; the second by Mark, declaring him ’a Prophet mighty in deed and word’ (Luk 24:19); the third by Luke, of whom it might be said that he represented Christ in the special character of the Savior of sinners (Luk 7:36, sq.; 15:18-19, sq.); the fourth by John, who represents Christ as the Son of God, in whom deity and humanity became one. The ancient church gave to Matthew the symbol of the lion, to Mark that of man, to Luke that of the ox, and to John that of the eagle; these were the four faces of the cherubim. The cloud in which the Lord revealed Himself was borne by the cherubim, and the four Evangelists were also the bearers of that glory of God which appeared in the form of man.

Concerning the order which they occupy in the Scriptures, the oldest Latin and Gothic Versions place Matthew and John first, and after them Mark and Luke, while the other MSS. and the old versions follow the order given to them in our Bibles. As dogmatical reasons render a different order more natural, there is much in favor of the opinion that their usual position arose from regard to the chronological dates of the respective composition of the four gospels: this is the opinion of Origen, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. All ancient testimonies agree that Matthew was the earliest, and John the latest Evangelist. The relation of the Gospel of John to the other three Gospels, and the relation of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke to each other, is very remarkable. With the exception of the history of the Baptist, and that of Christ’s passion and resurrection, we find in John not only narratives of quite different events, but also different statements even in the above sections. On the other hand, the first three Evangelists not only tolerably harmonize in the substance and order of the events they relate, but correspond even sentence by sentence in their separate narratives (comp. ex. gr.Mar 1:21-28 with Luk 4:31-37; Mat 8:31-34; Mar 6:34; Mar 5:17; Luk 8:32-37, etc.). The thought that first suggests itself on considering this surprising harmony is that they all had mutually drawn their information from one another. Some critics are of opinion that Matthew was the oldest source, and that Mark drew his information both from Matthew and Luke; again, according to others, Luke was the oldest, and Matthew made use of Luke and Mark; while most critics in Germany have adopted the view that Matthew was the oldest, and was made use of by Luke, and that Mark derived his information both from Matthew and Luke. Some of the most modern critics are, on the other hand, of opinion that Mark was the original evangelist, and that Matthew and Luke derived their information from him. The difference of these opinions leads to the suspicion that none of them are right, more especially when we consider that, notwithstanding the partial harmony of the three evangelists in the choice of their sentences, there is still a surprising difference in them as regards the words of those sentences; a fact which compelled the critics who suppose that the evangelists made use of each other’s writings, to account everywhere for such deviations, and frequently to have recourse to the most trivial and pedantic arguments. To us these differences in word and phrase would appear inconceivable were we disposed to assume that the evangelists had copied one another.

As the three Evangelists mutually supply and explain each other, they were early joined to each other, by Tatian, about A.D. 170, and by Ammonius, about A.D. 230,  and the discrepancies among them early led to attempts to reconcile them. And with this view various elaborate treatises have been composed, both in ancient and modern times. But when we consider that one and the same writer, namely, Luke, relates the conversion of Paul (Act 9:22; Act 9:26), with different incidental circumstances, after three various documents, though it would have been very easy for him to have annulled the discrepancies, we cannot help being convinced that the Evangelists attached but little weight to minute preciseness in the incidents, since, indeed, the historical truth of a narration consists less in them, in the relation of minute details, than in the correct conception of the character and spirit of the event.

Signifies good news, and is that revelation and dispensation which God has made known to guilty man through Jesus Christ our Savior and Redeemer. Scripture speaks of "the gospel of the kingdom," Mat 24:14, the gospel "of the grace of God," Mal 20:24, "of Christ," and "of peace," 1Ch 1:16 10:15. It is the "glorious" and the "everlasting" gospel, 1Ti 1:11 Jer 14:6, and well merits the noblest epithets that can be given it. The declaration of this gospel was made through the life and teaching, the death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord.\par The writings which contain the recital of our Savior’s life, miracles, death, resurrection, and doctrine, are called GOSPELS, because they include the best news that could be published to mankind. We have four canonical gospels—those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These have not only been generally received, but they were received very early as the standards of evangelical history, as the depositories of the doctrines and actions of Jesus. They are appealed to under that character both by friends and enemies; and no writer impugning or defending Christianity acknowledges any other gospel as of equal or concurrent authority, although there were many others which purported to be authentic memoirs of the life and actions of Christ. Some of these apocryphal gospels are still extant. They contain many errors and legends, but have some indirect value.\par There appears to be valid objection to the idea entertained by many, that the evangelists copied from each other or from an earlier and fuller gospel. Whether Mark wrote with the gospel by Matthew before him, and Luke with Matthew and Mark both, or not, we know that they "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," while recounting the works and sayings of Christ which they had seen or knew to be true, using no doubt the most authentic written and oral accounts of the same, current among the disciples. They have not at all confined themselves to the strict order of time and place.\par GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. The time when this gospel was written is very uncertain. All ancient testimony, however, goes to show that it was published before the others. It is believed by many to have been written about A. D. 38. It has been much disputed whether this gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Greek. The unanimous testimony of ancient writers is in favor of a Hebrew original, that is, that it was written in the language of Palestine and for the use of the Hebrew Christians. But, on the other hand, the definiteness and accuracy of this testimony is drawn into question; there is no historical notice of a translation into Greek; and the present Greek gospel bears many marks of being an original; the circumstances of the age, too, and the prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine, seem to give weight to the opposite hypothesis. Critics of he greatest name are arranged on both sides of the question; and some who believe it to have been first written in Hebrew, think that the author himself afterwards made a Greek version. Matthew writes as "an Israelite indeed," a guileless converted Jew instructing his brethren. He often quotes from the Old Testament. He represents the Savior as the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel, the promised Messiah, King of the kingdom of God.\par GOSPEL OF MARK. Ancient writers agree in the statement that Mark, not himself an apostle, wrote his gospel under the influence and direction of the apostle Peter. The same traditionary authority, though with less unanimity and evidence, makes it to have been written at Rome, and published after the death of Peter and Paul. Mark wrote primarily for the Gentiles, as appears from his frequent explanations of Jewish customs, etc. He exhibits Christ as the divine Prophet, mighty in deed and word. He is a true evangelical historian, relating facts more than discourses, in a concise, simple, rapid style, with occasional minute and graphic details.\par GOSPEL OF LUKE. Luke is said to have written his gospel under the direction of Paul, whose companion he was on many journeys. His expanded views and catholic spirit resemble those of the great apostle to the Gentiles; and his gospel represents Christ as the compassionate Friend of sinners, the Savior of the world. It appears to have been written primarily for Theophilus, some noble Greek or Roman, and its date is generally supposed to be about A. D. 63.\par GOSPEL OF JOHN. The ancient writers all make this gospel the latest. Some place its publication in the first year of the emperor Nerva, A. D. 96, sixty-seven years after our Savior’s death, and when John was now more than eighty years of age. The gospel of John reveals Christ as the divine and divinely appointed Redeemer, the Son of God manifested in flesh. It is a spiritual, rather than historical gospel, omitting many things chronicled by the other evangelists, and containing much more than they do as to the new life in the soul through Christ, union with him, regeneration, the resurrection, and the work of the Holy Spirit. The spirit of the "disciple whom Jesus loved" pervades this precious gospel. It had a special adaptation to refute the Gnostic heresies of that time, but is equally fitted to build up the church of Christ in all generations.\par

This word, "conformably to its etymological meaning of Good-tidings, is used to signify,

(1.) The welcome intelligence of salvation to man, as preached by our Lord and his followers.

(2.) It was afterwards transitively applied to each of the four histories of our Lord’s life, published by those who are" therefore called "Evangelists," writers of the history of the Gospel (εὐαγγἐλιον).

