GOSPEL APPEARANCES

The word euangelion/gospel (literally, good news) appears 76 times in the New Testament. 

I think it's always interesting to examine the first appearances of key concepts in Scripture.

Here's the context of the first appearances of "gospel" in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John:

Matthew

4:23 And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

Mark

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 

1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Luke

The noun form of gospel doesn't occur, but the verb form does:

The first to Zechariah. 1:19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.

The second to the shepherds in the fields. Luk 2:10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

John

None of the forms of the word "gospel" appear in John!

Interesting!

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the word "gospel" is most often attached to language about the "Kingdom of God" or the "Kingdom of Heaven". And it seems there are some historical connections between "good news" and human kings of the day. Worth exploring!

But all this raises the question in my mind: Why does modern talk of "gospel" sharing so often leave out any mention of the Kingdom?

BODY AND FLESH

I am currently wrestling with the way Paul uses the Greek word "soma" (usually translated as "body") and the word "sarx" (usually translated "flesh"). And I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the use of the two words in Colossians - to say nothing of their appearances in other books. 

It would be nice if there was a clearcut difference, but they often seem interchangeable. For instance, Paul says in Col 2:5, "Though I am absent in body (but sarx!), yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ."

And although "body" seems to have a generally positive connotation, "flesh" seems neutral OR negative.

Or maybe it's accurate to say that "flesh" is neutral but has the capacity for truly negative influence on a person.

Here's a neutral use: Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

In 2:1, Paul speaks of those in Colossae who have not seen him "face to flesh"!

Some Bible versions like to translate sarx/flesh as "sinful nature". But in Colossians, Jesus has a sarx!

Col 1:22 [Jesus] has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.

So it can't be the flesh in and of itself that is the problem.

In Colossians 2:11-13, the problem seems to be having a flesh which is uncircumcised. 

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.

One website puts it this way:

"To walk by the flesh (sarx), is to walk by what we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. It is living by our senses rather than trusting the Spirit within us. It is basing our attitudes and actions on old earthy habits rather than basing them upon what God says is true." (Larry Eiss)

If that is accurate, then walking by the "flesh" is more or less equivalent to what Adam and Eve unleashed by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - in essence deciding for themselves which is which. 

So when Scripture says it is impossible for those who walk according to the flesh to please God, it is simply stating a logical implication contained within the center of the overall narrative flow of Image--> Broken Image --> Restored Image. 

MY 2025 PUSHUP HABIT

Since I have a great interest in habit formation, I thought it would be good to record a little progress report on a New Year's resolution - 

One of my morning commitments for 2025 has been to do at least 100 pushups. It's important to note that this was not starting from zero. For several years I have been getting a bit of exercise at home nearly every day. But I didn't tend to get much beyond about 30 pushups. 

It's early February and, 40 days in, I have missed only 2 mornings and they were not back-to-back. (In habit formation, it is key to prevent a single missed day from turning into two consecutive days.)

Each morning on my calendar I have written down the progression of my pushups - what number I reached on my first round, second round, etc. This is a motivation trick for habit formation - tracking a habit provides a visual record of progress - which becomes a small mental reward. It feels good when I record my pushups on paper.

And since the calendar sits on my desk, it helps ensure that I never simply forget to do the pushups. 

During the first two weeks, it took me four reps to get to 100 total pushups. Six weeks in, I am regularly doing around 130 in just three reps:

Week 1:  36/56/80/100

Week 2: 38/67/91/100

Week 3:  40/71/102

Week 4:  46/88/130

Week 5:  49/92/128

Week 6:  51/89/131

In six weeks, I have done 4,615 pushups. I don't know that this has produced any noticeable physical difference in my upper body, but that's somewhere close to 2,000 calories burned - the equivalent of one full day's worth of food. And I am obviously a bit stronger if I can do 50 pushups at a time rather than just 36. 

My goal now is to hit 100 in just two reps. After that, I will likely increase my overall daily goal to 150.

There is a natural push to go bigger once you have proven consistency with a smaller goal. This is why it works to start a new habit with the smallest version of that habit - something that takes 2 minutes or less. A small habit eliminates the excuse that you have "no time" to add something to your routine and gives you the chance to establish automaticity before your natural urge to push yourself to higher goals kicks in.  

