There is something about the nature of the gospel that seems to be difficult to understand for those who are in the bondage of religion. The reason for this is simply because religion and gospel are contrary to one another. If one is truly stuck in the quagmire of institutional religious belief and behavior, then comprehending the gospel can truly be quit daunting. At least this was the problem in the first century when Jesus came into a religious world where Judaism as a religion was refined as an institutional establishment.

The Jews’ religion was well organized and supported. It was a financially supported structure of religion that guaranteed its perpetuation throughout the years by a full-time network of religious leaders. In fact, the Holy Spirit brought up this point when He spoke of those who were the pillars of Judaism: “The Pharisees who were lovers of money, heard all things and they scoffed at Him” (Lk 16:14). They did not just scoff at the person of Jesus. They scoffed at what He taught. They perceived in His teachings that if these teachings were implemented in Israel, Judaism would come crashing down. And if Judaism came crashing down, then they would be without jobs.

Therefore, the Pharisees had to scoff. They had to disputed with Jesus and His teachings. It was their survival as a religious class of leaders that was at stake. If what Jesus was teaching concerning the gospel, then it would mean the end of Jewish institutional religion. Nevertheless, at least one of the prospective young men in training to be a Pharisee during the ministry of Jesus, would later conclude that the money and position of a Pharisee was not worth it when he eventually understood the nature of the gospel. A little over a decade after the ministry of Jesus, Luke recorded the preceding statement concerning the Pharisees’ love of money. At the time of writing, Luke was in the presence of a converted Pharisee who finally realized the tremendous impact that the gospel has on one’s life. This former Pharisee wrote, “But what things were gain to me [as a Pharisee], those things I have counted lost for Christ” (Ph 3:7).

This Pharisee came to realized that being a full-time religious worker on the payroll of a religious institution was not in any way to be compared to the riches of the gospel of God’s grace. But in order to fully enjoy this effect of the gospel in his own life, he had to release himself from the bondage of institutional religion. In fact, this gospel-living convert continued to write, “I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things. I count them refuse so that I may gain Christ” (Ph 3:8). In order to gain Christ, Paul knew that he had to lose religion.

At the time of the ministry of Jesus thirty years before this statement was written, the Paul the Pharisee came to realize that if he turned away from institutional Judaism, only then could he come into fellowship with King Jesus. The Pharisees’ rejection of the gospel message that Jesus preached during His ministry was partly based on their love of money. Nothing has changed in the religious world since those days. When we seek to understand the gospel, especially that part concerning incarnational living, there is often great resistance by those who seek to be “full-time,” and thus live off the contributions of others.

If one is a full-time worker for some religious institution, then the example of the transformation from Saul to Paul could possibly be too drastic. Nevertheless, this is what the gospel will do for—or to—someone who is in the bondage of religion for the sake of money. We must be quite clear on this point. If one either takes his or her faith back into institutional religion, or refuses to answer the call of the gospel in order to be delivered from religion, then he or she does not truly understand the core nature of the gospel.

It is not that a disciple must forsake all that he has in order to follow Jesus. However, he or she must be willing to do so (See Lk 14:25-35; Mk 10:17-31). And if one is willing, then that which he or she posses as a disciple must be considered to be in use for the Master’s work. We keep in mind also that those who preach the gospel have the right to live from the gospel. “The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Co 9:14). But we must not forget that those who preach the gospel are not preaching the gospel to the saved, but to the unbelievers. And because they are preaching to unbelievers, this in many cases demands that the evangelist be supported by those who have obeyed the gospel. In order to explain this, John compliment Gaius by stating that we should support those who go forth to preach the gospel to the unbelievers.

We “do well to support them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they [evangelists] went forth for the sake of the Name, taking nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore, we ought to show hospitality to such men [support] so that we might be fellow workers for the truth [of the gospel]” (3 Jn 7,8).

In the preceding statement, we must not miss the phrase, “on their journey.” These were evangelists who left home and went forth to preach the gospel to unbelievers. Those who went forth, but were married with families, sometimes had a home base as did Philip in Caesarea. But when the call came for him to go forth and preach to a Gentile from Africa, he headed out without hesitation (At 8:4,5,26; 21:8,9). We might say that he was a “home-based” evangelist who was not on the road continually as Timothy, Titus and Paul. Peter also had a family, and thus moved from one home base to another with his family. He was not continually on the road and away from his family. An evangelist can have a home base, but he must, as Philip, reach out from that home base in order to preach the gospel to the lost.

Now consider being an evangelist wherever one might be based. It is here that we encounter some problems in reference to the purpose of preaching the gospel that delivers one from religion. The one who claims to be preaching the gospel to “the denominations,” but is simply seeking to “convert” someone from another religious group to his own religious group, does not truly understand the nature of the gospel. It may be that he is seeking to “build his church” in order to build his salary. This moves some preachers into the realm of the Pharisees who sustained the institution in order to sustain their love of money. Therefore, this person is preaching religion, not gospel

There is simply no freedom in converting one who is in the bondage of one system of religion into another system of religious bondage. Those who do not understand the nature of the gospel are simply transferring prisoners from one jail to another. Their lack of understanding of the gospel leads them to be Pharisees who are simply recruiting more contributors to join the church of those who are also in the bondage of legal institutional religion. There is no freedom in jumping from one religious box into another. Boxes are boxes, regardless of the labels that are on the outside.

[Next in series: March 28]

4. The gospel revealed in the ascension: If there were no ascension of Jesus, then we might assume that He was resuscitated in the tomb—as some of the Gnostics assumed in the second century—and then wandered off to die an old man in obscurity. For this reason the historian by inspiration of the Holy Spirit recorded what transpired with Jesus as He left this earth: While “they were looking, He was taken up and a cloud received Him out of their sight … they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up” (At 1:9,10). The ascension of Jesus into heaven is good news because we know that the resurrected Jesus was truly resurrected. He did not revived in the coolness of the tomb as some have claimed. The apostles did not experience an hallucination of Him after the resurrection, as some have claimed. They did not see a spirit after the resurrection. “Flesh and bones” ascended into heaven because “flesh and bones” had stood before them after the resurrection.