(3.) "The term is often used to express collectively, the Gospel-doctrines; and ’preaching the Gospel’ is accordingly often used to include not only the ’proclaiming’ of the good tidings, but the ’teaching’ men how to avail themselves of the offer of salvation;" the declaring of all the truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity. It is termed "the Gospel of the grace of God," because it flows from God’s free love and goodness (Act 20:24); and, when truly and faithfully preached, is accompanied with the influences of the divine Spirit. It is called "the Gospel of the kingdom," because it treats of the kingdom of grace, and shows the way to the kingdom of glory. It is styled "the Gospel of Christ" because he is the author and great subject of it (Rom 1:16); and "the Gospel of peace and salvation," because it publishes peace with God to the penitent and believing, gives, to such, peace of conscience and tranquillity of mind, and is the means of their salvation, present and eternal. As it displays the glory of God and of Christ, and ensures to his true followers eternal glory, it is entitled "the glorious Gospel" and "the everlasting Gospel," because it commenced from the fall of man, is permanent throughout all time, and produces effects which are everlasting. This use of the word "gospel" has led some to suppose that Gospel-truth is to be found exclusively or chiefly in the "Gospels," to the neglect of the other sacred writings; and others, to conclude that the discourses of our Lord and the apostolic epistles must exactly coincide, and that in case of any apparent difference, the former must be the standard and the latter must be taken to bear no other sense than what is implied by the other. Whereas, it is very conceivable, that though both might be, in a certain sense, "good tidings," yet one may contain a much more full development of the Christian scheme than the other (Eden; Watson). It has been disputed whether the Gospel consists merely of promises, or whether it can in any sense be called a law. The answer plainly depends upon adjusting, the meaning of the words gospel and law. If the gospel be taken for the declaration God has made to men by Christ, concerning the manner in which he will treat them, and the conduct he expects from them, it in plain that this includes commands, and even threatenings, as well as promisesa; but to define the Gospel so as only to express the favorable part of that declaration, is indeed taking the question for granted, and confining the word to a sense much less extensive than it often has in Scripture (comp. Rom 2:16; 2Th 1:8; 1Ti 1:9-11); and it is certain that, if the Gospel be put for all the parts of the dispensation taken, in connection one with another, it may well be called, on the whole, a good message. In like manner the question, whether the Gospel be a law or not, is to be determined by the definition of the law and of the Gospel, as above. If law signifies, as it generally does, the discovery of the will of a superior, teaching what he requires of those under his government, with the intimation of his intention of dispensing rewards and punishments, as this rule of their conduct is observed or neglected; in this latitude of expression it is plain, from the proposition, that the Gospel, taken for the declaration made to men by Christ, is a law, as in Scripture it is sometimes called (Jas 1:25; Rom 4:15; Rom 8:2). But if law be taken, in the greatest rigor of the expression, for such a discovery of the will of God and our duty, as to contain in it no intimation of our obtaining the divine favor otherwise’ than by’ a perfect and universal conformity to it, in that sense the Gospel is not a law. See Witsilus, On the Covenants, volume 3, chapter 1; Doddridge, Lectures, lect. 172; Watts, Orthodoxy and Charity, Essay 2.

Gospel. From the Anglo-Saxon God-spell, "good tidings," is the English translation of the Greek euaggelion, which signifies "good" or "glad tidings." Luk 2:10; Act 13:32. The same word in the original is rendered in Rom 10:15 by the two equivalents "gospel" and "glad tidings." The term refers to the good news of the new dispensation of redemption ushered in by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "good news" is denominated either simply the "gospel," Mat 26:13, or else "the gospel of the kingdom," Mat 9:35; of "Jesus Christ,"

Mar 1:1; "of peace," Rom 10:15 A. V., but omitted in R. V.; Eph 6:15; of "salvation," Eph 1:13; of "God," 1Th 2:9; and of grace. Act 20:24. The four Gospels were issued probably during the latter half of the first century—those of Matthew and Mark and Luke before the destruction of Jerusalem; and that of John towards the close of the century. Before the end of the second century, there is abundant evidence that the four Gospels, as one collection, were generally used and accepted. In the fourth Gospel the narrative coincides with that of the other three in a few passages only. The common explanation is that John, writing last, at the close of the first century, had seen the other Gospels, and purposely abstained from writing anew what they had sufficiently recorded. In the other three Gospels there is a great amount of agreement. If we suppose the history that they contain to be divided into 89 sections, in 42 of these all the three narratives coincide, 12 more are given by Matthew and Mark only, 5 by Mark and Luke only, and 14 by Matthew and Luke. To these must be added 5 peculiar to Mat 2:1-23 to Mar 9:1-50 to Luke, and the enumeration is complete. But this applies only to general coincidence as to the facts narrated—the amount of verbal coincidence, that is, the passages either verbally the same or coinciding in the use of many of the same words, is much smaller. The First Gomel was prepared by Matthew for the Jew. He gives us the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, the Messianic royalty of Jesus. Mark wrote the Second Gospel from the preaching of Peter. Luke wrote the Third Gospel for the Greek. It is the gospel of the future, of progressive Christianity, of reason and culture seeking the perfection of manhood. John, "the beloved disciple," wrote the Fourth Gospel for the Christian, to cherish and train those who have entered the new kingdom of Christ, into the highest spiritual life. See Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul says: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Rom 1:16. To the Corinthians he writes: "I came not to you with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1Co 2:1-2.

The Gospel Being Preached To All Nations

Mat_24:14; Mat_28:18-20; Mar_13:10; Luk_24:44-47; Col_1:5-6.

The Poor Receiving The Gospel

Mat_11:4-5; Luk_7:22.

What The Gospel Does

1Co_15:1-2; Col_1:5-6.

What The Gospel Is

Rom_1:16-17.

Where The Gospel Comes From

Gal_1:11-12.

Who Should Live Of The Gospel

1Co_9:13-14.

Who The Gospel Is Hid From

2Co_4:3-4.

Why The Gospel Did Not Profit Those In The Time Of Moses

Heb_4:1-2.

Why The Gospel Was Preached

1Pe_4:1-6.

GOSPEL.—‘Gospel’ is the modern form of the Anglo-Saxon word ‘godspell,’ representing the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον. Formerly it was thought to be the literal translation, meaning ‘good-story.’ But now it is generally accepted as meaning ‘God-story.’ εὐαγγέλιον was originally used for ‘the reward of good tidings,’ and traces of this usage are found in LXX Septuagint ; cf. 2Sa 4:10. But the word came to denote the ‘good tidings’ themselves; and this is the Christian usage. It may be noted here that Dalman (The Words of Jesus, p. 103) says: ‘In the verb בִּשַׂר, which must be assumed to be the original Aramaic expression, the idea of glad tidings is not so inherent as in the Greek εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. Even in the OT (1Sa 4:17) בִּשַׂר is used of mournful tidings.… It thus appears that the sovereignty of God is the content of a “message” or “tidings,” and not without further qualification of “a message of glad tidings.” ’ It would seem, however, that the choice of the Greek verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, as well as the contexts of the word in the Gospels, provide that ‘further qualification.’

1. The source for the Christian usage is found in Isaiah. In Isa 61:1 the prophet describes the function of the Servant of Jahweh (or perhaps his own function) in these words: ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek.…’ The word is εὐαγγελίσασθαι. The meek are the exiles in Babylon. Good tidings are announced to them. God is coming to save them, and He is near. It is the acceptable year of the Lord, when He shall deliver His people from their enemies and restore them to their native land. A similar reference occurs in Isa 52:7. A messenger hastens to Jerusalem, as she sits in the dust of her ruins, bringing ‘good tidings.’ The exiles are to return to her, and she shall be inhabited again by her long-lost children. These instances exhibit clearly the meaning ‘good tidings’; and both are claimed in NT to describe the Christian message. St. Paul quotes Isa 52:7 in Rom 10:15; and Jesus makes Isa 61:1 the text for His sermon at Nazareth (Luk 4:18).

This use of the word by Jesus stamps it at once with its Christian significance. ‘He began to say, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.’ He claimed to be a preacher of good tidings to the poor. The poor, the captives, the blind, the bruised, are no longer political exiles. They are the bond-servants of sin, those who waited for the consolation of Israel, the poor and outcast to whom Judaism had no message of hope. He is Jahweh’s Anointed sent to bring good tidings of great joy to all the people (Luk 2:10). This description of His mission seems to have endeared itself to the heart of Jesus. He made frequent use of the word, and soon after the rejection in Nazareth He described His Messianic function by it: ‘I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for therefore was I sent’ (Luk 4:43). In particular, Jesus appropriated the name ‘gospel’ for the contents of His message. This was His description of it from the beginning of His ministry. St. Mark sums up that beginning thus: ‘Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe in the gospel.’ There are many proofs that Jesus used this word ‘gospel’ to describe His message; cf. Mat 24:14; Mat 26:13, Mar 1:15; Mar 8:35; Mar 10:29; Mar 13:10, Luk 7:22 ||. It is not surprising, therefore, that the word came into general Christian use to describe the contents of the preaching of Jesus. All the Synoptics reflect this usage. In Acts and the Epistles it is an established custom. ‘The gospel’ became the normal Christian title for the message which Jesus came to proclaim, and which He sent forth the Apostles to preach to every creature.

