Book Review of the King Jesus Gospel by Scot Mcknight

In this book, Scot McKnight challenges evangelicals as to whether nosotros have truly understood what the "gospel" is. He draws on the work of Northward T Wright and Dallas Willard, both of whom provide forewords. He claims that many evangelicals would be better termed "soterians", since it is conservancy, rather than the gospel, that we have placed the emphasis on. When we employ the word "gospel" we assume it means something like "instructions for how to become a Christian", when in fact what the Bible and apostles understood the gospel to be was something quite unlike.

Most of evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples.

McKnight takes pains to reassure the states that he has nothing against preaching the need for conservancy and how to exist saved (McKnight calls these the "Plan of Salvation" and the "Method of Persuasion"). Just he thinks we have mistakenly equated this with the gospel and "evangelism". So he takes John Piper to task for assuming that justification past faith is the gospel. Again, McKnight doesn't want to disagree with justification by faith; he wants to prove that it is not "the gospel".

I am convinced that considering nosotros recall the gospel is the Plan of Salvation, and because we preach the Program of Salvation as the gospel, nosotros are not actually preaching the gospel.

And so what is the gospel, according to Scot McKnight? Well the short respond is that the gospel tells the story of Israel and how it is fulfilled in Jesus. The gospel but makes sense in the Bible'due south story, and more than that, "without that story there is no gospel." We need to understand the Sometime Testament story in order to sympathise the gospel.

McKnight begins proof of his thesis, with the one place in the New Testament where the "gospel" is clearly defined – one Cor xv. This likewise happens to exist one of the earliest composed parts of the New Testament. And it is articulate that for Paul, "the gospel is the story of the crucial events in the life of Jesus Christ." His method of evangelism, or "gospelling", was to "to tell, announce, declare, and shout aloud the Story of Jesus Christ as the saving news of God." His writing is saturated in OT quotes and allusions because he understood that "the gospel is the resolution and fulfillment of Israel's Story and promises."

So, where does "conservancy" fit into the picture for McKnight? Conservancy flows from the gospel – it is the intended issue of the gospel story. But it is not itself the gospel, and cannot be fabricated to supersede the gospel.

He includes a fascinating chapter on how the early on creeds reinforce this basic agreement of the gospel. Again and again you see the creeds including very 1 Cor 15 like summaries of the crucial events of the life of Jesus. It wasn't until the time of the reformation that the creeds started to frame the gospel in terms of salvation (though he does not directly blame the reformers for this shift from "gospel culture" to "salvation civilisation").

McKnight then moves on to consider the educational activity of Jesus. Did Jesus preach the gospel? Well if the gospel is all well-nigh Jesus, then to preach the gospel, Jesus would take to focus his message on himself, and on how he completes the story of Israel. And this is exactly what he does – he believed he was completing scriptural passages.

the Gospels evidence a Jesus who unequivocally and without embarrassment nominated himself for State of israel's president.

McKnight likewise makes the obvious simply easily overlooked point that nosotros call the four gospels "gospels" precisely because that is what they are. In telling the story of Jesus (and how he fulfilled the story of Israel), the "evangelists" are in fact proclaiming the gospel.

The final piece of evidence McKnight brings to the tabular array is a survey of the gospel preaching in the book of Acts. If to preach the gospel is indeed to tell the story of Jesus, then did the early apostles do that? A survey of Peter and Paul's sermons reveal that yes, they did exactly that, showing how the events of Jesus' life fulfilled the Scriptures.

Jesus' resurrection and the profound experience with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost led the apostles into a "hermeneutical revolution." They all of a sudden had new eyes to reread and reinterpret the Old Testament from the perspective of the Story of Jesus.

But at present we get to our first real objection. What almost preaching the gospel to Gentiles? Like well-nigh in our modern culture, they did not already know the story of Israel, then preaching Jesus as the fulfillment of it would be at all-time confusing. Surely we have to conform the gospel to be comprehensible to those in our civilisation?

McKnight readily admits that the gospel is "in no less demand of creative adaptions to one's audience", noting Paul's varied approaches with a Gentile audience. And to his credit, he attempts to outline how he might become well-nigh explaining the "gospel" today. He recognizes that it volition probably accept at least an hour to explain. He begins the story with Cosmos, focusing on humans as "Eikons" who became usurpers. The story climaxes not primarily with Jesus equally "saviour", only as "Lord":

Retrieve that the fundamental solution in the gospel is that Jesus is Messiah and Lord; this means at that place was a fundamental need for a ruler, a rex, and a lord.

This is where we begin to come across that this might exist more than simply a state of war of words over what exactly "gospel" means. For McKnight, the eye of the gospel is Jesus as Lord and King. Thus the forms of evangelism that simplify the gospel down to simply trusting Jesus for forgiveness of sins have missed out the centerpiece

much of the soterian arroyo to evangelism today fastens on Jesus as (personal) Savior and dodges Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

So a correct presentation of the gospel must include a telephone call to submit to King Jesus:

gospeling declares that Jesus is that rightful Lord, gospeling summons people to plow from their idols to worship and live under that Lord who saves, and gospeling actually puts united states of america in the co-mediating and co-ruling tasks under our Lord Jesus.

Overall I would say I am in broad agreement with McKnight's main thesis, that the Lordship of Jesus is central to the gospel and not a dispensable function. Despite never directly referring to it, this volume is weighing in on the Lordship Conservancy debate. Just it also focuses on our evangelistic approach. McKnight is arguing for a change in tactics: "Nosotros need to regain our confidence in the utter power of proclaiming that ane Story of Jesus". And this is something I would similar to see a lot more of in "gospel" presentations. I fear many forms of evangelism can bring people to "pray the prayer" without ever actually appreciating that they are at present expected to embark on a lifetime of following Jesus.

One affair I recollect this book left hanging a flake was the initial claim that "If the gospel isn't near transformation, it isn't the gospel of the Bible." His statement is that recovering the King Jesus Gospel will brand disciples rather than converts, but he fails to flesh out exactly how this will happen. The Lordship of Jesus is the right foundation to base discipleship on, simply at that place must likewise be applied guidance and support in guild to encounter this worked out in daily life.

catchingsspladebeforn.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.wordandspirit.co.uk/blog/2013/04/18/the-king-jesus-gospel-mcknight/

Share this post