Much preaching today would not have been recognized by the early Christians as preaching; that is, as a public proclamation of the gospel to non-Christians. They would have called it teaching, a more or less informal discussion of various aspects of the Christian life and thought, addressed to a congregation already established in the faith. The teaching in many cases is just instruction for those who have already accepted the gospel, the kerygma. Occasionally the teaching might include what we would call apologetics; that is, a reasoned commendation of the gospel to those persons interested but not yet convinced of the truth of the gospel. Often, like in Paul's letter to the Romans, it included an explanation of the gospel. Thus teaching intends to expound and to defend the implications of the gospel rather than to proclaim it. Most of books of the New Testament, except the Gospels, are teaching. All the letters or epistles of Paul, Peter, James and John are of the nature of teaching. They all are addressed to readers already Christians, and they deal with theological and ethical problems arising out the attempt to follow the Christian way of life and thought in a non-Christian world.
All the teaching in the New Testament presuppose the preaching or proclamation of the gospel and its acceptance. Some, like Paul, not only presuppose the gospel but clearly refer to that part of the gospel upon which their teachings are based. In I Corinthians 15, for example, which deals with the resurrection, Paul states in verses 3 thru 7 the gospel which he says he also received (verse 3) and preached to the Corinthians (verse 1), giving with it the appearances of the risen Christ to which he adds the appearance of Christ to Paul himself. In the rest of that chapter, Paul gives his own teaching concerning the resurrection based on the previously stated gospel.
This passage in I Corinthians 15 clearly indicates that Paul himself is fully aware of a distinction between the fundamental content of the gospel which he had receiveed and his own teaching based on it. In fact, in another passage in the same letter, I Cor. 3:10-15, Paul makes a clear distinction between the foundation that has been laid and the superstructure which he and others build upon it. While the reference here is no doubt to the foundation of the church and the building up of the life of the church in all of its aspects, from the context (I Cor. 1-4) it appears that Paul had particularly in mind the distinction between the basic gospel and the teachings based upon it. For the Corinthian church was full of divisions over the teachings of various Christian leaders (see I Cor. 1:11-12) and it is this problem that Paul is dealing with here in chapter 3. In dealing with this problem Paul points out that there is only one foundation, Jesus Christ (I Cor. 3:11), or, as we may say, the gospel which is about Jesus Christ. Paul himself, Appolos, and others build upon this foundation in various ways, that is, develop this foundational gospel in different ways. The various letters or epistles of the New Testament are a part of this development and they present the doctrinal superstructure which they raised on the gospel.
The source of the doctrines (teachings) of the Bible is in the gospel. The teachings of the writers of the New Testament have their source in and are based upon the gospel. Thus before we begin to examine the doctrines of the Bible concerning God, man, and the world, let us find out what the gospel is and what is its content.
The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, especially Mark (see Mark 1:1), are expanded form of the Gospel. The Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Details about the early years and education, personal appearance and characterstics, specific notes of time and place, a psychological attempt to unravel motives of actions and to trace out his developing consciousness of his life-work which gives him a place in history are almost entirely missing from the Gospels. The Gospel writers are not concerned with writing biographies of Jesus. They were only giving an expanded form of the proclamation of the Gospel.
The Gospel is the good news of what God has done for man through Jesus Christ, His Son. The English word "gospel" (from the Anglo-Saxon, god-spell, "God-story") is used in the English New Testament to translate the Greek word euangelion, "good news, good tidings." The Gospel is good news. But in the New Testament the Gospel is not just any item of good news but is always the good news of what God had done for man through Jesus Christ, His Son (Mark 1:14; Rom. 1:1). It is the Gospel of God.
These acts of God are historical events and the Gospel is a recital of these historical events. The Gospel is not an abstract and general theological argument, nor is it a practical system of morals. It is history; that is, a record of certain historical events in which God has acted. Of course, it involves and requires theology to understand and to state its meaning; it also makes a radical moral demand and implies a system of morals. But the Gospel of God is first of all the story of God's acts in history.
Now the Gospel of God is concerning His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord (Rom. 1:3). The historical events in which God has acted are those in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the content of the Gospel and it is about Him. Let us review the main events in the life of Jesus that are included in the message of the Gospel as recorded in the book Acts and the Gospels.