2. But closer examination shows that the term was not used by the Evangelists to describe all that Jesus said; nor was the verb ‘preach good tidings’ descriptive of all His work. In Mt. this sentence occurs twice: ‘Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people’ (Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35). It seems to be an accepted formula summarizing the work of Jesus. It contains three main words—‘teaching,’ ‘preaching,’ ‘healing.’ The same distinctions are noticed elsewhere. St. Luke distinguishes ‘teaching’ and ‘preaching the gospel’ (Luk 20:1); and in Luk 9:2 he tells that the Twelve were sent forth ‘to preach the kingdom and to heal the sick.’ St. Mark does not contrast the two words ‘teach’ and ‘preach the gospel’ in the same verse; but in Mar 1:14; Mar 1:21, he ascribes to Jesus ‘preaching the gospel’ and ‘teaching.’ In the latter case the effect produced by His ‘teaching’ is different from that due to His ‘preaching.’

It would seem, therefore, that the work of Jesus was threefold: He preached the gospel, He taught, and He healed. If this distinction is valid, the term ‘gospel’ did not apply to all that Jesus said and did. It was reserved for the ‘good tidings’ that He preached. In addition to these ‘good tidings,’ there was ‘teaching’ that belonged to another category. Listeners would hardly describe such teaching as Mat 5:19-48 by the title ‘good tidings,’ nor could the word apply naturally to Mat 10:34-39; Mat 12:31-37; Mat 19:9-12; Mat 21:33-44; Mat 21:23-24. It seems clear that Jesus distinguished the gospel that He preached from the teaching that accompanied it.

3. What then was implied by the term ‘gospel’? It was essentially ‘news’ or ‘tidings.’ It was the proclamation of a fact rather than instruction in the art of living well. It was offered to belief, and its acceptance must be preceded by repentance (Mar 1:15). It is called ‘the gospel of God’ (in Mar 1:14 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ); the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (in Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35; Mat 24:14). St. Luke uses the compound phrase, ‘the gospel of the kingdom of God’ (Luk 4:43; Luk 16:16). These phrases must be studied, and in addition it must be noted that Jesus connected the gospel with His own person.

(a) The phrase ‘the gospel of God’ indicates a message from God and about God that is good news to men. It is certain that Jesus gave the world a new idea of God; and this gospel of Jesus was the revelation of God as ‘our Father in heaven.’ He did not discover the category of Fatherhood in its relation to God. This had been done under the Old Covenant. But He invested the idea with such radiance as to make it a new revelation. More specifically, He illumined the Fatherhood of God by teaching ‘the infinite value of the human soul.’ God is not merely the Father of a people. He is the Father of each individual soul (cf. ‘thy Father,’ Mat 6:4-18). His Fatherhood extends to all sorts and conditions of men (Mat 12:50). In particular, the Father seeks each sinner (Luk 15:1-10), and welcomes even the prodigal to His home (Luk 15:11-32). This ‘gospel of God’ includes, further, the good news to the heavily laden Jew that ‘the Father seeketh true worshippers to worship in spirit and in truth’ (Joh 4:23; cf. Mat 11:28), and that the Father is willing to forgive sins without sacrificial offerings (Mat 9:2 ||). And when the child of God has entered into this blessed relationship with his Father in heaven, that Father may be trusted implicitly (Mat 6:25-34). Prayer must be offered to this Father continually (Luk 18:1). The Lord’s Prayer (Mat 6:9) ‘shows the gospel to be the Fatherhood of God applied to the whole of life; to be an inner union with God’s will and God’s kingdom, and a joyous certainty of eternal blessings and protection from evil’ (Harnack).

The Johannine tradition lays special emphasis upon this Divine Fatherhood in its relation to Jesus; the relation between the Father and His children is referred to in terms of love. Indeed, St. John sums up this aspect of the gospel in the immortal words, ‘God is love’ (1Jn 4:8). Jesus Himself spoke chiefly of love as the duty of man. To love God and to love one’s neighbour are the supreme laws for human conduct (Mat 22:37-39 ||). But by His constant speech about the Father, Jesus taught also God’s love to men. This relation of love between God and man has been pointed to as the distinguishing feature of the gospel. Thus Réville writes:

‘The Christian gospel is essentially characterized by its declaration that the bond between God and man is one of love. God is the Heavenly Father; man is the son of God; God loves man; man ought to love God; the relation between the principle of the universe and the individual is one of love, in which the two terms subsist. God and man—man not losing himself in God, God not remaining aloof from man—meet in a living communion, so that man’s dependence on God should no longer be one of compulsion, but of free and joyful self-consecration, and that the sovereignty of God over man should no more appear a tyranny, but a rule which we love and bless. Such is the distinctive mark of the Christianity of Jesus, differentiating it from the other great religions.’^{* [Note: Liberal Christianity, pp. 69–70.]}

(b) The phrase ‘the gospel of the kingdom’ describes the good news brought by Jesus in its relation to that Kingdom of God or of heaven which He proclaimed. It implies that the Kingdom has ‘a gospel.’ The gospel and the Kingdom are not co-extensive any more than the gospel and God are. But there is good news concerning the Kingdom, and this good news is an essential part of the message of the Kingdom. In brief, this gospel was that the Kingdom of heaven is opened to all believers. The message of Jesus was that the Kingdom was not for select classes or nations, but for all. All Jews were summoned to share it; even the publicans and sinners may come (Mat 21:31, Mar 2:15 ||). Nor are Jews alone to walk in its light. All nations must be invited to sit at its hospitable table (Mat 8:11; Mat 26:13, Mar 13:10). The conditions of entrance make it accessible to all. It is offered not to the rich or to the wise, but to all who will become as little children (Mat 11:25; Mat 18:3, Joh 3:3). Moreover, this Kingdom, which is offered to all, is a far higher good than men dreamed (cf. Mat 13:31; Mat 13:44-46). It is a spiritual blessedness, infinitely transcending the ceremonial righteousness secured by legalism, and the political supremacy envied by the patriots. The Kingdom, as Jesus preached it, offered the highest conceivable good to all men. It satisfied the religious instincts of the race; and because these are the deepest and most universal instincts, the message that they can be satisfied is indeed ‘good news’ (cf. Matthew 13 ||). Men had never found true satisfaction in the material forms of a ritualistic religion. These were the husks that contained no nourishment for the soul. Jesus preached ‘the gospel of the kingdom’ when He offered the highest spiritual good to all penitent and humble souls.

(c) But these two forms of the gospel do not exhaust its fulness. The presence of Jesus in the world was itself a gospel. He connected the good tidings with His own person. As the good news Rhoda brought to the praying Church was that Peter himself was at the door (Act 12:14), so the presence of Jesus in the world was ‘glad tidings of great joy to all people’ (Luk 2:10). This was due to the significance attached by Jesus to Himself. He was the Messiah (Mat 16:16). His use of the title ‘Son of man’ implies His special significance for the race. In several of His parables He referred to Himself as the Son of God (Luk 20:13), as the Judge and King of men (Mat 25:31), as the bridegroom (Mat 9:15; Mat 25:6); these and other titles indicate the peculiar value of His person. The interest was not metaphysical but religious. His presence in the world manifested the love of God (Joh 3:16). It proved that God had not forgotten men, but had come to their help.

In this connexion the significance of Jesus’ offer of pardon must be noted. He raised much opposition by claiming ‘power on earth to forgive sins’ (Mar 2:10 ||). Nevertheless He exercised the power (Luk 7:47, Joh 5:14; Joh 5:22). There is a close connexion between this ‘good news’ and the good news about God and about the Kingdom. The barrier between God and the soul is sin. It is sin that hinders enjoyment of the Kingdom. Therefore the best news that men can have is a message of full and free forgiveness for all repentant, trustful souls. And this was the message preached by Jesus. He removed pardon out of the sphere of material sacrifices in the temple, which limited the scope of forgiveness to a few, and He made forgiveness a possible boon for everybody. Thus He opened the way into the Kingdom even to the publicans and sinners.