And the most important part of this entire habit is my overall commitment to staying healthy and fit for my age. I want to minimize future doctor visits and I want to be in shape to roughhouse with any future grandchildren. ;-) 

Someday. 

2 MYSTERIES

I could be wrong - I am no expert on the latest scientific pursuits - but as I understand it, there are at least two big everyday phenomena that science as yet has no explanation for:

Gravity and consciousness.

Is that not amazing?

Both can be observed and measured, but the underlying mechanism has not been discovered in either case. 

They remain a complete mystery. 

Couple those two with the mystery of how life started and our Western confidence in science should be appropriately humbled.

Christians are sometimes mocked for holding to a "God of the gaps" approach to science, but if a big God fits perfectly in a big gap, maybe it's worth considering the existence of that God.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.  - Colossians 1:15-17

SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO

Lately Melissa and I have been planning a special anniversary trip. Our 25th falls this summer and we are using it as an excuse to do something we have been talking about since we met:

A trip to Scotland.

Once upon a time, for my entire junior year, I left Wabash College and Crawfordsville, Indiana behind and made my way to the University of Aberdeen on the north coast of Scotland. It was the 1988/89 school year. 

The other day I came across some letters home I wrote during that year. I guess I was pretty homesick at times and I still kind of marvel at how adventurous I was for a shy kid from Indiana.

I made the most of the year and in retrospect, I suppose it was quite transformational, being so far from home. And Scotland captured my heart.

I've wanted to go back ever since I left. It is a deeply magical place. 

I can hardly contain myself over the thought of returning and - this time - showing Melissa around.

God willing, we will start in Edinburgh and then take a train to Aberdeen before renting a car and spending a couple of nights around Loch Ness. From there it will be west to Skye and then south to Oban and a chance to tour a couple of the western isles before heading to the port of Cairnryan to take a ferry to Belfast, Northern Ireland. 

Just outside of Belfast is where our friends from Haiti days live - the Edlers - and we will have a couple of days with them before returning to the U.S.

It is the trip of a lifetime and Melissa and I are dreaming and mapping and googling on a daily basis already. 

BIGGER THAN A PAYCHECK

One of the few good things about February is this: it's a great month to stay inside and read!

After recently picking up Becoming Whole by Fikkert and Kapic, my boss at Mission Resource instantly became a spokesman for the book. (The subtitle is Why the Opposite of Poverty Isn’t the American Dream.)

Dave recommended it to me and now I see what he saw: a striking confirmation of Mission Resource’s out-of-the-ordinary approach to poverty alleviation. 

The authors write, “The goal [of ministry among the poor] isn’t to turn Zimbabwe into the United States or to turn decaying neighborhoods into wealthy suburbs. Rather, the goal is to turn all these places into the New Jerusalem [as found in Revelation 21].”

Fikkert and Kapic explain that material poverty is merely one symptom of an even more pressing relational poverty affecting all of humanity. It is only within the Kingdom of God that we - and those we minister to through Mission Resource loans – find wholeness, purpose, and true wealth. 

One unique feature of our approach that doesn't get a lot of attention is the fact that we are working through local churches in Ghana - not usurping them. 

As important as putting food on a table is, the goal of Mission Resource on behalf of the individuals, families, and churches that we serve has always been much greater than a paycheck. 

BECOMING WHOLE

Recently, my boss at Mission Resource, Dave, got all excited about a book on the topic of effective ministry among the poor: Becoming Whole by Brian Fikkert and Kelly Kapic. 

The subtitle is Why the Opposite of Poverty Isn't the American Dream.

Fikkert is best known as the co-author with Steve Corbett of When Helping Hurts, a book that I found frustrating.

At least in the first edition. 

I felt that When Helping Hurts made beneficial ministry among the poor seem so complicated, and well-intentioned-yet-harmful actions so unpredictable, that many readers would give up trying to help at all. 

So I wasn't overly enthusiastic about Dave's recommendation of the newer book.

