Is the Gospel about the Kingdom or Salvation?

Have you heard anyone say that Jesus preached the 'good news about the kingdom of God' but Christians seem stuck on the good news about forgiveness for our sins through Jesus' death?

I don't think the average tract, average Christian book, or average church goer produces the right picture about the good news. It's often a 2-for-3 score.

Here is what I taught my church's basic Christianity class:

The gospel is the Jesus story with explanation.
1. his death – as the worthy substitute
2. his resurrection – human victory, God’s ancient promises fulfilled, judgment by Jesus is certain
3. his kingdom plan – bringing mankind & creation back into submission to God

I suggested a few easy ways to remember and to explain these three points to others. I also cautioned against letting things replace these three points - things like human response, God's character, blessings received through the gospel, or evidence for the truthfulness of these three points. All these things are important and good, but they must not overshadow these three points.

Jesus' "Blessings": Examples or Prescriptions?

I'm posting my disappointment about Dallas Willard's take (from The Divine Conspiracy) on Matthew 5:3-16 to help me clarify my own thoughts. And as an aside, I like Willard's book! He attended schools and teaches at a school that wouldn't think twice about me. He's written books about things that I don't understand. I think Willard is correct that the statements in question address "the good life" that occupied philosophers for millennia. From what I've read of his treatment of Matthew 5:17-48, I think I like where he's going in his interpretation there (a transformed life that lives by God's moral law).

Willard challenges the traditional interpretation of the Beatitudes, which thinks Jesus intended for all his followers to "be like that" - that is, to develop their personal character in reflection of all these qualities. He paraphrases Jesus' first statement: "Blessed are the spiritual zeros--the spiritually bankrupt, deprived and deficient, the spiritual beggars, those without a wisp of 'religion'--when the kingdom of the heavens comes upon them" (p. 100). Willard is very concerned that "poor in spirit" not be made into a meritorious condition which is rewarded with the kingdom of the heavens.

The traditional interpretation (which Willard seems to understand) is that "poor in spirit" means any and all persons who recognize their spiritual bankruptcy in relation to God. Since Jesus speaks to his "disciples" (Matthew 5:1-2), that setting qualifies his statement - those who come to him, aware of their desperation before God, will all be the beneficiaries of the kingdom of heaven.

Willard makes the traditional view out to be a cheap way to avoid what he thinks is an "example" or one kind of person to whom the kingdom of heaven is available. He teasingly says, "If they [people generally, considered under the traditional view] are not in a position to be humble-minded, they perhaps can manage to mourn, or be meek, or become persecuted, and then one of the other Beatitudes will, on the interpretation in question, take over to secure their blessedness" (p. 103).

"We would therefore expect anyone who seriously accepted this interpretation to seek to become poor, sad, persecuted, and so on, but very few people actually do this" (p. 104). Willard goes on to say it will not do to suppose that Jesus' statements were meant to be put off until a Millennium in the future when Jesus has returned and established his kingdom on earth. I agree.

I think it makes better sense to say "poor in spirit" has a background in the Old Testament, where the Psalmist(s) call themselves "poor and needy" (Ps. 40:17) and praise the "meek" (Ps. 37:11), etc. On this interpretation, it is not one or another of the Beatitudes that "get you in," but all of them (in a nice progression) describe and commend essential character qualities that Jesus expects of his disciples. In a since, these "blessings" are all required of all followers of Jesus. John Stott wrote a very readable book that brings the traditional interpretation of the Beatitudes (and the whole Sermon on the Mount) to bear on everyday life.

Jesus' Radical Teaching

In my Sunday morning sermons, I'm building up to Jesus' most famous summary of how he wants his followers to live - the "Sermon on the Mount." It is quite a radical summary of how he wants to re-make people. I picked up a handful of resources to help me see the teaching in Matthew's context but also through different eyes than just my mental grid.

Besides a couple of excellent commentaries (R.T. France & D.A. Carson), a non-technical exposition (John Stott), a study of the use of the OT, a Puritan's meditations on Matthew 5:3-12, and some G. E. Ladd material on New Testament theology, I have decided to look into Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy, some of N. T. Wright's stuff, and Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus. McLaren's "Acknowledgement" page near the back actually credits Willard and Wright for much of his own understanding of Jesus' message.

A few reasons I'm pleased to be reading this book by McLaren:
1. He reminds me that Jesus' teaching had Old Testament roots.
2. He reminds me that Jesus' teaching should be set against the historical backdrop of his day (which was not so uniform as we once thought).
3. He reminds me that Jesus' message was meant to change everything as soon as possible. Or, as McLaren likes to call it - it was revolutionary.
4. He challenges the way I think with what if...type questions and straightforward assertions (that he seems to have thought about pretty carefully).
5. I had written him off after reading his famous book A New Kind of Christian.