(d) But the core of this aspect of the gospel is reached only when it is connected definitely with the redeeming work of Jesus. He was conscious of a profounder mission than preaching the gospel. More than once He gave utterance to words that touch the deepest mysteries of redemption. He came to give His life a ransom (Mat 20:28). He was the Good Shepherd giving His life for the sheep (Joh 10:11). He foretold His death and resurrection, directly He had brought His disciples to confess His Messiahship (Mat 16:21). On the betrayal night in the upper room, He gave the cup, saying, ‘This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many’ (Mar 14:24). It was impossible for Jesus to connect the gospel chiefly with His death, before He was crucified. But it seems unquestionable that He referred to His death as achieving a wonderful deliverance for men in respect of sin. The sacrificial element was not introduced into His life for the first time when He offered Himself to die. ‘The Son of man came to minister’; and all through His ministry He was giving Himself up for others. Nevertheless, He looked upon His own death as having a peculiar significance, awful for Himself (cf. Mar 14:32-39 ||), but blessed for men (Joh 14:3). It is certain that His followers accepted this interpretation of the cross. At once the death of Jesus, followed as it was by His resurrection, was made the main theme of Apostolic preaching (Act 2:23; Act 3:14; Act 4:10 etc.). So central was this preaching about the death of Christ, that St. Paul identifies ‘the gospel’ with the message about ‘Christ crucified’ (1Co 1:17).

The meaning of the term ‘gospel’ as used by Jesus may now be summed up. It seems to describe the message He taught concerning—(a) the fatherly nature of God; (b) the inclusiveness and spirituality of the Kingdom; and (c) God’s provision for men’s deliverance from sin through His own mediation. This gospel was not only the theme of His preaching, but was exemplified continually in His manner of life. He revealed the Father by His own attitude to men. He illustrated the spirit of the Kingdom by seeking the lost. He mediated the grace of God by His unsparing self-surrender. In particular, He accepted death upon the cross in obedience to the Father’s will, in order that thereby the scattered sons of God might be gathered again to their Father (Joh 11:52).

4. We must return now to the distinction between ‘preaching the gospel’ and ‘teaching.’ Much of the teaching of Jesus could not be directly classed under the ‘gospel’ as sketched above. It was ethical teaching. It rested upon the gospel as its foundation. It appealed ultimately to the nature of God for its sanctions. It was connected with the Kingdom, being the legislation that befitted such a Kingdom of grace. Nevertheless it was an ethical code, intended to guide those who have previously accepted the gospel. The teaching of Jesus is the law-book of the Kingdom. The gospel of Jesus is the manifesto of the Kingdom, explaining its nature and inviting all to become its citizens.

This probably explains the subsequent use of the term ‘gospel.’ Wonderful as the teaching of Jesus was, the gospel seemed still more marvellous. At any rate, that gospel seemed of first importance. It had to be preached before the teaching of Jesus could follow; and whilst points of contact could be found between the teaching of Jesus and other ethical systems, there was nothing in the world like the gospel of Jesus. And thus the term ‘gospel’ was most frequently on the lips of the Apostles; and by a natural process it was extended to cover the entire contents of their report of Jesus, including His teaching. All that the Apostles had to tell about Jesus was called ‘the gospel.’ This usage is reflected in Mar 1:1, where the word refers to the whole story of Jesus Christ.

5. Two points need a further reference. The gospel brought by Jesus was not entirely new. It had its roots in the past. The preaching of Jesus was in historic continuity with the preaching of the prophets and of the Mosaic law (Mat 5:17). But that earlier preaching was the faint light of dawn: His words are the strong light of noonday (Joh 8:12). Hitherto men had only heard rumours of varying trustworthiness; He brought official news that was full and final. Some keen-eyed spirits had caught sight of the Fatherhood of God, as the Alps may be seen from the terrace at Berne on a fine evening. But Jesus led men into the heart of the mountains. The hopes of the nation had hovered for centuries round a kingdom. But only Jesus disclosed the true nature of the shining city of God. Prophets had encouraged lonely exiles with the cry, ‘Behold your God cometh!’ But it was not until Jesus appeared that one who waited for the consolation of Israel could say, ‘Mine eyes have seen thy salvation’ (Luk 2:30). The gospel preached by Jesus gave full substance and final form to the faint and tremulous hopes of centuries. For this reason the gospel must be the unchanging element in the Church’s message. Being ‘news’ about God and the Kingdom, it cannot change until they change.

A distinction has been drawn between the gospel which Jesus preached and His ethical teaching. The Church’s teaching of the Christian ethics must be a changing message. It is the application of the principles of Christ’s teaching to present circumstances. The Christian ethic of the last generation is out of date in presence of to-day’s problems. The Church must study the ethical principles enunciated by Jesus, in order to apply them to modern needs. But whilst the Christian ethic develops and is modified by circumstances, the Christian gospel cannot change. It is good news about facts. It must be stated in modern phraseology, that men may hear it in their own tongue and understand it. But it remains an ‘Old, old Story’ through all time. If this distinction is remembered, it will explain the confusion that is felt in modern times as to the Church’s true function. All are agreed that this is to preach the gospel. But very different views are held as to what is included under the term. In particular, there is an increasing demand for a social gospel, whilst some maintain that the gospel cannot be concerned with social conditions. Probably the term ‘gospel’ is being used in two senses. As Jesus used it, ‘the gospel’ is a definite message, distinct from the Christian ethic, and also distinct from the work of healing practised by the Lord. But from Apostolic days onward the term ‘gospel’ has been used to cover the threefold function—preaching the gospel, teaching the ethic, and healing the sick. In its original and more limited sense, ‘gospel’ is simply the ‘news’ brought by Jesus. In its historical and broader sense, ‘gospel’ is the whole ‘God-story’: it includes the entire record of Jesus Christ’s life and work. Thus used, the term covers the ethic that Jesus Christ taught, and the social service that He practised. In this sense ‘gospel’ includes all ethical teaching and social service that are in accordance with the mind of the Master. It is open to question, however, whether the Church has not suffered loss by broadening the reference of this word. Jesus used it to describe the ‘good news’ He brought to the poor and the meek of the earth; and this ‘gospel’ must ever be the foundation upon which the Church builds, though the foundation is not to be confused with the fabric erected upon it.

6. A brief space must be given to the consideration of the gospel in the rest of NT in so far as it is connected with Christ. In one sense this would involve an exposition of many chapters of Acts and of all the Epistles, for He is ‘the head-stone of the corner,’ and the gospel is only ‘complete in Him.’ But all that can he attempted is an indication of the place occupied by Christ in the gospel as preached by the Apostolic, Church.

When we pass from the Gospels to the Acts and the Epistles, we are conscious at once of a change of standpoint. In the Gospels, Christ’s disciples are a group of learners. They stand beside their Master at the very centre of truth, and they try to follow His gaze as it sweeps the horizon of the love and the kingdom of God. In the Epistles the relative positions are altered. The disciples have become teachers; but they do not stand by their Master’s side at the centre. Christ alone is at the centre; the disciples are on the circumference of the circle and are gazing at Him. Their efforts are directed towards the Lord, whom they would persuade everybody to know (Act 2:38, 1Co 2:2). The Lamb is in the midst of the throne, and those who have been gathered into the Kingdom of God worship Him (Rev 5:6). The Apostles are seeking to obey their Lord’s injunction to preach the gospel to every creature (Mar 16:15). But their interpretation of this command was to urge their hearers to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 16:31).

This identification of ‘the gospel’ with Christ Himself may be accounted for partly by the experience of the Apostles. They went forth as witnesses (Luk 24:48), not as philosophers. They had to tell what great things God had done for their souls. They could do this only by talking of Jesus. For He had become to them the mediator of God’s redeeming love (Mar 8:29, Joh 1:41). They could not be witnesses concerning repentance and remission of sins without filling their lips with the one ‘name given among men wherein we must be saved’ (Act 4:12).

But another point must be considered. The Apostles were commanded to ‘preach the gospel.’ The instruction had a definite meaning because of their Master’s use of the words. Jesus Christ preached the gospel of the fatherly love of God, establishing a Kingdom into which all men might be admitted, and He offered Himself as the authoritative proof of that love (cf. Mar 12:6 || Joh 8:42). The presence in the world of the Son of man, the Messiah of prophecy, demonstrated God’s love in providing for men’s deepest needs. Now it is evident that the crucifixion of Jesus shook such a gospel to its foundations. If the life of the Messianic Son of man ended with the cross, His speech about God’s fatherly love and a heavenly Kingdom seemed worse than idle talk. How could the gospel preached by Jesus survive His death? Only if He Himself survived His death. To rehabilitate His gospel, His authority must be rehabilitated. This result was secured by the resurrection of Jesus and by His ascension. When they had seen Him ‘alive after his passion,’ His disciples were prepared to go and ‘preach the gospel to every creature’ (Act 1:3).