The gospel now revealed in the reign of King Jesus: It is necessary to fully understand the present kingdom reign of the resurrected Son of God in order to fully appreciate who and what He presently does in reference to the world in which we now live.

Jesus presently reigns over all things. However, some have marginalized the gospel reign of King Jesus by affirming that the church and the kingdom of Jesus are the same, thus assuming that Jesus reigns now only over those who are the church. In other words, since the kingdom is supposedly only the members of the church, then the reign of King Jesus is limited only to a small group of members throughout the world. But this cannot be true.

The preceding is an attack against the present good news that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tm 6:5). It is an attack against the fact that after Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father, He was exalted “far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named” (Ep 1:21). It is an attack against the gospel that He “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Pt 3:22).

Though we do not now see everything subject to King Jesus, this does not mean that His kingdom is limited only to the church of submitted subjects. The Father “put all things in subjection under his feet” (Hb 2:8). “For in subjecting all things to Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him” (Hb 2:8). This is gospel news! It is good news because when we think that all things are out of control, we must remember that He has all things under His control. He upholds “all things by the word of His power” (Hb 1:3).

5. The gospel of the consummation of all things: There is an end coming, not only of the kingdom reign of Jesus, but also of all things as we now know them. The last enemy that will be subjected to King Jesus is death (1 Co 15:26). “And when all things are subjected to Him [King Jesus], then will the Son also Himself be subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Co 15:28). When Jesus comes again, He will finalize His reign by returning His unique kingdom reign while the world still existed will not longer be needed after His return.

This will be the last event of the gospel, but will have nothing written about it after it has occurred. Our only information that we understand about the final coming of Jesus was recorded two thousand years ago. There will be no more revelation needed, for after the final coming of Jesus we will know all that was in the mind of God in reference to the gospel plan that was in the mind of God before the creation of the world.

Paul, as we, know the preceding gospel. His response to this knowledge should also be our response: “For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Co 9:16). If we cannot get the gospel outside the four walls of our church house, then woe should be unto us. Therefore, “knowing the fear of the Lord we persuade men” through the power of the gospel (2 Co 5:11).

We know that in the religious world there are those who are “ignorant of God’s righteousness,” and thus, they are “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (Rm 10:3). And for this reason, they “have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God” through obedience to the gospel of God’s grace (Rm 10:3). They do not know that “Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rm 10:4). They do not know these things, and because they do not know the gospel, they do not have an opportunity to obey the gospel.

Therefore, would we dare keep the message of the gospel confined to our own self-righteous box? Would we keep the message to ourselves? If we do, then we have created our own self-righteous box in which we have convinced ourselves that the gospel will take us on into heaven without uttering a word to others about the good news of the Son of God who came into this world in order to take us out of this world.

[Next in series: March 26]

We must be very clear about what we mean when we use the word “gospel.” We have previously stated that the gospel is not the Holy Spirit inspired record of either the event that revealed the gospel, nor is the gospel the event itself. Forgiveness and redemption are heavenly transactions where the God of the universe forgives the sin of every individual who responds to His love offering of forgiveness and redemption. The event that unleashed this powerful concession on earth was the atoning sacrifice that was made at the cross by our Lord Jesus Christ. With obsessive interest, therefore, we work our way through the Spirit’s record of how the God of heaven reveal on earth His plan of eternal reconciliation. It all began on earth with the fertilization of a chosen seed of a chosen woman by the Holy Spirit. And when the Seed was fully developed as a child in the womb of the woman, their was both a cry from the Seed in a barn in Bethlehem that eventually ended with a cry from a cross outside Jerusalem.

1. The gospel revealed by the incarnation: The imperfect Greek tense is used when John revealed, “In the beginning was the Word” (Jn 1:1). John again made use the continuous action in past time of this verb when he added, “The Word was with God” (Jn 1:1). Before the Word was revealed on earth, He was in continuous existence with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in eternity, in spirit form (Jn 4:24; Ph 2:6). So John continued with the imperfect tense when he declared, “The Word was God” (Jn 1:1).

It is necessary to understand that Mary, who was with child by the Holy Spirit, was pregnant with the incarnate Word of God in her womb. From eternal existence as God, “the Word was made flesh” through the medium of Mary (Jn 1:14). And now in the context of John 1, the verb tense changes. In order to explain this profound truth of God coming in the flesh of man, John used the aorist tense. This is the expression of a onetime event in past history. “The Word became flesh,” would be the best translation of the Greek phrase.

The announcement of this incarnational conception and birth was first announced on earth to shepherds: “The angel said to them, ‘Do not fear, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy that will be to all the people” (Lk 2:10). And so the saga of the incarnate God in the spirit began to unfold on earth through a babe in a barn. The first revelation of the gospel of the incarnate Son of God initiated the eternal gospel plan of God to bring His creation into eternal dwelling with Him. Without the incarnation, there would have been no good news from God. Gospel, therefore, had to be demonstrated, not simply declared from heaven.

2. The gospel revealed at the cross: If we preach the cross, without obsessing over the incarnation, then the gospel of the cross is greatly minimized, if not denied. In other words, if there were no incarnation, then the cross could be misunderstood to be only the execution of a spiritually zealous Rabbi of the Jews. Much of the world believes this.

But the One who was nailed on that cross outside Jerusalem two thousand years ago was not just a man named Jesus who was from Nazareth. It was God in the flesh. This is the conclusion that John wanted us to make by the time he finish the document of John: “These are written [about Jesus] that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God” (Jn 20:31). If we do not reach this conclusion concerning who was crucified on the cross, then the teaching that the cross was a sacrificial atonement for our sins is simply wishful thinking. The gospel of the cross, in other words, makes no sense unless there was an incarnation of the Son of God into the flesh of man.

