Paul and “the Gospel”

I’m still not quite sure how to approach linking to posts I’ve written on the other blog. I don’t want to cross-post here and have two sets of comments. It seems redundant to post here with comments closed so that if you want to comment you would have to do so there. Yet I don’t want to simply link there without some kind of “teaser”.  So here it is:

In What St. Paul Really Said, N. T. Wright takes our understanding of “the Gospel” to what it would have meant for Paul and his contemporaries. Modern Christians–evangelicals in particular–have tended to define “the Gospel” as having to do with how people are saved. It is, to modern ears, primarily a soteriological concept. To some degree, then, “the Gospel” leans heavily towards being about us (this is my conception, not Wright’s).

Wright argues that for Paul, the Jews and the people of the first century Roman world, “the Gospel” would have been understood as something quite different–or perhaps it could be better phrased: something much bigger than just soteriology in a narrow “how are we saved” sense…

Read the rest at I Heart Barth.

One thought on “Paul and “the Gospel”

  1. Andrew

    Good stuff. I think you really raise an interesting issue in your addendum/comment on the Barth blog – what of the “exaltation” references in the NT, which (and I stand to be corrected) seem to outnumber any references to Jesus being God (the latter of which there appear to be few if any overt references). Did Paul view Jesus as God incarnate, or a messiah who perfectly reflected YHWH and was a perfect substitute for Israel and thereby crowned “Lord”?

Comments are closed.