Paul's Gospel

[Guest]

The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians and described his gospel in chapter 15.

The first four verses say this:

"Moreover , brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, (2) by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.(3) For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4) and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, "


Yet we read this in Luke chapter 18 verses 31 through 34.

"Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prohpets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. (32) For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. (33) And they will scourge Him and put Him to death. And the third day He will rise again." (34) But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken. "

My question concerning these two scripture passages is this. If the desciples did not know or understand the basic elements of what Paul described as the gospel that he preached, then what gospel were they preaching for the three and a half years before the death of Christ?

This incedent in Luke took place shortly before the Lords entry into Jerusalem.

I would appreciate any of your thoughts and comments on this.

God bless you all, Roger

[Guest]

[color=cyan]My question concerning these two scripture passages is this. If the desciples did not know or understand the basic elements of what Paul described as the gospel that he preached, then what gospel were they preaching for the three and a half years before the death of Christ? [/color]

Good question Roger. Peter knew Jesus was the Christ as Jesus acknowledged yet they did'nt understand the full story of his death and resurrection that was needed to redeem mankind and defeat the devil. They expected Christ to overthrow the Romans and establish the jewish messianic kingdom in Jerusalem so apparently they must have been preaching only part of the true gospel, not the whole story. They knew about repentence ,they heard the sermon on the mount, they heard about the kingdom of God but the suffering,death and resurrection part they did'nt understand until after the risen Christ appeared and spoke to them.

[Guest]

Thank you for your response Steve 7150. Was their gosple different then Paul's gosple then? When the seventy were sent out, what were they preaching? Certainly not Pauls gosple. Or was it just a piece of it and they hadn't received the full revelation yet. Were they just telling people to repent for the kingdom? And what did that mean?

[Guest]

Very interesting point, what the heck did they preach? I can only guess that as Jesus said "i have much to tell you but you can not bear it now." It could be that if it was to well known that Christ had to suffer and die then maybe his disciples would have tried to protect him. Even preaching repentence was awfully important because that prepared those with a soft heart to appreciate what Christ would do in the near future, so maybe it was a prepatory type of preaching.
Now if you could give it a try , can you try to answer my thread about Luke 24.51?

[Guest]

They preached the same thing Jesus preached during His time here, the good news that the Kingdom was at hand. The details of what the king was to do hadn't happened yet chronologically...so it wasn't that Paul was teaching a 'different' gospel, he was simply preaching the updated version of the original good news.

[Guest]

It seems to me that it would have been futile to preach the whole story, even if they understood it before it happened. It was inconceivable that the Messiah could be crucified; "cursed is he who hangs on a tree". The Messiah cursed? However, the resurrection changed the story, validated who Jesus was. Apart from the resurrection, we would have no story to tell.

On the other hand, they could preach repentance and the new ethic Jesus preached as in the sermon on the mountain.

[Guest]

They preached the same thing Jesus preached during His time here, the good news that the Kingdom was at hand. The details of what the king was to do hadn't happened yet chronologically...so it wasn't that Paul was teaching a 'different' gospel, he was simply preaching the updated version of the original good news.

Well said, Matt! I fully agree.

I am quoting from my essay in another thread "The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ" ---- chapter 1. The quote below seems relevant to the question:


In examining further the true message of salvation, we may ask ourselves how we become regenerated. What do we actually do to appropriate the sacrifice of Christ so that we may have the enabling grace to do right and avoid wrong? If we repent of our way of living, submit ourselves to Jesus as Lord of our lives, and become baptized into Christ, then we shall enter the Kingdom of God now, and Christ’s enabling grace will become available to us. John the Baptizer and Jesus proclaimed the same message concerning the Kingdom of God:

The Gospel According to John the Baptizer
According to John the Baptizer in the words we just read, there were two requirements necessary to become a member of the Kingdom:
1.Repent
2. Be baptized. The end or purpose of baptism was the affirmation of one’s decision, the entrance into the door of salvation, and the beginning of the process of sending sin out of one’s life, and thus the bearing of fruit that is worthy of repentance.

The Gospel According to Jesus
Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Jesus proclaimed the same requirements! Repent and be baptized.

The Gospel According to Peter
After Peter had addressed the men of Judea, showing that God had raised Jesus from the death, and that they had crucified Him, the following exchange took place:

Acts 2:36-39
“... Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the sending away of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

What were Peter’s requirements to appropriate the benefits of gospel? Repent and be baptized! The only difference was that now that Jesus had been raised, the gift of His Spirit was given.

Now some claim that John the baptizer and Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, but the apostle Paul opened the new order of the Church, by preaching the gospel of grace.

C.I. Scofield, in his notes on the Sermon on the Mount went so far as to affirm that it is neither the duty nor the privilege for the Christian to obey the laws of Christ expressed in those chapters ---- that they were the laws of the kingdom offered to the Jews, but that since the Jews rejected the kingdom it was to be postponed. Such teachers declare that now that we are under grace, we should listen to Paul, for the words of Christ no longer apply to us who live in the age of grace.

But as Paul made abundantly clear, there is only one gospel. That one gospel is the gospel of the Kingdom and Paul himself preached it!

The Gospel According to Paul
Acts 28:30,31 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

But did Paul declare the necessity of repentance, as did John the Baptizer, Jesus, and Peter? Or did he teach that all that is necessary is to believe in the atoning work of Christ? In explaining to King Agrippa his experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus he concluded by saying,

Acts 26:19,20 "Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.

Does Paul’s gospel not resemble that proclaimed by John the baptizer?
Yes, Paul preached repentance, and doing deeds worthy of repentance. But did Paul proclaim the necessity of baptism? We read:

Acts 18: 8 ...many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

It was after they heard Paul that they were baptized. The necessity of baptism must have been implicit or explicit in Paul’s message. Otherwise, why would they get baptized? So Paul’s gospel not only “resembled” that of John the Baptizer. It was identical!

But is baptism really necessary in order to get right with God? Let’s look at the life of Paul himself. When were his sins washed away? Was it on the road to Damascus when Jesus spoke to him, and he submitted? That experience certainly turned him around. He was blinded, and was then ready to do what the Lord Jesus told him to do. But later, it was Ananias who counseled him to be baptized. From Paul’s own account of the matter, Ananias said:

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

So it was not when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, but at his baptism that Paul had his sins washed away.

[Guest]

In Acts chapter one just before the Lord was taken up in the cloud the desciples asked Jesus in verse 6:

"Therefore when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?".

Don't you think that is kind of a window for us to see into their thinking at the time? I believe they were expecting Isreal as a nation to be restored
as a kingdom not under Roman rule.

The disciples were definately preaching repentance for the kingdom but the word clearly tells us they had no knowledge of the death and ressurection of Christ. The death and ressurection of Christ is the bedrock of the gosple. So I'm not as confident that they were preaching the same thing and that Paul just had a more updated version.

[Guest]

So I'm not as confident that they were preaching the same thing and that Paul just had a more updated version.

Silly illustration, but...

When I was a kid I figured kissing was all that was necessary for a child to be conceived, but I still recognized that the birth of a child was good news. The fact that I now understand that it takes more than kissing doesn't change my belief that the birth of a baby is good news.

I now have an 'updated version' of the details of that 'good news'. The news itself is the same, only my understanding of it changed.

[Guest]

You mean kissing is not how babies are concieved? And here I've been believing that for all of these years. Thanks for setting me straight Matt.

Just kidding....Thanks for your response Matt.