3. The gospel revealed through the resurrection: If it were possible for the Son of God to terminate His own existence in the flesh, and then make His way on back to heaven as He eternally existed in the spirit before the incarnation, then the suffering and sacrifice of the cross would have been for only six hours. In fact, the two criminals who were crucified with Him would have suffered more than Jesus because they were still alive after Jesus died. They had to suffer the breaking of their legs in order to speed up their deaths (Jn 19:31-33).

There had to be more to the sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God than the cross alone. This sacrifice was certainly revealed through the resurrection. Now consider this for a moment. If the incarnation were somehow permanent, then a whole new door of revelation opens to us in reference to comprehending the awesomeness of the gospel. The resurrection would not simply have been a disturbance of Jesus’ peaceful sleep in physical death. It was a resurrection into a new existence wherein He continued to be lower than God but not in the form of God (Ph 2:6).

It is not surprising, therefore, that Paul began the letter of Romans with a focus on the power of the resurrection. In the initial chapter he reminded his readers first of the incarnation of the One who would be “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rm 1:3). This was a prophecy of the incarnation. But then Paul continued this thought by revealing that God’s “Son Jesus Christ our Lord” was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by the resurrection from the dead” (Rm 1:4). Paul thus introduced the extremity of the gospel of the incarnation in the resurrection of the One who would continue to demonstrate grace throughout eternity.

In other words, if there were no true incarnation into the flesh of man, then the resurrection from the dead would have no meaning. Also consider the fact that the gospel of the grace would be weak if His resurrection somehow restored Him to the “form of God” that He enjoyed before the incarnation (Ph 2:6). There would thus be little power in a resurrection that was not truly an incarnate bodily.

Resurrection assumed incarnation, and thus resurrection assumes that there was a continuation of the which was incarnate. Resurrection would have no meaning if Jesus was raised in the form of God in which He participated with Deity throughout eternity. On the contrary, the resurrected Jesus said to His disciples, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Lk 24:39). Though after His resurrection from the tomb it was no longer “flesh and blood” into which He was initially incarnate. It was “flesh and bones” in which He would dwell among his brethren.

Now continue the subject of the resurrection beyond the resurrection. The resurrection would mean little if Jesus could simply discard his “flesh and bones,” and then ascend on into heaven. If He had done this, then this act would be problematic in reference to what John continued to reveal in another letter. In the letter of 1 John, John wrote, “It has not yet been revealed what we will be” (1 Jn 3:2). Therefore, when Jesus comes again, it seems that we will not be as the “flesh and bones” that Jesus was after His own resurrection and at the time of the ascension. “Flesh and bones” was revealed to the apostles immediately after the resurrection, but one of those apostles, John, later confessed in the 1 John letter that “it has not yet been revealed what we will be.” The resurrected “flesh and bones” of Jesus was necessary to prove that the incarnate Son of God was resurrected, but His “flesh and bones” do not reveal what we will be, though we will be like Him. And being like Him is being like something.

Paul reminded the Corinthians, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no more” (2 Co 5:16). In other words, we no longer know Christ according to how He was revealed in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In John’s previous statement, it seems that he is also saying the same as Paul. We do not know Christ now according to “flesh and bones” into which He was resurrected.

There seems to be more in store for all of us when Jesus comes again than “flesh and bones.” John explained, “But we know that when He appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is” (1 Jn 3:2). What we will be is a mystery for we do not know how He is now at the right hand of God. We do know, as Paul explained, that it is an attack against the gospel of the resurrection to say that we ourselves will not experience a bodily resurrection (1 Co 15:12). If there is no resurrection of our body, then the gospel of the resurrection is false (1 Co 15:13). This would make our preaching of the gospel of the resurrection fruitless because there would be no power in a fruitless hope of a resurrection (1 Co 15:14-19).

For the Corinthians, Paul began to explain the mystery of the resurrection and our dwelling with the resurrected Jesus when He comes again. Christ was the firstfruit of our own resurrection that will occur in the last day (1 Co 15:23). This will be at the time of the consummation of all things in reference to how we now dwell, as well as to how Christ will dwell with us through eternity (See 1 Co 15:24-28).

Now with what body will we be raised will give us some thoughts concerning that body with which Jesus will come. So we reason from John’s statement in 1 John 3:2 back to the limited revelation of the body about which Paul described in 1 Corinthian 15. Paul spoke of an earthly body going into the tomb, but a heavenly body coming forth at the time of our resurrection (1 Co 15:40). It is “sown” in the earth as an earthly body that can deteriorate away, but raised as a body that can dwell for eternity (1 Co 15:42). The natural body will give way to the spiritual body (1 Co 15:44). The body to come, as Paul explains, is the same as the body that went into the tomb, but it is changed. It is changed because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Co 15:50).

So we have difficulty understanding that which is beyond the physical world, which indeed will be our spiritual and heavenly body. For this reason Paul considers all that we will be to be a mystery (1 Co 15:51). So in reviewing what John stated as to what Jesus will be when He appears a second time, we can only conclude that John indeed agreed with Paul that such is a mystery. The best commentary we have on the matter is 1 Corinthians 15. We can conclude that Jesus will not appear as a spirit. He will be in some bodily form that is tangible, for in such a body will we be raised.

So the gospel of the incarnation, cross and resurrection take on a more significant meaning when we study and preach these three together. If the incarnation were only a brief moment of thirty-three years in a ministry on earth, but was concluded at the ascension, then we might question the sacrifice of the incarnation. But if the resurrection establishes the fact that Jesus would remain in an eternal existence in the “flesh” of a spiritual body as we will be when He comes again, then the sacrifice of the eternal Son of God in the spirit becomes quite incredible for us to even begin to comprehend. Regardless of the limitations of our comprehension, however, at least one thing must be generated in our hearts. We must be thrown to our knees in eternal gratitude for the love of God that moved Him with such great as to do such a deed for us. And truly it is as Paul humbly wrote in a doxology, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God. How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out” (Rm 11:33).