The spiritual side of Jesus is given in Romans 1:4. As a spiritual being ("according to the spirit of holiness"), Jesus was declared (designated) to be the Son of God in power by the resurrection by Jesus of the dead. Jesus as a holy spiritual being is intimately and uniquely related to God the Father (Matt. 11:27; John 5:19-23). He is the Son of God (Mark 1:11; from Psa. 2:7 and also Isa. 42:1; Mark 9:7; 14:36; 61-62; John 1:18). Before His resurrection He was the Son of God in weakness and lowliness (Phil. 2:2-8). Now since His resurrection He is the Son of God in a new sense: He is the Son of God "in power" (see II Cor. 13:4; Phil. 2:9-11; Eph. 1:19-21). The source (ek) of the designation of Christ as the Son of God in power is the resurrection of the dead. This is not Christ's resurrection from among those who are dead, but the resurrection of those who are dead (Note that nekron of Rom. 1:4 is in the genetive case. Compare with I Cor. 15:12, 20-21.). The resurrection of Jesus shows who He is. But that is not what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:4. Paul is here talking about that which now shows Jesus to be the Son of God in power and that is the resurrection of those who are dead. And this resurrection is not just physical resurrection of the dead but a spiritual resurrection of the dead (John 5:24-29; 11:25-26; Rom. 6:5,8; Eph. 2:4-6; Col. 3:1). That Jesus is the Son of God in power is shown in their resurrection of the dead, both spiritual and physical, both now and in the future.
The Hebrew word as a noun came to describe a great divinely sent leader who, when He would come, would achieve God's purpose for His chosen people and deliver them from subjection to foreign nations. The word never occurs in the Old Testament in this sense except possibly in Dan. 9:25. But even without the use of the specific word, the expectation of such a great leader occurs in many passages (Isa. 11:1-5; Jer. 35:15; Ezek. 34: 23-24). In these passages the emphasis is on the Davidic descent of the coming leader; the basic promise to David is found in II Sam. 7:11-16.
The use of the Hebrew word to describe this great coming leader of God's people appears in the Pseudepigrapha, the Jewish writings of the period between the Old and the New Testament. By far the most important of the references to the Messiah in this literature is in the 17th psalm of the Psalm of Solomon, a long psalm which can be dated about 50 B.C. This psalm is almost entirely concerned with the character and achievements of the king God will raise up, in His own good time, to deliver His people from godless enemies, and to reign over them in faithfulness and righteousness. The reign of this king, however, is political and narrowly nationalistic; the blessings of his reign are for Israelites only. Other passages in this literature referring to the Messiah are found in the Ethiopic Enoch 48:10; 52:4 and IV Ezra 7:29: 12:32. All these passages indicate that among the Jews before and at the time Jesus there was an expectation of a coming anointed ruler of God. Jesus, however, hesitated in making the claim that He was the expected Messiah. In the Synoptic Gospels there is no record of Jesus making a public claim to messiahship. When Peter, speaking for the other disciples at Caesarea Philippi, confessed Jesus as the expected Messiah, Jesus told them not to tell others who He was (Mark 8:27-30). Only before the high priest at his trial did Jesus make a public but guarded acknowledgment that He was the expected Messiah of the Jews (Mark 14:61-62).
The clue to the explanation of Jesus' hesitancy in this matter may be found in the popular conception of the expected Messiah. It included many aspects which Jesus himself could not accept, or would not fulfill. In the popular conception the Messiah, besides being a spiritual leader he was also to be a political and military leader. He would defeat the Romans, liberate the Jews for economic and political oppression, and make Jewish people the reigning power of the world. This political, military and nationalistic conception of the Messiah has been called the "Son of David" idea of the Messiah; that is, the Messiah, as the great Son of David, would follow the political and military pattern of reign of his father, David, in liberating Israel and giving them political and spiritual leadership. The Son of David conception of the Messiah appealed to a people like the Jews who were being ground down under a foreign rule, forced to pay enormous taxes, and chagrined that God's chosen were subject to pagan Gentile domination.
Jesus decisively rejected this conception of the Messiah at the beginning of His ministry. This is the meaning of the temptation story which is recorded in the Gospels (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Jesus rejected military and political programs for bringing in God's reign (the Kingdom of God). He deliberately turned to preaching and teaching as the method of calling Israel to repentance and faith, which are conditions of entering the coming kingdom of God. This method depended upon winning the people's to a voluntary response to God's call. It was more in line with the conception of the Messiah as first of all a moral and spiritual leader. This idea of the Messiah was expressed in the figure of the suffering servant of Old Testament prophecy (Isa. 52:13-53:12) who would humble himself and give himself in unselfish sevice even unto voluntary suffering.