But it is evident also that these events themselves had profound importance. They did more than rehabilitate the authority of Jesus: they brought His own significance for the gospel into clear relief. Such unique events set the personality of Jesus in the heart of the gospel, investing Him with peculiar importance (Act 2:22-36; Act 3:13-26; Act 5:31, 1Jn 1:1-3, Rom 1:4; 1Pe 1:3-8). Although they could not realize at once all that was involved in such events, the Apostles were compelled to take a new attitude to Jesus, and to adopt a fresh theory of His person. He had been their Master: now He becomes ‘the Lord.’ The primitive Christian community used the term before it was able to construct an adequate Christology. But it ‘called Jesus “the Lord” because He had sacrificed His life for it, and because its members were convinced that He had been raised from the dead and was then sitting on the right hand of God’ (Harnack). The significance of Jesus was decided religiously, though not metaphysically, at once. From the first, Jesus Christ had the religious value of God. Men were exhorted to believe in Him (Act 2:38). The final expression of the Apostolic meditation upon the person of the Lord was given by John (Joh 1:1-18). But in Apostolic thought the gospel could never be preached apart from Jesus Christ, nor could the significance of Jesus Christ be understood apart from the gospel. In Him God’s redemptive purposes and the sinner’s acceptance of them may meet. Thus He is the central figure in history (Col 1:15-19). He is at once the Saviour appointed by the Father (Act 2:23 ff., Rom 1:3; Rom 3:25, Gal 4:4) and the Head of the redeemed race (1Co 15:22-45, Gal 3:26, Eph 1:22).

But this conception of the person of Jesus gave a deeper meaning to the great events in His experience which had so affected His disciples. It may be said that the events and the person reacted upon one another. Such events glorified the person; the glorified person deepened the significance of the events. At the first the Crucifixion of Jesus was looked upon as the wicked act of the Jews, which God had frustrated and even turned to His own glory by raising Jesus from the dead (Act 2:23-24; Act 3:14-15; Act 4:10; Act 5:30). The Resurrection was accepted at once as a proof of Divine Sonship (l.c.). The Ascension not only sealed this proof of Jesus Christ’s Messianic dignity, but also exalted Him to a place of sovereignty over the world (Act 2:33; Act 3:16; Act 3:21; Act 4:12; Act 5:31). But further reflexion upon them invested these unique events with profounder significance. His Death is the means whereby all men may be forgiven and may be reconciled to God—a sacrifice for the sins of the world (Rom 3:25, 2Co 5:20-21; 1Pe 1:19, 1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 2:2). His Resurrection is the earnest of the new life into which all those are introduced who are born anew by faith in Him (Rom 6:4, 1Jn 3:2-3). He is the first-fruits of them that sleep: His Resurrection involves the resurrection to eternal life of all in whom He lives (1Th 4:13 to 1Th 5:10, 1 Corinthians 15). His Ascension is the pledge of the glorification of all who are united to Him (Rom 8:29-30, Php 3:20-21).

This aspect of the gospel is reflected in the Apostolic preaching. The Apostles ‘preached Christ’ (1Co 1:23). All the sermons in the early chapters of Acts are full of Christ. The Epistles identify the gospel with Him (Rom 1:16). In particular, the preaching dwelt upon His Crucifixion, His Resurrection, and His Ascension, though the same ‘mind’ was discerned in the whole story of the Incarnation (Php 2:3). It should be remembered that all this reference to ‘Christ and him crucified’ as ‘the gospel,’ is shot through and through with Jesus Christ’s own message of the love of God in establishing the kingdom. Although the gospel as it was presented by the Apostles assumed a new aspect, becoming a message about Christ who died and rose and ascended to the Father’s right hand, this was not intended to divert attention from the fatherly love of God and the Kingdom into which He invited men. But it was only through this message about Christ that such a gospel could be offered authoritatively to the world. Moreover, the gospel was seen in its true glory only when viewed through the medium of Christ’s Death and Resurrection and Ascension. Without the interpretation of these events, God’s fatherly love was a vague dream, and the heavenly Kingdom was an impossible ideal (1Jn 4:9-10, Eph 2:12-18; 1Pe 2:4-10). Thus Wellhausen, IJ^{G [Note: JG Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , p. 386, declares that St. Paul’s especial work was to transform the gospel of the Kingdom into the gospel of Jesus Christ, so that the gospel is no longer the prophecy of the coming of the Kingdom, but its actual fulfilment by Jesus Christ. In his view, accordingly, redemption from something in the future has become something which has already happened and is now present. He lays far more emphasis on faith than on hope; he anticipates the sense of future bliss in the present feeling of being God’s son; he vanquishes death and already leads the new life on earth. The presence of Christ among men is unceasingly emphasized as the supreme proof of the love of the heavenly Father (Gal 1:3-5; Gal 4:6-7, 1Co 1:9, Rom 3:24; Rom 11:33-36, 1Jn 4:9; 1Pe 1:3 etc.). ‘The kingdom’ is mentioned frequently as the objective of Christian effort (Act 8:12; Act 14:22; Act 19:8; Act 20:25; Act 28:23; Act 28:31, Rom 14:17, 1Co 4:20; 1Co 6:9; 1Co 15:24; 1Co 15:50, Gal 5:21, Eph 5:5, Col 1:13; Col 4:11, 1Th 2:12, 2Th 1:5, 2Ti 4:1; 2Ti 4:18, Heb 12:28, Jas 2:5; 2Pe 1:11, Rev 1:9; Rev 12:10); and the ideas of Jesus about the Kingdom are woven into the texture of Apostolic preaching. But the primary interest of the Apostles was to preach the gospel of the Kingdom; and that meant the proclamation of Jesus Christ as the Divinely appointed Saviour, through whom all men may share the privileges of sonship with God.

Finally, it may be pointed out that although the term ‘gospel’ already in Apostolic times was used in the broader sense with which we are familiar, yet the NT does distinguish the gospel, as a glad message of life and peace that everybody is urged to accept at once, from the ethical teaching that the converts must obey. The ‘gospel’ is news about God and the Kingdom, which is maintained as true against the older conceptions enshrined in Judaism. The writer to the Hebrews emphasizes the Christian gospel as the fulfilment of the types of the Old Covenant. St. Paul, who was dogged by Judaizers, fought to keep the Christian gospel free from the trammels of Judaic sacramentarianism. The NT writers preach the gospel as a message of transcendent importance and of great joy to all people. But they do not rest content with preaching the good news. St. Paul spoke of a ‘wisdom of God’ which could be taught only to the spiritual (1 Corinthians 2). And most of the Epistles are attempts to explain that ‘wisdom,’ and to enforce obedience to it, on those who had already become Christians by accepting the gospel.

Literature.—Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , artt. ‘Gospel,’ ‘Jesus Christ,’ and on Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Epistles to Romans and Corinthians; Commentaries on the Gospels by Godet, Swete, Gould, Plummer, Westcott, and in Expositor’s Gr. Test. For exposition of Christ’s teaching: Bruce, Kingdom of God, and The Training of the Twelve; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus; Beyschlag, NT Theology; Denney, Death of Christ; Dalman, The Words of Jesus; Harnack, What is Christianity?; Mackintosh, Essays Toward a New Theology; Réville, Liberal Christianity; Watson, The Mind of the Master. For transition to Apostolic teaching: Harnack and Beyschlag, opp. citt.; Weizsacker, The Apostolic Age; Bruce, Paul’s Conception of Christianity; Commentaries on Acts and Epistles. For general reference: Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics; Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus.

J. Edward Roberts.

GOSPEL.—This word (lit. ‘God-story’) represents Greek euangelion, which reappears in one form or another in ecclesiastical Latin and in most modern languages. In classical Greek the word means the reward given to a bearer of good tidings (so 2Sa 4:10 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] in pl.), but afterwards it came to mean the message itself, and so in 2Sa 18:20; 2Sa 18:22; 2Sa 18:25 [LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ] a derived word is used in this sense. In NT the word means ‘good tidings’ about the salvation of the world by the coming of Jesus Christ. It is not there used of the written record. A genitive case or a possessive pronoun accompanying it denotes: (a) the person or the thing preached (the gospel of Christ, or of peace, or of salvation, or of the grace of God, or of God, or of the Kingdom, Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35; Mat 24:14, Mar 1:14, Act 20:24, Rom 15:19, Eph 1:13; Eph 6:15 etc.); or sometimes (b) the preacher (Mar 1:1 (?), Rom 2:16; Rom 16:25, 2Co 4:3 etc.); or rarely (c) the persons preached to (Gal 2:7). ‘The gospel’ is often used in NT absolutely, as in Mar 1:15; Mar 8:35; Mar 14:9 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , Mar 16:15, Act 15:7, Rom 11:28, 2Co 8:16 (where the idea must not be entertained that the reference is to Luke as an Evangelist), and so ‘this gospel,’ Mat 26:13; but English readers should bear in mind that usually (though not in Mar 16:15) the EV [Note: English Version.] phrase ‘to preach the gospel’ represents a simple verb of the Greek. The noun is not found in Lk., Heb., or the Catholic Epistles, and only once in the Johannine writings (Rev 14:6, ‘an eternal gospel’—an angelic message). In Rom 10:16 ‘the gospel’ is used absolutely of the message of the OT prophets.