[Next in series: March 23]

Before anyone can make a distinction between the Bible and the gospel, he or she must first understand that there is a difference between the work of God in the spiritual realm in reference to our sin problem, and the Bible that was the product of the Holy Spirit on earth the record all God’s planning throughout history and eventual revelation of the gospel at the cross. It is imperative to understand that there is a difference between the redemptive plan of God and the pages of inspired documents that both recorded prophecies, as well as fulfillment of those prophecies through the incarnate Son of God. Unless one makes this distinction, he or she will never understand the power of the gospel to save and transform lives.

1. Romans 1:13-16: In the context of what Paul said in Romans 1:13-16, he revealed the difference that exists between Bible and gospel. This context was written to believing disciples, not unbelievers. It is crucial to understand this before reading the entire book of Romans that is about the gospel of God’s grace, a subject that the disciples in Rome did not fully understand. They had been baptized in the name of Jesus, but they were ignorant of all the gospel implications of what this meant (See Rm 6:3-6).

The Roman disciples were unfamiliar with all the “transactions” that took place in the heavenly realm in reference to the remission of their sins. They were baptized on earth, but they did not understand all the gospel work that took place before the throne of God. They did not understand that their baptism brought them into a covenant relationship with God when God forgave them their sins. “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (Rm 6:3). Before the letter of Romans was written and received, they could not answer this question.

Romans was written to disciples who had a limited understanding of the gospel of grace. If one can understand this reason for Paul writing the, then he can understand the theme of the message about which we are writing. This brings us to the context of Romans 1:13-16.

In Paul’s introductory statement he wanted the Roman disciples to understand that he had previously planned to come to Rome. Wherever he discovered that there were those who had been baptized in the name of Jesus, he desired to go to them in order to explain further the gospel that they had obeyed. His desire to teach disciples in reference to the unsearchable treasures of God’s grace is certainly an example for us to do the same (See Rm 11:33). So the reason he wanted to go to Rome was “that I might have some fruit among you [Christians] also” (Rm 1:13). Paul wanted to go to Rome in order to produce some fruit among those who had already been baptized in the name of Jesus, but understood little concerning the gospel of God’s grace. This should be the desire of every evangelist. If one discovers those who have been baptized in the name of Jesus, then it should be his desire to go to these people in order to produce some gospel fruit among then by explaining to the them more perfectly the way of the Lord (See At 18:24-26).

Paul said to his readers that he was a debtor to produce fruit among the disciples in Rome as he had produced fruit among all the Gentiles (Rm 1:14). However, in this statement he has said nothing about how the fruit was to be produced in the hearts of the Roman disciples. The word “fruit” that he used was certainly not a reference to preaching the gospel in order to produce more converts. The Roman disciples had already been baptized in the name of Jesus. They had already obeyed the gospel, though they understood little about what happened in the spiritual realm when they were baptized. Paul thus desired to go to them. He wanted to produce fruit among those who had already obeyed the gospel, but were in need of more instruction in matters concerning the gospel.

Paul then revealed the means by which he would produce fruit among those who had already obeyed the gospel. “So as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you [Christians] also who are at Rome” (Rm 1:15). It was the gospel that would produce fruit in the hearts of those who had already responded to the name of Jesus. In this context it was the gospel that would continue to produce spiritual fruit (growth) in the hearts of those who did not understand everything concerning the unsearchable riches of God’s gospel of grace. All our spiritual growth as Christians, therefore, must be attributed to the gospel. If we would claim that we have spiritually grown on our own, then we are a cult, or a member thereof.

Because Paul had been prevented in the past from making his way to Rome, he may have been somewhat apprehensive about making the journey (Rm 1:13). Therefore, in the letter of Romans he simply wrote the textbook on the gospel of grace that he wanted to share personally with the Roman disciples if he were possibly prevented again from making his way to Rome. If he eventually did make his way to Rome, then the letter of Romans would be the textbook they must study in preparation for the “Gospel Bible Class” that would be conducted upon his arrival.

This context inspires us to take another look at Romans 1:16, which we have always interpreted to refer to preaching the gospel to unbelievers. But in this context, the statement refers to preaching the gospel to believers in order that spiritual fruit might be produced and gospel living enhanced.

Our point here is that there was a difference between the message of the gospel and the message of the letter of Romans. In the letter, Paul wrote about the gospel, but the letter itself was not the gospel. He wrote in the letter that he intended to go to Rome. But the writing of his intentions was not the gospel. When we speak of the gospel of God’s grace—the theme of the letter of Romans—grace is something that is heavenly. Grace originated from the heart of God and was revealed on earth through the cross. Grace was a heavenly gift that was revealed through an earthly event, which subsequently was explained in words about thirty years after the event in the letter of Romans. Therefore, we must not confuse the gospel of grace that was revealed from heaven with a document that explains the whole gospel story.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: Though Romans speaks of the heavenly gospel of grace that originated out of heaven, in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul explained the historical event that revealed this gospel on earth.

Paul reminded the Corinthians of “the gospel which I preached to you” (1 Co 15:1). The gospel was preached, received, stood within, and by which the Corinthians were saved (1 Co 15:1,2). However, in the first two verses of 1 Corinthians Paul wrote only about the Corinthians response to the gospel. They heard the gospel from Paul. They believed the gospel. They repented, and subsequently obeyed the gospel. But their hearing, believing and repenting was not the gospel. This was only their response to the gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 Paul recorded the historical event that stimulated the Corinthians’ response to the gospel. He recalled that “Christ died for our sins,” He was buried, and “He rose again on the third day.” All these things occurred at least twenty years before Paul inscribed the words of 1 Corinthians. Therefore, the letter of 1 Corinthians is not the gospel. The letter was composed of words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. In these words the apostle Paul wrote in order to recount the historical event that God used in order to reveal His gospel grace to humanity on earth.

But we must not miss a very important point in this record that speaks of the historical event of the gospel. The crucifixion event would have been only the execution of another Jew if it were not for the statement, “for our sins.” The revelation, “for God so loved the world” (Jn 3:16), could only be illustrated through the incarnational offering of God the Son on a cross. The offering for our sins on the cross, therefore, was God’s revelation of the gospel to humanity that had been in the plan of God since before the creation.

