Tony Richie on Kingdom of Heaven and Justification

Nevertheless, isn’t it odd with his argumentation about respecting Jesus and Paul in their own right, that McKnight uses Paul to define gospel, and thereby, Jesus, after all? Does McKnight’s proposal really rescue us from an Evangelical predisposition toward Pauline imposition on Jesus? Therefore, is his definition of gospel full enough?

Now I’m brought to my fundamental consideration. I don’t think Scot McKnight’s exegesis or reasoning is amiss. He does first rate work. Rather, I wonder if the framing of the issue itself may be at fault. I wonder about the proclivity to try to find any one term or text that can carry the weight of all the biblical teaching. Further, I worry about what (really, who!) gets excluded or marginalized in the process. I advise caution. Let me illustrate.

Oddly enough, while McKnight, quite correctly I think, argues that primary focus should be on the personal identity of Jesus Christ, the key text he has chosen doesn’t emphasize Jesus’ personal identity at all but rather his atoning work.1 Corinthians 15:1-8 does not reference Jesus’ divine sonship or lordship; rather, it relates his death, burial, and resurrection. It appears that a strict reading leads to a truncated gospel—if this text fully defines gospel. I’m not claiming McKnight would take it so far, probably for him it is more like a window into a larger reality; but, I imagine some may. And besides, how large is that window anyway? I certainly won’t argue that Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection isn’t gospel! But, is it the gospel, the entire gospel? Is there nothing else that qualifies as gospel? Perhaps Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians might have special cause for concern. After all, where is the Spirit in this “gospel”? Talk about displacement!

Along that line, Pentecostal theologians such as Steve Land and Frank Macchia argue that Pentecostalism utilizes an interpretive paradigm known as “the full gospel.” This full gospel—so called due to desire not to delete or diminish neglected aspects of the gospel—consists of salvation by faith in Christ, usually with as much or more emphasis on regeneration as on justification, sanctification and holiness, Spirit baptism accompanied by speaking in tongues, divine healing, and the imminent second coming of Christ. Pentecostal believers frequently testify to their full gospel belief and experience in naming Jesus as their savior, sanctifier, Spirit baptizer, healer, and soon coming king. The full gospel is clearly Christocentric, but also characterized by a strong soteriological slant with a noted pneumatological accent in an ardent eschatological context.

That the gospel of God’s grace in Christ has a desirable fullness often associated with the Holy Spirit can be substantiated easily enough from Scripture (e.g., John 1:16; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9, 52). It might even be taken from Paul (Romans 15:29). It’s particularly prevalent in Ephesians (1:23; 3:19; 4:13; 5:18). But it isn’t readily evident in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. In fact, the Holy Spirit isn’t mentioned there at all. Perhaps this explains why the Holy Spirit doesn’t appear in McKnight’s article either (other than a passing reference and an incidental quotation). A leading question demands to be asked: Is Pentecost part of the gospel? Sectarianism aside, I submit that the Holy Spirit is necessary to the good news of Jesus Christ. As the apostle says, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11b). According to Gordon Fee the Spirit is not only essential but central for Paul. Marty Mittelstadt’s work reflects a similar scenario in Luke-Acts. None of this is included in or could be concluded from McKnight’s solution to an unfortunate bifurcation among evangelicals. His article certainly doesn’t provide explicit space in gospel for the Spirit.

Tags: heaven, justification, kingdom, richie, tony

Category: Biblical Studies, Summer 2011