The written record was not called ‘the Gospel’ till a later age. By the earliest generation of Christians the oral teaching was the main thing regarded; men told what they had heard and seen, or what they had received from eye-witnesses. As these died out and the written record alone remained, the perspective altered. The earliest certain use of the word in this sense is in Justin Martyr (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 150: ‘The Apostles in the Memoirs written by themselves, which are called Gospels,’ Apol. 1. 66; cf. ‘the Memoirs which were drawn up by His Apostles and those who followed them,’ Dial. 103), though some find it in Ignatius and the Didache. The earliest known titles of the Evangelic records (which, however, we cannot assert to be contemporary with the records themselves) are simply ‘According to Matthew,’ etc.

A. J. Maclean.

(Anglo-Saxon: godspell, good news)

An authentic and inspired document containing the glad tidings of redemption and revelation through the life, teachings, and death of Jesus. There are four such documents, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The titles of these books, "Gospel according to," etc., signify "the Gospel history as written by," etc. The first three so manifestly agree in many points that they are classed together as synoptic (at a glance); the fourth differs from them in content, style, language. Prior to the writing of the Gospels was the spoken record of the acts and sayings of Jesus, the "Oral gospel," as it is called, or tradition; but the writers of the Gospels were inspired to record many things not remembered or handed down by word of mouth. There are many books which claim to be "Gospels," but only the four mentioned rightly claim Apostolic authority, and they alone are received by the Church. All others, of later origin, often trivial, absurd, and legendary, were rejected as spurious and are known as Apocrypha.

gos´pel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, tó euaggélion): The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant “the story concerning God.” In the New Testament the Greek word euaggelion, means “good news.” It proclaims tidings of deliverance. The word sometimes stands for the record of the life of our Lord (Mar 1:1), embracing all His teachings, as in Act 20:24. But the word “gospel” now has a peculiar use, and describes primarily the message which Christianity announces. “Good news” is its significance. It means a gift from God. It is the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and sonship with God restored through Christ. It means remission of sins and reconciliation with God. The gospel is not only a message of salvation, but also the instrument through which the Holy Spirit works (Rom 1:16).

The gospel differs from the law in being known entirely from revelation. It is proclaimed in all its fullness in the revelation given in the New Testament. It is also found, although obscurely, in the Old Testament. It begins with the prophecy concerning the ’seed of the woman’ (Gen 3:15), and the promise concerning Abraham, in whom all the nations should be blessed (Gen 12:3; Gen 15:5) and is also indicated in Act 10:43 and in the argument in Rom 4.

In the New Testament the gospel never means simply a book, but rather the message which Christ and His apostles announced. In some places it is called “the gospel of God,” as, for example, Rom 1:1; 1Th 2:2, 1Th 2:9; 1Ti 1:11. In others it is called “the gospel of Christ” (Mar 1:1; Rom 1:16; Rom 15:19; 1Co 9:12, 1Co 9:18; Gal 1:7). In another it is called “the gospel of the grace of God” (Act 20:24); in another “the gospel of peace” (Eph 6:15); in another “the gospel of your salvation” (Eph 1:13); and in yet another “the glorious gospel” (2Co 4:4 the King James Version). The gospel is Christ: He is the subject of it, the object of it, and the life of it. It was preached by Him (Mat 4:23; Mat 11:5; Mar 1:14; Luk 4:18 margin), by the apostles (Act 16:10; Rom 1:15; Rom 2:16; 1Co 9:16) and by the evangelists (Act 8:25).

We must note the clear antithesis between the law and the gospel. The distinction between the two is important because, as Luther indicates, it contains the substance of all Christian doctrine. “By the law,” says he, “nothing else is meant than God’s word and command, directing what to do and what to leave undone, and requiring of us obedience of works. But the gospel is such doctrine of the word of God that neither requires our works nor commands us to do anything, but announces the offered grace of the forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. Here we do nothing, but only receive what is offered through the word.” The gospel, then, is the message of God, the teaching of Christianity, the redemption in and by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, offered to all mankind. And as the gospel is bound up in the life of Christ, His biography and the record of His works, and the proclamation of what He has to offer, are all gathered into this single word, of which no better definition can be given than that of Melanchthon: “The gospel is the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ’s sake.” To hold tenaciously that in this gospel we have a supernatural revelation is in perfect consistency with the spirit of scientific inquiry. The gospel, as the whole message and doctrine of salvation, and as chiefly efficacious for contrition, faith, justification, renewal and sanctification, deals with facts of revelation and experience.

1. The meaning of the term.-‘Gospel,’ a compound of the O.E. gód, ‘good,’ and spel, ‘tidings,’ has been employed from the beginnings of English translation of the NT to render the Greek åὐáããÝëéïí. In the classics this term denotes (a) the reward for good tidings, and is so used in the Septuagint (2Sa_4:10), ᾧ ἔäåé ìå äïῦíáé åὐáããÝëéá (pl. [Note: plural.] ), ‘the reward I had to give him for his tidings’; but (b) in later Greek the word stands for the glad message itself. In the NT, however, åὐáããÝëéïí refers not to the written record, as in the modern usage of ‘gospel’ = ‘book,’ but to the message as delivered and proclaimed. The gospel of N., e.g. is the good news as N. announced it, and St. Paul’s gospel is the message brought by the Apostle in his preaching. As long as oral teaching and exhortation could be had from eye-witnesses and intimates of our Lord’s ministry, ‘gospel’ was reserved for this testimony; accordingly, the Apostle John (1Jn_1:1) writes, ὁ ἦí ἀðʼ ἀñ÷ῆò, ὃ ἀêçêüáìåí, ὃ ἑùðÜêáìåí ôïῖò ὀöèáëìïῖò ἡìῶí, ὃ ἐèåáóÜìåèá êáὶ áἱ ÷áῖñåò ἡìῶí ἐøçëÜöçóáí, ðåñὶ ôïῦ ëüãïõ ôῆò æùῆò, ‘that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with out eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.’ These are the credentials of his message, and the persuasion of it to the hearts of his hearers. Among the early Christians these memories-ἀðïìíçìïíåýìáôá-were most prized, and that word rather than åὐáããÝëéïí was the primitive term for the gospel (cf. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., 1911, p. 44, with foot-note).

But as the eye-witnesses and their immediate successors passed away, believers had to fall back, perforce, upon a written record. The earliest certain use of the word in the modern sense is found in Justin Martyr (circa, about 150 a.d.)-‘The apostles in the memoirs written by themselves, which are called “Gospels” ’ (Apol. i. 66; cf. Hastings’ Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible , Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , and Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , s.v.).

The passage which rules the use of åὐáããÝëéïí in the NT is Mar_1:14, ἦëèåí ὁ Ἰçóïῦò åἰò ôὴí Ãáëéëáßáí êçñýóóùí ôὸ åὐããÝëéïí ôïῦ èåïῦ (the gen. is both subj. and obj.; all aspects are included), ‘Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God.’

The word, probably, came into favour through the use by the Septuagint of the cognate åὐáããåëßæåéí and åὐáããåëßæåóèáé in 2 Is. and in the Restoration-Psalms (cf. our Lord’s discourse [Luk_4:18] in the synagogue of Nazareth concerning the glad tidings of His Mission, based on Isa_61:1). But, while the term (noun and verb) is of fairly frequent occurrence in the Synoptics, it owes its predominance in apostolic Christianity to the Apostle of the Gentiles. ‘It evidently took a strong hold on the imagination of St. Paul in connexion with his own call to missionary labours (åὐáããÝëéïí sixty times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice; åὐáããåëßæåóèáé twenty tunes in Epp. Paul, besides once mid seven times pass.)’ (Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5, p. 5f.).

In Mar_1:1, ἀñ÷ὴ ôïῦ åὐáããåëßïõ Ἰçóïῦ ×ðéóôïῦ, and Rev_14:6, êáὶ åἶäïí ἄëëïí ἄããåëïí … ἔ÷ïíôá åὐáããÝëéïí áἰþíéïí åὐáããåëßóáé, we see the word in almost the transition stage between a spoken message and a book. Before the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, ‘gospel’ was the glad message of the Kingdom, brought and proclaimed by Himself and those whom He sent out to prepare the way before Him. But in Act_20:24 ‘the gospel of the grace of God,’ Rom_1:1-3 ‘the gospel of God regarding His Son,’ and 2Co_4:4 ‘the gospel of the glory (manifested perfection) of Christ, the second stage is approached.