The Bible contains all the recorded history of this good news. It contains all the events that led up to the offering. And finally, it contains a revelation of all that is meant when we use the simple word “gospel.” Therefore, in preaching the gospel the first thing the evangelist must do is make a distinction between the gospel that was revealed from the throne of God, and the historical event of this revelation on earth. The next thing we must do is make a distinction between the historical record of the gospel event and the gospel itself. If we do not do this we will continue to hold up the Bible and erroneously proclaim, “This is the gospel.” We must understand that we teach the Bible, but we proclaim the gospel.

[Next in series: March 21]

INTRODUCTION
In order to preach the gospel, we must continually rehearse our knowledge of the nature of the gospel. We must do this lest we bring into the message of the gospel the religious inclinations of men, and thus turn the gospel into a religious system of justification through meritorious law-keeping. In the first century, this invasion into the church occurred. Two Holy Spirit-inspired books were written to meet the challenge of keeping meritorious law-keeping out of the gospel.

Those to whom Paul wrote the letter of Romans were trying to turn the gospel of the grace of God into a legal system of self-justification through law-keeping. Those to whom he wrote the letter of Galatians were preaching gospel, but they were adding to the gospel the necessity of meritorious law-keeping. They were thus preaching “another gospel” (Gl 1:6-9). Therefore, in order to introduce any study on the subject of the gospel, we must be very clear as to what we understand to be the truth of the gospel. We must do this lest we become “other-gospel” preachers as opposed to gospel preachers.

The gospel is a good news message.

Since the Greek word from which the English word “gospel” is used to translate its meaning into English, means “good news,” then we must refresh ourselves as to what the good news is. We have found that too many people have been diverted from what the good news is. In other words, they have been diverted from gospel by confusing it with law. The law of God is certainly good (Rm 5:17). But the law of God is not good news for any person. In fact, it is bad news in reference to our justification before God. “By works of law no flesh will be justified” (Gl 21:16). James referred to this when he wrote the following statement concerning law: “For whoever will keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he has become guilty of all” (Js 2:10).

One sin makes a sinner, and since sin exists only where there is law, then law reveals death, not good news. Paul stated it as follows: “For without law, I was once alive. But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Rm 7:9). Law brought spiritual death and separation from God. But gospel brings life, and because it brings life, it is good news. It is for this reason that gospel is not law. Notice this comparison in the following words of the Holy Spirit: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ [gospel] has freed you from the law of sin and death” (Rm 8:2). Glory hallelujah! And once delivered from the law of sin and death, “do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage” (Gl 5:1).

There is an obvious conclusion from the preceding that is necessary to make. Law can never be gospel, for gospel is good news. It is good news in the fact that one can be justified before God without perfect obedience to any system of law. Therefore, if one is preaching law as the gospel, then he does not understand the gospel. If he preaches the gospel as law, then he still does not understand that he is preaching the law of sin and death. He is preaching “another gospel” that is contrary to the gospel. (More on this later.)

If the preceding thoughts do not shock “other-gospel” preachers into some sense of gospel reality, then they have joined the crowd of those that Paul described as “false brethren secretly brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gl 2:4),

It is absolutely critical to understand this point before continuing on in our efforts to understand the truth of the gospel. If one cannot separate law from gospel, then he can never be an effective gospel preacher. If one preaches a “legalized gospel,” then he is “another-gospel preacher” (Gl 1:6-9). And sadly, this is the predicament in which many preachers find themselves today because they have either forgotten the gospel, or they never initially understood the truth of the gospel.

Sometimes it is as it was in our own case. We went off to a Bible school where we were overwhelmed with law. We eventually graduated, but we understood law more than gospel. We were simply taught that there was no difference between gospel and law. The gospel of freedom in Christ and law were so fused together that it took no little time to separate the two when we went forth to “preach the gospel.” We became more effective when we took down our “law degree” in order that the gospel would shine forth in its simplicity. And once we finally appreciated the freedom of the grace that Jesus introduced into the world of misguided religiosity, it was a refreshing time of restoration from the presence of the Lord. It was just as Peter said to some law-obsessed Jews two thousand years ago: “Repent and be converted so that your sins may be blotted out, in order that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (At 3:19).

[Next in series: March 19

[The following is the preface to a forthcoming book.]

The subject of this study can be easily misunderstood, especially by those who have drifted away to religion from the nature of the gospel. For this reason we must be very clear on what we are trying to say, for we all have a little religion in us. We must be definitive in our comments because those who have more religion than gospel find it quite difficult to understand the true nature of the gospel. When confronted with the truth of the gospel, the religion in us often makes us to become very defensive in reference to the beliefs and behavior of our particular religious group. Just ask the Jews during the ministry of Jesus.

If there are areas where we are not clear on what we are trying to say, please be patient with us until you have finished the final chapter. But because the evangelistic outreach of the church seems to be waning, we have deemed it necessary that something be said as a caution to where we are in reference to the true nature of the gospel, which nature seems to a great extent be fading away.

For those of the West who would be zealous to preach their understanding and application of the gospel, we would also write a note of caution. The nature of the gospel to a great extent has been Westernized. We say this because of the impact that the gospel had on the lives of the early disciples when compared to its impact today on the typical Western citizen. When we compare the behavior of the Western disciple today with the disciples of the first century, there seems to be a stark difference. The reason for this is more in reference to culture than belief. Nevertheless, the New Testament paints a somewhat different picture of the first century Christian as compared to the typical Christian today who resides in a very materialistic society.

Contrary to the culture of the early disciples, ownership of possessions and the right to prosperity are strong cultural values of the West. Therefore, we would certainly be naive if we did not recognize that these cultural values have not influenced the response of the typical Western disciple to the gospel. In other words, we often believe the gospel, but we will not allow the truth of the gospel to infringe on our right to posses and prosper in abundance.

What we have discovered is that some who champion the gospel are doing so only by preaching the historical events of the gospel, not so much the impact of the gospel on the individual who seeks to live by the gospel. Life-changing gospel motivation as incarnational living is another subject that is often ignored. If you question this assessment, then ask yourself when was the last time you heard a sermon on the incarnation of the Son of God and our response to have this mind of Christ and behavior in our own lives (See Ph 2:5-8)? One might even take a moment to read in Philippians 3:7,8 in order to see the impact that the truth of the gospel had on the life of Paul.