Having decisively rejected the popular Son-of-David conception of the Messiah, Jesus could not speak of Himself as the Messiah, for the people would misunderstand Him claiming political kingship. In addition, the claim would expose Him to arrest and execution as a rebel by Rome. This was a real danger; others claiming to be the Messiah had been arrested and executed as rebels. In fact it was on that very charge that he was finally put to death upon the cross (Mark 15:26; compare 15:32, the Christ = the king of the Jews). Thus to avoid trouble with the Romans and a misunderstanding of his purpose by the people and to concentrate upon preaching and teaching concerning the kingdom, Jesus did not call Himself the Messiah. Thus the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, present Jesus as making no open and public claim to be the Messiah. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, which is concerned mainly to make clear to the reader the full meaning of His life (John 20:31), represents His disciples and Jesus Himself as acknowleging Him to be the Christ (John 1:41, 49; 4:25-26; 10:24-25).
Even after Peter acknowledged Him to be the Christ at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus did not want it spread about that He was the Messiah (Matt. 16:20; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21; see Luke 4:41). It would still be misunderstood; as the incidents that follow show, even the disciples misunderstood it (Mark 8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:35-45; Acts 1:6-7). Even when Jesus acknowledges that He is the Christ at his trial before Caiaphas, the high priest, (Matt. 26:63-64) and later before Pilate (Matt. 27:11), He answered in such a way as not to commit Himself to their conception of the Messiah. In effect He was saying when He answered them, "I am the God-sent Messiah; but not in the sense in which you understand the title."
But even though Jesus did not openly speak Himself as the Messiah, the Jewish people, their leaders and even the Roman authorities understood Him claiming messanic kingship. However, they still misunderstood His claim (Acts 3:17-18; 13:27-28). For this reason the Jewish leaders condemned Him as a blasphemer (Matt. 26:65-66; Mark 14:63-64). To them it was quite obvious that He was not the Messiah (Matt. 26:68; 27:39-43); He did do the things that the Messiah should do. A suffering and crucified Messiah was to the Jews a contradiction and thus became a stumbling block to them (I Cor. 1:22-23). But the resurrection showed that He was the long expected Messiah of Israel (Acts 2:36); it vindicated His claim. However, the resurrection also showed that He was the Messiah in a different sense; Jesus was the Messiah according to the figure of the suffering servant of Isaiah (Mark 8:31; Luke 24:26, 45-46; Acts 3:18) and not according to the Son-of-David idea. Jesus was the Son of David but not in the sense in which the Jewish people expected (Mark 12:35-37).
Every New Testament writer accepted the message that Jesus had fulfilled the Messianic expectations of the Jews. The message of the gospel was first of all that the genuine spiritual center of the Messianic expectation among the Jews had been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 24:27,44; Acts 3:18; 13:23, 27, 29, 32-33); Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews. This belief has been preserved by the church by using the title "Christ" as a proper name for Jesus. However, it is to be noted that in Christian usage the word "Christ" as a title was soon dropped. Such a development was almost inevitable among Greek-speaking Gentile Christians who knew little or nothing of the Messianic expectation of the Jews. In fact, later Greek-speaking Gentile Christians often took the word as the adjective chrestos, meaning "good" or "kind," which was pronounced in the same way though spelled differently. However, this fails to explain why the word as a title was dropped so soon from usage among the New Testament Jewish Christians. This can be explained by the fact that the title Christ or Messiah was too narrowly conceived by their Jewish contemporaries (the Son-of-David idea) that it proved inadequate to express the total work and person of Jesus as they had come to understand it through the resurrection. Thus they dropped the word "Christ" as a title, retaining it only as a proper name. This made way for other titles which declare His person and work in more clear-cut and adequate terms.
The Greek word for Lord is kyrios. It was at first an adjective, meaning "having authority." It described anyone who had such authority. The Greek word then came to be used as a descriptive noun to designate those with special authority. A lord, a kyrios, is thus one having authority, a ruler. The word was used everywhere of kings, especially in addressing them (Acts 25:26). From the first century B.C. onward the title Lord was given, especially by their own worshippers, to the gods. Thus in New Testament times in the pagan world there were literally, as Paul says, "gods many and lords many" (I Cor. 8:5). For the pagans the two words, lord and god, have very much the same meaning. In fact, in the ancient East, kings were supposed to be divine beings, even gods incarnate. Thus the title "Lord" when used of kings had acquired a religious significance. In the first century B.C. the Greek kings of Egypt were entitled, in inscriptions, "Lord King God." Very often the Greek word was used with a non-religious significance. It was often used of the master of a slave (servant); the Greek word for slave (servant), doulos, is the usual correlative for the Greek word for the slave-master, kyrios (Luke 12:46), but is seldom expressed. In New Testament times the Greek word kyrios was also used as a common term of courtesy, especially in addressing a social surerior, very much as "sir" is used in English today (see Matt. 21:30; 27:63; John 12:21; where kyrios is translated "sir").
