Like Button

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Of First Importance

We know that "the Gospel" refers to "the Good News." Now, to be sure, there is a lot of "good news" in the Bible. Beginning with "God created" (Gen 1:1), we learn lots of "good news." He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. He met and redeemed people throughout history. He is a God known for love and grace and mercy. He causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45). He sustains all existence (Col 1:17). He sent His Son (John 3:16). Lots of good news, no doubt. But when Paul refers to "the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1) or "my gospel" (Rom 2:16), he is not referring to generally good news, but a very specific good news. It was, in fact, his specific commission from God to take that particular good news to Gentiles (Rom 1:14-15; Eph 3:1-7). It was his primary reason for writing to the Romans (Rom 1:16-17). What was that particular good news?
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word 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 in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:1-8)
This was a specific gospel -- good news -- "the gospel I preached to you." This was "of first importance" he said. What was?
  1. Christ died for our sins.
  2. He was raised on the third day.
  3. He appeared to witnesses.
Of first importance, then, was that Christ died for our sins. He didn't die to be an example. He didn't die just as a matter of injustice. He died because we sinned and payment was required. Of first importance, He was raised. He didn't stay in the grave. He wasn't a good man mistreated and dead. He rose again. Without that, we have no hope (1 Cor 15:14-19). Of first importance, He appeared to witnesses. When Paul wrote it, "most" were still alive. "Go ask them. Check it out for yourself." Critical for faith -- the gospel -- then was the evidence that a man was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again as witnesses can attest. Three items. Not really that hard. So why do you suppose that each one of them is cause for contention even among those who call themselves Christians?

We shouldn't be surprised. We are guaranteed that this particular good news is "folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Expect it. When they tell you He did not die for your sin, they undercut the gospel. Scripture says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." (Gal 3:13) Scripture says, "In Him we have redemption through His blood." (Eph 1:7) Paul wrote that we "are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith." (Rom 3:24-25) Oh, and that "propitiation" thing? That refers to appeasing God's wrath. Yes, a God angry at sin. When they eliminate Christ dying for our sins, they eliminate the gospel. When they eliminate the Resurrection, they eliminate the gospel. When they deny the witnesses, they deny the gospel. These are not peripheral; they are "of first importance."

It is foolishness and a stumblingblock (1 Cor 1:22-23) to those who don't believe. It is salvation to those who do (1 Cor 1:18). Your call. If it is foolishness or a stumblingblock to you, you might need a Savior even if you don't think so.

6 comments:

Marshal Art said...

Timely. I'm being told...once again...that this "interpretation" is somehow flawed, with...once again...no alternative supported by anything other than the assertion itself. We're just "reading into" the text what the text doesn't support, regardless of how many references to "propitiation", "died for our sins", "through His blood", "ransom" and other expressions of the connection between Christ's death and our salvation. We speak of a "weakling and miserly god"..."impotent"... only able to forgive if he gets a blood sacrifice.

This is not a god he can worship, apparently not worthy of his worship, to which I wonder how does he benefit by not doing so, even if all he says of this god is true? Is he still not the creator?

Stan said...

I hear you, Art. The god I cannot fathom is the god without justice. If there is to be any basis for morality, it has to be on the basis of justice. If we cannot count on justice, in an ultimate sense, we have no reason to be or even try to be moral. Since we do NOT see justice in this world, there must be ULTIMATE justice somewhere. There must be a Judge who is right and fair and, oh, not guilty Himself ... what we call "holy." He must be omniscient to get all the facts right and omnipotent to be able to enforce the sentence. A god that does not provide justice eliminates the need to be moral and anarchy ensues. So the god I can do without is a god who does not care about immorality. (By the way, I just read in Romans yesterday how our unrighteousness and God's wrath against it proves God's righteousness (Rom 3:5-6). But, then, I suppose that offering Scripture to people who deny Scripture is of little value at this point.)

It has always baffled me how they say, "No, that's not the right interpretation" without offering what the right interpretation (except that yours is wrong) or why it should be interpreted differently than it is presented or ... something. "I just don't like it" isn't a good argument for me.

Marshal Art said...

The bafflement continues.

Craig said...

I agree that any concept of God that doesn't involve some sort of justice for those who are unrepentant seems incomplete and inadequate. The thought that a Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or Geuvera will not receive punishment commensurate with their actions just seems to be the antithesis of justice. Of course, we also depend on God's mercy to temper that justice. Our problem is our ability to truly understand the extent of God's justice or His mercy and our attempts to define them down to something that seems fair to us.

I also remain baffled by those who insist that "your interpretation is wrong" (and cannot possibly be right), yet refuse to provide an alternate interpretation that is right. The corollary to this is when the "simplest" explanation involves the opposite of the plain meaning of the text and the use of nonstandard definitions of the terms involved.

Stan said...

I remain baffled, too. "This is what it says." "No it doesn't." "That's not an argument." "Yes it is." I think this was something from Monty Python, wasn't it?

Craig said...

Something like that. It's especially frustrating when it's something subjective.