What inspired the writing of this book has been something that seems to always plague the disciples in reaching out with the gospel to those of the world, regardless of what society in which they live. This is especially true in reaching out to those who have a common faith in Jesus Christ, but are somewhat disoriented in reference to connecting all the dots concerning the truth of the gospel. Many religious groups realize this. But unless we ourselves can connect all the gospel dots, we will continue to preach confusion. But if we can sort ourselves out on his matter, then there is a tremendous opportunity in the religious world to preach the gospel that frees the minds and hearts of the people from the bondage of religion.

An historical example is often good in order to remind ourselves from where we may have drifted. For example, we remember reading the biography of a gospel preacher who worked in the northwestern part of America in the early 1900s. We read with interest in his biography a very interesting practice that he and other gospel preachers followed in their efforts to preach the gospel to churches who were stuck in the religion of their forefathers. The author of the biography stated that it was the common practice of gospel preachers in those times to preach nightly meetings that would carry on for weeks. He explained that the reason for this was that the request for coming to different churches to preach the gospel seemed to be unending. People wanted to hear more about the gospel.

So he explained that which he and other gospel preachers would do in their meetings. They would go to a particular religious group and ask if they could come and preach the gospel to the entire group. Since there were few preachers in the northwestern part of America in the early 1900s, the leaders of the churches almost always asked them to begin immediately a meeting in their church building.

The meeting would subsequently proceed with nightly preaching on the subject of the gospel. After about two weeks of preaching the gospel, resulting in the baptism of several who were meeting with that particular group, they would move on to another church and continue preaching the gospel. Sometimes they were asked to move on because they were baptizing too many of the host church members. Nevertheless, they would go from one religious group to another until the requests to come and preach the gospel were exhausted, or rejected. The preaching would carry on nightly from six to eight weeks. The result was that scores of people would obey the gospel in baptism for the remission of their sins.

In our travels throughout almost five decades of preaching, we have experienced the same. We have recently found that it is more productive and far reaching to work with the pastors/preachers of different religious groups in studying the gospel together, and then inspiring them to preach the gospel anew to their own churches. God has opened an incredible door to thousands of pastors/preachers throughout the world who want to study the Bible in order to better understand the gospel that is revealed in the Bible.

The common confession that the leaders have is that they believe in Jesus Christ, but they have come to understand that they still need studies in the gospel. This is particularly true of independent churches who have come out of the bondage of mainline traditional religion. But because many of these leaders have had no formal education, they are seeking someone to come and teach them more accurately the truth of the gospel.

This is certainly a wonderful opportunity in these days for preaching the gospel in reference to those things about which we agree concerning the gospel. It is simply an overwhelming open door that has been thrown open by sincere Bible-believing leaders who just want to know more about the gospel.

Regardless of how great the opportunity, however, a problem often develops in the circle of those who claim to know the gospel, but have often turned the gospel into “another gospel” that is patterned after their own heritage and theologies. There are those who have circled around and become that from which they fled in their own restoration movement. They have subsequently lost touch with the spirit of trying to work with others in reference to the fundamentals of the gospel about which we agree. Instead of focusing on the gospel that moves us closer together, we seem to have this obsession to focus more on our differences that move us further away from one another.

This is often the curse of restoration movements, especially those movements that were actually legal restorations of law. By legal restoration, we mean those who have sought to restore law by which they would judge others, and not the gospel of grace. Consequently, when they approach others with whom they disagree on interpreted law, they find it difficult to discuss Bible because they are more apt to debate law. And in communities throughout the world, those who have claimed to be a true restoration of the “truth” have made so many enemies that they are no longer invited for any discussions. This is certainly a sad situation that the debaters of law have developed in communities throughout the world.

One of the best examples to use to illustrate the preceding problem is the Lord’s Supper. Throughout the continent on which we now live there are a great number of preachers who think they are preaching the gospel when they are preaching the Lord’s Supper. They believe that the Lord’s Supper is a part of the gospel. Therefore, they believe that they must preach every aspect of the Lord’s Supper in order to be preaching the entire gospel. But they are mistaken.

The result of making the Lord’s Supper a part of the message of the gospel is actually a diversion from the gospel. It has actually creating a stumbling block for many of those groups who claim to be preaching the gospel. The proof of this is that those who preach the Lord’s Supper as the gospel have actually divided among themselves on this matter because of supposed violations of legalities surrounding the Supper. For example, they have divided over the substance of the bread and fruit of the vine, the number of containers by which to serve the fruit of the vine, as well as the frequency and ceremonial performance of the Supper on Sunday. Some have even divided over the proper attire that should be worn when serving the Supper.

One would think that all this division would at least turn the light on to the fact that the Supper is not the gospel. When Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of Me,” He established the Supper as a law in remembrance of the gospel. The irony of the matter is that the observance of the
Supper is to bring us together around the table, not divide us. But because of so much contention that often arises on the subject, the Supper has often become the occasion to drive people away from one another. This is not gospel behavior. Some have legalized certain ceremonial systems of the Supper to the extent that it has become an opportunity to reveal divisive attitudes that are contrary to the unity that the gospel should produce. This cannot be what Jesus had in mind when He instituted the Supper.

Because of division that is sometimes caused around the observance of the Supper, one would think that legal theologians would conclude that the Supper cannot be the gospel. Therefore, we believe that those who would divide over the Supper have as much difficulty in understanding the truth of the gospel as those who are trying to dig themselves out of the confusion of religion.

The sad result of all the clamor over rites, rituals and ceremonies, therefore, has not only divided those who claim to be the guardians of the gospel, it has also led supposed “gospel preachers” away from being invited to preach the gospel to other religious groups. Others have witnessed all the division that supposed “gospel preachers” have caused over various issues, and thus they have concluded that they do not want such debaters to come into their midst. They conclude that if such “gospel preachers” cannot determine the difference between the gospel and issues surrounding law, then they simply do not want such preachers to come among them and cause the same chaos.