In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament called the Septuagint the Greek word kyrios is used to translate the two Hebrew words adonai and Yahweh. The Hebrew word adonai is a special form of another Hebrew word adon, which means "one having authority," "a ruler," "a commander" (Gen. 45:8). Adon is often used of the master of a slave, and espeically by a slave in speaking of his own master (Gen. 24). It is also often used in speaking of, or to, one's husband (Gen. 18:12). Oftener the word is used as a term of courtesy in speaking to someone to whom one wishes to show respect (Gen. 24:18; 44:18). The Hebrew word adon is used in speaking of, or to, God, but nearly always in the special form of adonai (130 times in O.T.). The Hebrew word Jahweh (written JHVH) is the proper name of the God of Israel. The Jews early came to regard the name, Jahweh, as an "ineffable name," which might not be uttered. When the Hebrew scriptures were read in public worship the word adonai was spoken instead of Jahweh (the form "Jehovah" is the result of the combination of the Hebrew consonants JHVH with vowels of adonai, a device used in the late manuscripts of the Old Testament). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint), the Greek word kyrios (Lord) was used to translate both Hebrew words adonai and Jahweh; in the King James version of the Old Testament the Hebrew word Jahweh is translated as Lord as is also the Hebrew word adonai. The word "Lord" is printed in small capital letters when it is a translation of Jehweh and in large capital letters when it is a translation of adonai. It was not unusual that for the Greek-speaking Jews Kyrios became the ordinary designation of the God of Israel.
Before the resurrection, the Greek word for Lord, kyrios, was used of Jesus only as a common term of courtesy when addressing Him as a social superior or as a teacher (Matt. 21:30; 27:63; John 12:21; 13:13). After Jesus was risen from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God, that is, to the position of honor and authority with God, it was natural for his followers to designate Him as Lord. Peter used the title of Jesus in the first proclamation of the gospel on Pentecost (Acts 2:36). The Aramaic phrase "Maran atha" used by Paul in I Cor. 16:22 confirms the fact that the title of Lord was known and used in the early Aramaic-speaking days of the Church. The proper translation of the phrase is "Our Lord, come!" (Maran = Lord; compare Rev. 22:20). It is, in fact, a prayer in brief; it shows like the story of the dying Stephen illustrates (Acts 7:59) that the earliest believers addressed prayer to Jesus as their exalted Lord. That the primitive church in Jerusalem would pray to Maran Jesus surely shows what the speeches in Acts declare, that in their thinking the early Christians considered Jesus to be more than a mere man or teacher; you can tell a man's creed from his prayers. The early Christians not only applied the title Lord to Jesus but also applied to Jesus the words of the Old Testament of Jahweh (Acts 2:21; compare 2:38); in Jesus they saw Jahweh of the Old Testament acting. Even though it is doubtful whether the title Lord was applied to Jesus to express His divinity during His earthly ministry, the title seemed fully suited to do so after His resurrection and exaltation. He was then effectively and unquestionably the Lord, who had acted for God in His earthly career and was now acting for Him to continue and complete the divine purpose. The reference to Jesus as Lord is necessarily coupled with the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus. In fact, the use of the title in the New Testament implies the resurrection and the exaltation; the resurrection led to the exaltation and the exaltation was the act of giving to Jesus the position of Lordship (Acts 2:32-36; Phil. 2:9-11).
The title "Lord" is the most frequently used of all the New Testament titles for Jesus. As pointed out above the title "Christ" soon became a proper name because it proved inadequate to express the total work and the person of Jesus as they had come to understand it through the resurrection; thus it does not occupy the central role in the New Testament of expressing the person and work of Jesus as its continual use might at first suggest. The title "Lord" is the universal and central title which the writers of the New Testament use to suggest the decisive role and importance of Jesus. It occurs in every New Testament writing except the three letters of John. For the Apostle Paul as for the other writers of the New Testament, "there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (I Cor. 8:6).
The confession, "Jesus is Lord," is probably the earliest creed of the Christian Church (see Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). In fact, the confession of Jesus as Lord as well as the belief in the heart that God raised him from the dead is necessary for salvation (Rom. 10:9; compare Matt. 10:32-33). Paul even applies to Jesus Old Testament passages in which "the Lord" meant Jahweh (Rom. 10:13; compare with Acts 2:21). Reference to "the Lord" in his letters usually means "the Lord Jesus Christ," except in some Old Testament quotations.