Really Good News
but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition. 1 Thessalonians 2:2 NASB
Gospel of God – In one of his excellent lectures on Paul, Dwight Pryor notes that the Pauline expression of the good news is not about salvation through the Messiah. Paul consistently uses the phrase “gospel of God,” in Greek, euangelion tou theou. Paul’s emphasis is on God’s faithfulness toward men, God’s redemptive action and God’s effort to bring in the Kingdom. Of course, Yeshua as the Messiah plays a crucial role in this project, but it is YHVH who engineers it all. It is God’s good news that energizes Paul. In fact, this good news about God has so transformed Paul’s way of living that he is willing to suffer persecution and conflict to proclaim its truth.
That’s quite an admission. Today we don’t pay much attention to this declaration. We think that Paul endured opposition because he proclaimed the truth of Christianity, that Jesus was God in the flesh who died on the cross and rose from the dead in order for God’s wrath to be appeased so that we might be forgiven. Virtually all of those beliefs are post-Constantine and/or products of the Reformation. None would have been found on the lips of Paul.
First, Paul went to the Jews in the Diaspora. Of course there were Gentiles in those assemblies, but with the exception of his lecture on Mars Hill, Paul consistently taught in synagogues. The “good news” was primarily a Jewish concept. It has implications for the Gentiles, but its foundation was found in the Tanakh and the God of the Tanakh. The good news was simply this: God is faithful. He has not abandoned Israel or the covenant promises. Yeshua is the proof of God’s faithfulness. It’s time to wake up to what God is doing.
Secondly, the Hebrew Scriptures were the unquestioned authority behind Paul’s message. There was never any question that Paul abandoned the views of the prophets or the obligation of the Torah given to Moses. Paul’s idea of the good news came directly from God’s covenant with Israel, as he was wont to tell his audiences over and over. Anyone who attempts to build a case for the “gospel” without inextricable involvement with the Tanakh is not speaking about Paul’s good news. Without YHVH, the God of Israel (and all that this entails), there is no “good news.”
Finally, Paul’s message always involved conflict. Since he spent a great deal of time teaching Jews and Jewish proselytes, we might conclude that the conflict was caused by his Christian interpretation of Scripture. But once we realize that Paul was not a Christian,[1] then the conflict he experienced could not have been the result of Christian theology versus Jewish practice. The conflict was about something else, namely, the claim that God’s faithfulness was exhibited in Yeshua who was the expected Messiah. The argument was not about Trinitarian issues. It was about the Messianic claims of the Jewish man, Yeshua. And in that time in Jewish history, anyone’s claim to be the Messiah was a hotly debated issue.
The good news of God is that God remained faithful. He kept His promise. The Messiah had come and the Kingdom was at hand. Get on board!
Topical Index: gospel of God, euangelion tou theou, Messiah, conflict, 1 Thessalonians 2:2
[1] See the excellent study by Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian (HarperCollins, 2009).
Skip again great clarification. Israel is always in question yet should not be Israel is always on God’s mind. It is quoted that messing around with Israel is liking to poking God in the eye. Now that’s old era or Covenant or better to be said as originally orientation to the old Covenant yet also carries over into the New Covenant. I think that there is too much emphasis on what is old and what is new it’s about the origin where things originated which brings a lot of clarification. Now the clarification needs to be emphasized on who is Israel? And when the answer being in the framework of when was the origin of Israel? Was it when the mixed multitude coming out of Egypt gathering at Sinai. Then God makes a covenant with Israel being that very same mixed multitude. The Hebrews under the orchestration of God’s command to flee Egypt other nations desired freedom from that bondage also. Meeting at Sinai the Hebrews and the other nations are united as one being Israel Paul knew this being a Israelite clarified in the Gospels. My emphasis on this is due to the point when in conversation people still don’t get it. Thank you for your patience.
I get the impression that many of the establishment (leaders) DID understand that Yeshua was the promised Messiah. They duly got baptized and expectantly followed, too. It was only when they realized that He was not going to a throne, but instead to His death, that they bowed out. They were primarily angry at Him, not because they thought He was making false claims (for it had to have been obvious that He was the real McCoy) but because His version of what Messiah came to do clashed with theirs. They weren’t mad at the Messiah; they were mad at the mission. They wanted freedom from the Romans, not from their sins, which they, after long centuries of Hellenization (as well as almost completely inventing another religion entirely when it came to application of the Torah), had convinced themselves that they already had under control. They wanted the Second Coming, but they got the First.
Today, I see the temptation has (naturally) been reversed: we seem to want the First Coming, when in fact we are going to get the Second one. The First Coming had to do with empowering people to overcome sin. Nowadays people seem to want to think that they can wait until they see Him show up in the full glory and power of the Kingdom before they get their act together. Wrong again. Sigh.
Interesting perspective Laurita- food for meditation today. With the First coming behind us how to live as we wait for the Second.
Both of you ladies remind me that the waiting is the hardest part but when we do wait on the Lord that’s where the strengths is my strength comes from the Lord maker of heaven and Earth. Knowing that my expectations as I meditate on his word. His. Word will be the outcome!
Thank you Skip,
The impression from Paul’s writings are that he rather reminded the readers that they should manifest Christ in them before he touched on the topic of the second coming.
Would the manifestation of Christ in us be the gospel (truth about God’s will) of God rather than the being Yeshua?
To me the gospel in my life would be the transformation from being conformed to the world Christ in me the hope of glory Emmanuel God With Us changing us reforming us true repentance is teshuva to change course on purpose willingly submitting with love and joy abounding pressing toward the mark of the High Calling being evident in my life. Maybe not the right words all the time but the actions are appropriate.
God with us, yet how funny we seek him beyond ourselves a distant object Something or somebody we are to unite with when we die…
Is this uniting while alive not the Christ the mediator who brings together that which man cannot…