Our inability to distinguish between gospel and law sometimes makes it difficult for others to understand the distinctiveness of the gospel. We ourselves have often confused the two, and as a result of our own confusion, thousands of doors have been closed to preaching the gospel. Some of our literature that we have sent throughout the world has often perpetuated the problem. Since there is little distinction made between the gospel and law in the literature, others cannot fully appreciate the simplicity of the gospel since it is often wrapped in the shroud of so many religious rites, rituals and ceremonies. Therefore, instead of preaching the unify truth of the gospel to a world that is trying to come out of legally defined religion, some of our literature is actually teaching a legally defined “gospel” that one must obey in order to justify oneself before God.

We believe in a restoration of the gospel, not in a restoration of legalities that set aside the gospel of grace and the freedom that one enjoys as a result of his or her obedience to the gospel. We believe in the total sanctification of the cross, not in our ability to sanctify ourselves by our own performance of either law or good works. This is the message that many in the religious world are yearning to hear.

There is something about the nature of the gospel that seems to be difficult to understand for those who are in the bondage of religion. The reason for this is simply because religion and gospel are contrary to one another. If one is truly stuck in the quagmire of institutional religious belief and behavior, then comprehending the gospel can truly be quit daunting. At least this was the problem in the first century when Jesus came into a religious world where Judaism as a religion was refined as an institutional establishment.

The Jews’ religion was well organized and supported. It was a financially supported structure of religion that guaranteed its perpetuation throughout the years by a full-time network of religious leaders. In fact, the Holy Spirit brought up this point when He spoke of those who were the pillars of Judaism: “The Pharisees who were lovers of money, heard all things and they scoffed at Him” (Lk 16:14). They did not just scoff at the person of Jesus. They scoffed at what He taught. They perceived in His teachings that if these teachings were implemented in Israel, Judaism would come crashing down. And if Judaism came crashing down, then they would be without jobs.

Therefore, the Pharisees had to scoff. They had to disputed with Jesus and His teachings. It was their survival as a religious class of leaders that was at stake. If what Jesus was teaching concerning the gospel, then it would mean the end of Jewish institutional religion. Nevertheless, at least one of the prospective young men in training to be a Pharisee during the ministry of Jesus, would later conclude that the money and position of a Pharisee was not worth it when he eventually understood the nature of the gospel. A little over a decade after the ministry of Jesus, Luke recorded the preceding statement concerning the Pharisees’ love of money. At the time of writing, Luke was in the presence of a converted Pharisee who finally realized the tremendous impact that the gospel has on one’s life. This former Pharisee wrote, “But what things were gain to me [as a Pharisee], those things I have counted lost for Christ” (Ph 3:7).

This Pharisee came to realized that being a full-time religious worker on the payroll of a religious institution was not in any way to be compared to the riches of the gospel of God’s grace. But in order to fully enjoy this effect of the gospel in his own life, he had to release himself from the bondage of institutional religion. In fact, this gospel-living convert continued to write, “I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things. I count them refuse so that I may gain Christ” (Ph 3:8). In order to gain Christ, Paul knew that he had to lose religion.

At the time of the ministry of Jesus thirty years before this statement was written, the Paul the Pharisee came to realize that if he turned away from institutional Judaism, only then could he come into fellowship with King Jesus. The Pharisees’ rejection of the gospel message that Jesus preached during His ministry was partly based on their love of money. Nothing has changed in the religious world since those days. When we seek to understand the gospel, especially that part concerning incarnational living, there is often great resistance by those who seek to be “full-time,” and thus live off the contributions of others.

If one is a full-time worker for some religious institution, then the example of the transformation from Saul to Paul could possibly be too drastic. Nevertheless, this is what the gospel will do for—or to—someone who is in the bondage of religion for the sake of money. We must be quite clear on this point. If one either takes his or her faith back into institutional religion, or refuses to answer the call of the gospel in order to be delivered from religion, then he or she does not truly understand the core nature of the gospel.

It is not that a disciple must forsake all that he has in order to follow Jesus. However, he or she must be willing to do so (See Lk 14:25-35; Mk 10:17-31). And if one is willing, then that which he or she posses as a disciple must be considered to be in use for the Master’s work. We keep in mind also that those who preach the gospel have the right to live from the gospel. “The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Co 9:14). But we must not forget that those who preach the gospel are not preaching the gospel to the saved, but to the unbelievers. And because they are preaching to unbelievers, this in many cases demands that the evangelist be supported by those who have obeyed the gospel. In order to explain this, John compliment Gaius by stating that we should support those who go forth to preach the gospel to the unbelievers.

We “do well to support them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they [evangelists] went forth for the sake of the Name, taking nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore, we ought to show hospitality to such men [support] so that we might be fellow workers for the truth [of the gospel]” (3 Jn 7,8).

In the preceding statement, we must not miss the phrase, “on their journey.” These were evangelists who left home and went forth to preach the gospel to unbelievers. Those who went forth, but were married with families, sometimes had a home base as did Philip in Caesarea. But when the call came for him to go forth and preach to a Gentile from Africa, he headed out without hesitation (At 8:4,5,26; 21:8,9). We might say that he was a “home-based” evangelist who was not on the road continually as Timothy, Titus and Paul. Peter also had a family, and thus moved from one home base to another with his family. He was not continually on the road and away from his family. An evangelist can have a home base, but he must, as Philip, reach out from that home base in order to preach the gospel to the lost.

Now consider being an evangelist wherever one might be based. It is here that we encounter some problems in reference to the purpose of preaching the gospel that delivers one from religion. The one who claims to be preaching the gospel to “the denominations,” but is simply seeking to “convert” someone from another religious group to his own religious group, does not truly understand the nature of the gospel. It may be that he is seeking to “build his church” in order to build his salary. This moves some preachers into the realm of the Pharisees who sustained the institution in order to sustain their love of money. Therefore, this person is preaching religion, not gospel

There is simply no freedom in converting one who is in the bondage of one system of religion into another system of religious bondage. Those who do not understand the nature of the gospel are simply transferring prisoners from one jail to another. Their lack of understanding of the gospel leads them to be Pharisees who are simply recruiting more contributors to join the church of those who are also in the bondage of legal institutional religion. There is no freedom in jumping from one religious box into another. Boxes are boxes, regardless of the labels that are on the outside.

