The Scope of the Gospel – The Bible (Part 2)

We can learn a great deal from the Bible, especially the Epistles of Paul, which provide us with an account of what happened after the death of Jesus, together with a revelation of the redemptive work of Christ through the cross. But a lot of the Bible is actually history, such as the Book of Numbers.

The first five books of the Bible are known as the Pentateuch, this is the Mosaic Law. We can learn a lot about the Old Covenant established by God through Moses. From books such as Leviticus we can see how exacting the standards were; we can see how awkward and oppressive those rituals were as a means of knowing God and being accepted by Him.

We can clearly see when we contrast the Old and New Covenants, why the New is a better covenant. We can see just how much freedom we really do have in Christ. This freedom is conveyed in verses such as Romans 7:6 in The Message, “But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God.”

This understanding lends itself to an appreciation of the way the Gospel seems to be intended originally for the Jews. In fact, the Jews already had a covenant with God, but in a way that was not perfect and was actually oppressive. You would have thought that the Jews, who knew of a Messiah to come, would have embraced this Good News message wholeheartedly, but they rejected it. In fact, it was the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus. The rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was conveyed in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in Matthew 21:33-44.

1 Cor. 1:23 states, “but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness”. Jesus was not easily accepted into the beliefs of the Jews or the Greeks (Gentiles), for various reasons.

For the Jews, it is suggested that:

(1) They were expecting a magnificent temporal prince. Their hopes were dashed when they heard that He was crucified.

(2) They had common feelings of pride, and self-righteousness, by which they rejected the doctrine that we are dependent for salvation on one who was crucified.

(3) They convinced themselves that He was the object of the divine dereliction and abhorrence.

For the Greeks, it is suggested that:

(1) They saw the whole account a fable.

(2) The message disagreed with their own views on the way of elevating the condition of man.

(3) They saw no truth in the doctrine that a man of humble birth was put to death in an cruel manner to make people better, or to receive pardon.

(4) They had the common feelings of unrenewed human nature; blind to the beauty of the character of Christ and blind to purpose of his death.

The Gospel is difficult to comprehend, as something relevant, practical, powerful and freeing in today’s society. Our reasons for rejecting the Gospel now might not be too dissimilar to those listed above. But I would say that the concepts of righteousness, sin and so forth, have very little meaning and application in modern life, it seems. Indeed, words such as righteousness and sin are never used in modern speech, and are only found in the Bible.

There is a legitimate, practical scope of the Gospel for today’s culture – but it must be understood by the heart, not just intellectualised in the mind. The Gospel must be responded to with honesty and integrity, in a way that is relevant to the person, according to his lifestyle, convictions and disposition.

Photo Open Bible with pen Antique Grayscale courtesy of ryk_neethling.