But it turned out to be an incredibly pleasant surprise.

Becoming Whole doesn't just shine light on basic pitfalls in charitable work. It traces those failings back to a weak foundation within American Evangelicalism itself. 

And I think Fikkert and Kapic nail it. 

Of course, it could just be a case of confirmation bias on my part - they conclude the Church struggles with poverty ministry based on her own impoverished understanding of the gospel: a give-your-heart-to-Jesus-then-wait-to-go-to-heaven message instead of a full-bodied exploration of redeemed humans operating here and now as restored Image Bearers in the growing Kingdom of God. 

Exactly. 

Not only will the book help us clarify best practices within Mission Resource, it has also given me fuel for my dissertation work. 

That's a real win-win. 

RESCUE THEN PROSECUTE?

In looking closely at Paul's letter to the Colossians, I am struck by the imagery used to describe what Jesus has accomplished in the lives of sinners:

[The Father] has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:13-14)

It's an incredible metaphor: Jesus came to earth on a rescue mission - scooping up the weary, the battered, and yes the wrong-doers trapped in Satan's dark territory and delivering them safely into the Kingdom of Light.

Other images of God "rescuing" (undeserving) individuals from danger and darkness are prominent on the pages of the Old and New Testament. 

The most obvious in the Old Testament, of course, is the Exodus of Israel from Egypt.

And off the top of my head, I can think of two from Jesus Himself:

Jesus compares Himself to a shepherd who would leave the 99 sheep to go after the one who wanders away. 

And Jesus tells the story of a father who receives his battered son back from a distant land, welcoming him into the safety and  comfort of his home and even throwing a party. 

So, here's the question that strikes me tonight as I think of the rescue motif:

How does "rescue" fit with the image of God desiring nothing so much as to pour out His righteous wrath on sinners?

Is it God's intent to rescue us and then prosecute us for their sins? Save, then smash?

But we are saved a second time only when - thank goodness - He is willing to pour out His wrath on His own Son instead? The Son who rescued us? 

So in the end, God sends His Son to rescue us and then smashes Him in our place? 

I just don't understand how people rationalize a belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. 

GOOD, NOT PERFECT

A new friend gave me a book which he thought would complement my dissertation studies: Trent Hunter and Stephen Wellum's Christ from Beginning to End: How the Full Story of Scripture Reveals the Full Glory of Christ.

It's a wonderful book and I will certainly quote it in my work.

At a third of the way in, I have a single quibble - minor, yet important. 

In discussing the creation of Eve, the authors write, "A perfect Adam, in a perfect place, and in relationship with a perfect God, yet he still needs someone to complement him". (p.77)

The point is valid. My quibble is with one of the uses of the word "perfect".

It might have been Dr. Tim Mackie who pointed out that Scripture calls the Garden of Eden "good", but never "perfect".

After all, if the place were perfect, what sort of work would the Garden receive at the hands of Adam and Eve?

To me, a large part of the beauty and wonder of a garden is the skill and effort required to keep weeds and decay at bay. 

I think this is central to what the role of Image of God involves - cultivating beauty and pushing back the chaos and darkness that grows like a wild and destructive jungle. 

(It just would have been easier work if the humans had resisted the forbidden fruit. After their banishment, they still had to work, but now they were outside and there were thorns aplenty.) 

The Garden of Eden was good from the start, but Adam and Eve were given the privilege of serving with God to perfect it and push the boundaries outward, bringing the wilderness into submission to God's will. 

PURITAN HERO?

Today let's look at a couple of vivid quotes from Puritan Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

How does this one align with your personal theology and anthropology:

“The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.”

Or this classic:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”

I have heard many Calvinist preachers and teachers sing the praises of Jonathan Edwards as a great man of faith. 

But what a message: "God abhors you!" 

Did anyone even question his biblical basis for making such outlandish claims about the Lord?

This particular sermon featured prominently in the Great Awakening. Many people "came to faith" under Edwards' preaching, but you have to wonder how many actually found eternal life. 

By the way, this is about the only sermon you can find included in anthologies of American literature used in secular schools to this day. 

Makes me wonder if it is one of Satan's favorites.