A. Identifying the oxymoron:

Have you ever heard the statement from some preacher, “We must think outside the box.” This statement will never be stated by one who knows the true nature of the gospel. It is an institutional statement. By this we mean that the very definition of institutional religion is that it creates boxes of religious rites, rituals and ceremonies that define the particular box of which one is a member. After all the rites, rituals and ceremonies are agreed upon by the adherents, then a label (name) is placed on the box in order to identity and separate the box from all other religious boxes in the community. This is institutional religious belief and behavior. It is not gospel living.

With a tagged name on the box, and one’s faithful self-sanctifying adherence to the systems of the religion within the box, then one is a faithful member of that box. Those who are preachers of boxed religions dare not speak out against any of the identifying characteristics that make the box distinct from all other boxes in the community. If they do, then they will be tagged as rebels, and thus are in danger of losing their support. They are in danger of being disengaged from “employment” by the box maintenance authorities. This is the curse of the full-time leaders of boxed religion.

Boxes are often perpetuated simply by intimidating the “rebels” of the boxes to “fall in line” with the heritage of each box from which they receive their support. If they endanger their boxed heritage, then they are told that their support will vanish with the box. Welcome to the world of religion and the threat of what Jesus taught the Pharisees who loved money. As the Pharisees who recognized that the gospel that Jesus preached would destroy their religious box, those today who recognize the freedom from boxed religion that is within the nature of the gospel, will often fight against that which would destroy their means of support.

Those who have discovered the truth of the gospel must first recognize that they are in a box that is defined by specific religious rites, rituals or ceremonies. They must allow the gospel to deliver them from this bondage. Religious precepts and practices define the box in which they are in bondage. Therefore, unless they recognize that which causes boxed institutional religiosity, they will always remain in bondage.

Now here is the problem. Unless one truly understands the truth of the gospel, he or she can never come out of religious boxes, for religious boxes are always legally defined. They are legally distinguished from one another, and accordingly named after the heritage of each box. Therefore, unless one is willing to “count all things loss [concerning his present religious box] for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” then there can be no birth into the freedom one has in Christ (Ph 3:8). True freedom is never truly understood if one does not realize the religious box in which he or she dwells. Also, one can never truly understand that deliverance from one legally defined box into another legally defined box is no deliverance at all. It is simply moving from one prison to another.

The title of this chapter is an oxymoron. We like the Webster’s Dictionary definition of this word: An oxymoron is “a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas or terms are combined.” “Gospel” and “box” are opposites. They are contrary to one another. When we speak of “gospel,” we are speaking of freedom from religion. When we speak of “boxes,” we are speaking of bondage in religion. These two—gospel and religious boxes—are simply contrary to one another. There is simply no such thing as a “gospel box.” If one believes there is, then he or she does not truly understand the truth of the gospel. If one believes that his box is “scriptural,” then the gospel that he is preaching may actually be the “other gospel” about which Paul warned the Galatians (See Gl 1:6-9). In other words, if the foundation of one’s box is defined by law, then Paul reminded the Galatians, “You have been severed from Christ, you who seek to be justified by law. You have fallen from grace” (Gl 5:4). Those who would seek to define their box legally by law should read this statement again. And once read, he or she should digest the letter that Paul wrote to the Romans. In that letter one statement should be a warning to all those who would seek to live legally in any righteous box: “For sin will not have dominion over you, for you are not under law, but under grace” (Rm 6:14). Sin always dwells in legal boxes. In fact, religious boxes are always the product of legalistic theology.

B. Clarifying religion:

The more one is into religion, the more difficult it is to understand the gospel of grace. The reason for this is simple. Religion depends on the legal performance of the adherent who is associated with a particular religion. The legal performance of the adherent of ceremonies of a particular religion, therefore, always results in two unfortunate conclusions: First, the adherent of a particular religion satisfies himself legally that he is justified before God because of his legal performance of the codes that define the boxed religion of which he is a member. He has convinced himself that he is sanctified of sin if he faithfully adheres to what defines his particular religious box. For example, once he goes through some performing ceremony on Sunday morning, his conscience is cleared for the week. It is cleared because he has convinced himself that he is found faithful through his legal performance of the required Sunday morning “acts of worship” that are characteristic with his particular church.

Second, one must be assured that his particular religious group is the correct sect, and thus legally defined as distinct from all the other boxes in his community. Therefore, there are certain legal codes that must be believed and performed in order to convince the adherent that he is connected with the “true church.” In this scenario of validation, the adherent uses the New Testament as a legal code of doctrine in order to build a structure of law that reassures all the adherents that they are the right church. Every other group in the community is the wrong church because they do not conform to the legally defined laws of the right church. As a result, the legalities of the “right church” become more important than the gospel of the incarnate Son of God. When the legal religionist shows up at the assembly, his focus in on the correct legal performance of assembly ceremonies. His obsession, therefore, is more on legal performance than on the gospel of the atoning sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God. It is for this reason that the assemblies of religionists will almost always turn into opportunities to entertain those who come together for their own amusement.

We would assert that the preceding two propositions are entirely contrary to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The two points focus on man, as well as our ability to construct some form of “doctrine” by which we would assure ourselves that we are the legally correct church. But the preceding points focus on the performance of man, and not on the gospel of grace. The first point sets up the adherents of the “right church” for endless squabbles concerning which points of “doctrine” are correct and applicable for believers today to perform. The second point throws all the adherents of the “right church” into the quagmire of the first point, that is, performing all the required codes of identity in order to identify the “right church.” This is not gospel behavior. Both scenarios marginalize the gospel, and thus move the adherents into institutional religion.

[More to come.]