2. The content of the gospel.-As to the subject-matter of the apostolic gospel, one can scarcely say that the content varied; it was rather that the emphasis was changed. In his synagogue ministry to the Dispersion, St. Paul found the soil in some measure prepared. The ðáéäáãùãüò had brought men so far that certain beliefs might be taken for granted as a foundation laid by the Spirit of Revelation in the OT Scriptures both legal and prophetic. This would rule the content of his gospel message to them. The case was different, however, in purely missionary and pioneer work, not only in rude places such as Lystra, but also among the more cultured, though equally pagan, populations in the great cities of the Empire, both in Asia and in Europe. The pioneer gospel, therefore, would have notes of its own. Then, again, after a district had been evangelized and churches planted, we can see how the emphasis of the message would change, us apostolic men, prophets and teachers, sought to lead the primitive Christian communities up to ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ’ (Eph_4:13; cf. Heb_6:1).

From 1 and 2 Thess. we may gather the content of St. Paul’s evangelistic gospel in his heathen mission. ‘Those simple, childlike Epistles to the Thessalonian Church are a kind of Christian primer’ (A. B. Bruce, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 15ff.). From the address on Mars’ Hill (Act_17:30-31) we have further indications of the staple of his message to those outside. But, perhaps more succinctly and perfectly than anywhere else, in 1Co_15:3-8 we have the evangelistic Pauline gospel-‘for I delivered to you, among the most important things (ἐí ðñþôïéò), that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared unto Cephas; then to the twelve: then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the majority survive to this day, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles. And Inst of all, as to the one untimely born, he appeared to me also.’ This summary of the Christian Creed reveals what, to St. Paul, constituted the essential content of the gospel (cf. J. E. McFadyen, The Epistles to the Corinthians [Interpreter’s Com., 1911], p. 205ff.).

To this synopsis of his gospel St. Paul adds (1Co_15:11), ‘Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.’ In all essentials St. Paul stood on the same ground as the Twelve-St. Peter, St. James, and St. Paul were absolutely unanimous. Had it been otherwise, tine can hardly see how he could have won recognition among ‘the pillars’ or been accepted by the Church. His gospel was not a different (ἕôåñïò) gospel, though his rapidly changing spheres, and the pressing need of the occasion, may have shifted the accent. This he acknowledges when, speaking of the evangelical mission of the Church, he says (Gal_2:7), ‘I had been entrusted with the gospel of (for) the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of (for) the circumcision.’ But it was the same gospel in alt its manifold adaptability. Therein no schism is the NT as to the content of the gospel message. The opinion that there is has been well called a ‘perversity of criticism.’ Thus (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , s.v.) the apostolic gospel may be defined as ‘the good tidings, coming from God, of salvation by His free favour through Christ.’ But as the ‘gospel’ of a church is to be sought not only in the message of its preachers, but also in its condensed creeds and in its hymns, there ought to be added to the above summary at least two splendid fragments that have the true liturgical ring about them:

(1) Christ exalted: 1Ti_3:16 (ὅò, not èåüò, is the subject, Revised Version )-

ὅò ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêß,

ἐäéêáéþèç ἐí ðíåýìáôé,

ὤöèç ἀããÝëïéò,

ἐêçñý÷èç ἐí ἔèíåóéí,

ἐðéóôåýèç ἐç êüóìῳ,

ἀíåëÞìöèç ἐí äüîῃ.

‘This fragment, in its grand lapidary style, is worthy to be placed by the side of the Apostles ‘Creed’ (Köhler, quoted by J. Strachan, Captivity and Pastoral Epistles [Westminster NT, 1910], p. 218f.).

(2) God glorified: 1Ti_6:15-16 -

ὁ ìáêἀñéïò êáὶ ìüíïò äõíÜóôçò,

ὁ âáóéëåὺò ôῶí âáóéëåõüíôùí

êáὶ êýñéïò ôῶí êõñéåõüíôùí,

ὁ ìüíïò ἔ÷ùí ἀèáíáóßáí,

öῶò ïἰêῶí ἀðñüóéôïí,

ὅí åἶäåí ïὐäåὶò ἀíèñþðùí

ïὐäὲ ἰäåῖí äýíáôáé.

ᾦ ôéìὴ êáὶ êñἀôïò áἰþíéïí.

3. The relation of the gospel to the Law.-Acts 13 records the opening of St. Paul’s official missionary Labours, and there (Act_13:38-39) we have the first indication of the Pauline attitude to the Law. In his address in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, he generalizes the incident of Cornelius; ‘Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man (Jesus) is proclaimed unto yon remission of sins; and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.’

But Romans 7, with its logical conclusion in ch. 8, is the crucial passage for the understanding of the relations of Law and gospel in the life of St. Paul, and in that of the NT Church generally. It is the Apostle’s account of the struggle, ‘often baffled, sore battled,’ that filled the years before his conversion. He also was a rich young ruler troubled with the haunting question, ‘What shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ For years he had struggled to put down sin in his own heart, to be righteous in the sight of God, passionately longing to have the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, that in peace he might will his will and work his work. In this respect he is like his spiritual kinsmen, Luther and Bunyan. In some respects, St. Paul sharpened the antithesis between Law and grace to a point that was extreme, in that it did not take account of the prophetic element in the Old Testament which was not legal. Jeremiah , 2 Isaiah, and Hosea may be instanced.

But in his day, as a general rule, it was the legal aspect of the OT that held the thought of the Jewish people. Judaism knew but one answer to such questionings as St. Paul’s-‘Keep the law’; and if a man replied, ‘I cannot,’ the answer came back remorselessly: ‘Nevertheless, keep it.’ ‘Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all’ (Jam_2:10, Gal_3:10).

As the Apostle looked back on the long, weary way ever which he had come, he found that he had travelled into ‘a dark and dreadful consciousness of sin and disaster’ (Rainy in The Evangelical Succession, p. 20). And this refers to the observance not of one part of the Law but of the whole; what appealed to the conscience of men everywhere, ceremonial Judaism, and the tradition of the elders-all that íüìïò means is included.

‘All his experience, at whatever date, of the struggle of the natural man with temptation is here [ch. 7] gathered together and concentrated in a single portraiture. [But] we shall probably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to the period before his Conversion’ (Sanday-Headlam, op. cit. p. 186). But of course, as St. Paul presents it to the churches, it is his own experience universalized. There is no possibility of winning a standing before God by the Law-

‘For merit lives from man to man,

And not from man, O Lord, to Thee.’

He had discovered also that there was no life to be hoped for from the Law. Such had never been its intention. The ‘parenthesis’ of the Law had for its purpose to create the full knowledge of sin (äéὰ íüìïí ἐðßãíùóéò ἁìáñôßáò), to produce in the conscience the conviction of it.

Moreover-such is the weakness of human nature-the Law tended to stir sin into dreadful activity, for every commandment seemed tit bring up a new crop of sins into his life.

But to the Law St. Paul held on as long as possible; his sudden conversion means as much. The Law was the one outlet to the hopes of Judaism; while to the patriotism of St. Paul Christianity seemed anti-national. Therefore he hung on till he could hold no longer-‘O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?’ (Rom_7:24). ‘Any true happiness, therefore, any true relief, must be sought elsewhere. And it was this happiness and relief which St. Paul sought and found in Christ. The last verse of Romans 7 marks the point at which the great harden which lay upon the conscience rolls away; and the next chapter begins with an uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity; “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” ’ (Sanday-Headlam, op. cit. p. 189). He had found salvation by grace, redemption in Christ, and righteousness by faith and union with Him; ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from ‘the law of sin and of death’ (Rom_8:2). The very essence of St. Paul’s gospel is to be found in his conception of Christ’s relation to the condemning Law. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, because He stood condemned in their place, and took their condemnation upon Himself; therefore St. Paul is bold to say, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal_3:13).

It is characteristic of his rebound and gladness of spirit that he, by pre-eminence in the NT, called his message the good news (åὐáããÝëëéïí, and the discovery sent him out everywhere (‘Woe is me if I preach not the gospel’) to the multitudes of burdened souls, who wore held, as he had once been held, in this strange captivity. Through all his letters, the contrast between Law and gospel as mutually exclusive is developed in the antitheses, law and faith, works and grace, wages and free gift-‘Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace’ (Gal_5:4). In the Third, the Pauline, Gospel, we have our Lord’s story of the two debtors, both of whom, when they had nothing to pay, were frankly forgiven. In the days before his conversion, St. Paul had been painfully trying to pay that debt. Brought to the knowledge that he had nothing wherewith to pay, he made the great discovery that Christ had paid the debt and set him free. And, as he who has been forgiven much will love much, therefore evangelical love burned in St. Paul’s heart, as perhaps never in the heart of man besides, to the ‘Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.’

Though the idea of the Law in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so different that it is impossible for Gal. and Heb to have come from the same pen, yet the contrast between the Law and the gospel is ‘without doubt identical with that of St. Paul, although the writer of Hebrews possibly reached that position by a different road’ (A. B. Davidson, Hebrews [Hand books for Bible Classes], p. 19). Both writers hold that Christ is the end of the Law to every one that believeth, and through Him is the Atonement made once for all. but inasmuch as the question between Jews and Gentiles had in the days of Hebrews passed beyond the stage of keen controversy, and a free gospel was preached everywhere, the writer did not feel it needful to develop the contrasts between Law and gospel in the Pauline manner. Yet ‘the ceremonial observances are in themselves worthless (Heb_7:18; Heb_10:1-4); they were meant to be nothing more than temporary (Heb_9:8-10; Heb_8:13); for God Himself in OT Scripture has abrogated them (Heb_7:18; Heb_10:9); and the believing Hebrews are exhorted to sever all connection with their countrymen still practising them (Heb_13:13)’ (A. B. Davidson, op. cit. p. 19). When the Sun has risen, all other lights pale and fade. The substance has come, the shadow disappears.

It has already been pointed out that there is no sufficient reason for assuming a schism re Law and Faith in the apostolic writings. St. Paul stood on substantially the same ground as the Twelve; his recognition by them (Gal_2:2-10), and much more his acceptance by the Church, imply as much. Nor is there on a fair and careful interpretation any antagonism between the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle of James. The question turns on the meaning of ðßóôéò. St. James is not denouncing the Pauline ðßóôéò, but the caricature of it in a narrow Judaism, which has reduced this noble faculty of the soul to the mere intellectual acceptance of a dogma-a fides informis, ethically fruitless-a faith without works (Jam_2:26). St. Paul, on the other hand, thinks of a fides formata, ‘faith which worketh by love’ (Gal_5:6). Words mean different things to different men. To St. Paul ‘works’ moan ἔñãá íüìïõ, while to St. James they correspond to what St. Paul calls ‘the fruits of the Spirit. Thus, ‘so far as the Christian praxis of religion is concerned, James and Paul are a tone, but each lays the emphasis on different syllables ‘(Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., p. 465). It is nothing strange that both go to the story of Abraham (Gen_15:6) for an apposite example, for it has been pointed out (Lightfoot, Gal.5, 1876, p. 157) that this passage was a stock subject of discussion in the Jewish schools and in Philo. St. Paul, quoting Genesis, affirms that the initial act for which Abraham was accepted in the sight of God was his faith; and St. James, thinking more of Gen_22:12 than of Gen_15:6, says that his faith was made clear, ‘seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.’ ‘Faith alone justifies, though the faith which justifies does not remain alone.’ Thus we read (Tit_3:8), ‘I will that thou affirm confidently to the end that they which have believed God may be careful to maintain good works’ (cf. the Scots Paraphrase [56], ‘Thus faith approves itself sincere, by active virtue crowned’). But white all real opposition between the apostles (whatever may be the temporal relation between Romans and James) may be disallowed, it need not be denied that the formal differences which appear in the Epistles may well have risen from the extremities to which the controversy was pushed in the different schools of thought in the Church (paulinior ipso Paulo). The Apostle was not oblivious of misinterpretation (Rom_6:1; Rom_6:15), and the school of St. James doubtless had those who carried their master’s doctrine to extreme lengths. But in the balance of Holy Scripture, the truths of which St. James and St. Paul are protagonists are not contradictories, but safe and necessary supplementaries in the body of Christian doctrine. (For the relation between the doctrines of St. Paul and St. James re the Law and Faith, reference may be made to Romans 5 [International Critical Commentary ], p. 102ff.; James [Cambridge Bible, 1878], p. 76ff.; The General Epistles [Century Bible, 1901], p. 163ff.; Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., p. 465.)

Literature.-Sanday-Headlam, Roman5 (International Critical Commentary , 1902), pp. 184-189); J. Denney, Studies in Theology, 1894, p. 100ff., ‘Romans’ in Expositor’s Greek Testament , 1900, p. 632ff., also art [Note: rt article.] ‘Law’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ; R. Rainy in The Evangelical Succession (Lects. in St. George’s Free Church, Edinburgh), 1882, p. 20ff.; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God4, 1891, pp. 63-84, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 1894, p. 293ff.; Expository Times vii. [1895-96] 297f., xii. [1900-01] 482b, xxi. [1909-10] 497f. For the Law in Hebrews, see A. S. Peake, Hebrews (Century Bible, 1902). p. 30ff.

W. M. Grant.

In simple terms ‘gospel’ means ‘good news’. When God’s Old Testament people Israel were in captivity in Babylon and God announced to them that he was going to release them and bring them back to their homeland, that was good news (Isa 40:9; Isa 52:7; Isa 61:1-2). When Jesus came to release people from the bondage of Satan and give them new life, that too was good news (Luk 4:16-19).

Based on facts

The gospel that Jesus Christ proclaimed was that the promises God gave to Old Testament Israel were now fulfilled in him. The promised kingdom of God had come, and salvation was available to all who would repent of their sins and trust in him for forgiveness (Mar 1:14-15; see KINGDOM OF GOD).

Early Christian preachers, such as Peter, John, Stephen and Paul, preached the same message. But whereas Jesus’ preaching of the gospel was during the period leading up to his death and resurrection, the early Christians’ preaching followed his death and resurrection. They therefore laid great emphasis on Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as historical facts that no one could deny. Those facts were the basis of the gospel they preached (Act 2:22-42; Act 3:12-26; Act 7:1-53; Act 13:17-41; 1Co 15:1-7).

There is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-9). It is called the gospel of God, or the gospel of the grace of God, to emphasize that it originates in God and his grace (Act 20:24; Rom 15:16; 1Th 2:2; 1Th 2:8; 1Ti 1:11). It is called the gospel of Christ, or the gospel of the glory of Christ, to emphasize that it comes only through Jesus Christ (Rom 15:19; 2Co 2:12; 2Co 4:4; 2Co 9:13). It is called the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of salvation and the gospel of peace, to emphasize that those who believe it enter God’s kingdom and receive eternal salvation and peace (Mat 9:35; Eph 1:13; Eph 6:15).

A message of life

Because the gospel is inseparably linked with the great truths of God’s saving work through Christ, ‘gospel’ has a meaning far wider than simply ‘news’. It refers to the whole message of salvation, and even to salvation itself (Mar 8:35; Mar 10:29; Rom 1:1-4; Rom 1:16-17; Eph 3:7; 1Pe 1:25; see JUSTIFICATION; SALVATION). Through it the power of God works, bringing life to those who accept it, and destruction to those who reject it (Rom 1:16; 2Co 4:3; Heb 4:2). Sometimes the single word ‘gospel’ is used for the body of Christian truth, or even for the whole new way of life that comes through Jesus Christ (Rom 16:25; Php 1:7; Php 1:27).

God entrusts the gospel to Christians so that they might preserve it and pass it on to others (Gal 2:7; 1Th 2:4; 1Ti 1:11). Therefore, while it is God’s gospel, it becomes in a sense their gospel (Rom 2:16; 1Th 1:5; 2Ti 2:8). Christians have a responsibility to spread this gospel worldwide, even though it may mean sacrificing personal desires and suffering personal hardships. They will carry out the task gladly when they appreciate what God’s love has done for them through Christ (Mat 24:14; Mar 16:15; 1Co 9:16; 1Co 9:23; 2Co 5:14; Eph 6:19-20; 1Th 2:2; see EVANGELIST; MISSION).

The "good news" of salvation; the explanation of how one can be saved from the eternal punishment of hell and receive forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ.

This term in the plural also refers to the first four books of the New Testament (see 1 Cor. 15:1-5)

—New Believer’s Bible Glossary

The Gospel is the good news that we have forgiveness of sins through Jesus. Specifically, the gospel is defined by Paul in 1Co 15:1-4: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

The gospel comes from God (Gal 1:10-12), is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16), is a mystery (Eph 6:19), and is a source of hope (Col 1:23), faith (Act 15:7), life (1Co 4:15), and peace (Eph 6:15).