I wanted to expand a bit on my last post, about Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" and our Americanized versions (read: idols) of Jesus.
My daughter's new obsession is the Home soundtrack. Frozen used to be the bomb diggedy, but now it's the Home soundtrack. And I'm afraid that I might have to turn in my membership card to Music Snobs Elite, because I am actually finding most of the songs on it to be very enjoyable. Particularly beautiful to me is a song by Rihanna (gasp - I know: I really do need to turn in my membership card), where she sets to music what turns out to be an old Māori proverb:
Turn your face toward the sun and the shadows will fall behind you.
I want to think for a moment about this proverb and see how it connects to much of (most of?) Christian theology out there (in my opinion, erroneously - and I will explain why).
It's a beautiful sentiment, and the song itself is haunting - in a good way. And I wouldn't just reject the sentiment outright - I do think that oftentimes, weary travelers need to leave their battles behind and move on. Sometimes we need to find rest, and sometimes we need inspiration. So in a way - as I hope you will find by the time this post is over - I am going to be affirming this proverb at the same time that I reject it.
I think that if we take this proverb literally, it expresses a sentiment that runs counter to the message of Jesus, and unfortunately is all too popular within Christian theology. Think about this message: the idea is that we must turn toward some sacred object outside of ourselves that provides illumination we would otherwise have no access to, and we must turn away from the problems of the world in order to do so - leave them all behind. But if we're supposed to leave the problems of the world behind, then why does this attitude looks so unlike Jesus, who came right into the problems of this world and was astonishingly present to the people that the religious system of his day treated like "the shadows" in this proverb?
"The sun" is the sacred object in the song. If we would turn towards it - and it is obvious what object is the sun (no one disagrees about that - it's the brightest object in the sky!) - we will find illumination. But think about this for just one moment: have you ever actually explored Christian theology? I don't mean to ask if you've read all the approved authors of your chosen denomination. I mean: have you read authors from other denominations and other perspectives? Have you examined the various debates? And when I ask this, I mean, have you explored the various perspectives surrounding those debates? Because if you had, I am sure you will find: no one agrees about anything! Least of all, which object is "the sun". Everyone has a different definition of what object is "the sun", what its (supposedly obvious) characteristics are, and how we are to "turn your face toward" it. And every theological camp out there is pointing at all the others and saying that they are obviously "the shadows" that we are supposed to turn away from in this model. Why is that? And why is it that this sentiment sounds so much like the Garden of Eden - if we would just turn towards the sacred object (the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), all our troubles (wait, I didn't know I had troubles before this! But now that you mention it, yes, I am incomplete without this object!) will go away! (Does this remind you of "Super Jesus/Magic Jesus" from my last post? If we just believe in him, he'll fix everything for us while we sit on our La-Z-Boy....)
I'd like to suggest that Jesus presents a model of theology that runs counter to this Māori proverb - and to summarize what I think it is, before arguing why, I will state this model like so:
You are all stars (see John 14:12) - turn towards the shadows and let your light shine (see Matthew 5:16).
Now this might sound strange to you if you've grown up in a different theological paradigm that stresses other parts of the Bible over the ones I have highlighted above. So let me bring out a few more passages for you to consider.
Let's start by considering how, for the writer of I John, if we wish to know God, we must be "born of love" (I John 4:7). By the way: does this phrase - "born of love" - remind you of the phrase "born again", coming from John 3:3, which is used in evangelical circles so often without any attempt beyond magic to explain what it means? It does for me.
The writer of I John goes on to say that "whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love." (I John 4:8) I have lived for many years in Christian circles which seek very much to downplay that phrase: "God is love" (after getting into one argument with one of my old friends, I wrote an argument in defense of it). Throughout the rest of the passage, the writer of I John really wants to drive his point home - he says that "since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another" (I John 4:11 - this presents a problem for the protestant desire to de-emphasize works and stress that faith - interpreted so often as having all the right ideas - is what saves us). He says that "if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us" (I John 4:12). And then he restates once again, in case you missed it or didn't think it was important, the statement he made before, and sums up everything that came in between:
God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. (I John 4:16)
The Sun is Within Now contrast this with the ideas of the Māori proverb - the sun is not some distant object outside of ourselves that we must turn towards and worship. The sun is within - it is our love, and by turning our hearts away from the egotistical attitude that is always seeking to fill ourselves by grasping at objects outside of ourselves, and inverting this by turning ourselves into outwardly focused people who are always seeking the best of others (which is what love is), we are embodiments of the light itself.
Consider for a moment the Eucharist - I think that the philosopher Peter Rollins does a marvelous job of capturing what is so often missed about this sacrament in his book, "The Divine Magician: The Disappearance of Religion and the Discovery of Faith". In this book, he compares the Eucharist to the three stages of a magic trick: the Pledge, the Turn and the Prestige. To understand how the Eucharist is like a magic trick, we must first understand how these three stages work in a normal magic trick, so Rollins explains how he used to perform a certain coin trick.
For the Pledge, Rollins would show his audience a coin - just like any coin. He would explain that he is going to make the object disappear - hence the name: the Pledge.
Then comes the Turn. In this stage, Rollins would use a distracting motion of his hands to make them believe that he had kept the coin in his left hand, while he really had it in his right. He would lift his right hand - with the coin - over his shoulder and drop the coin down his shirt while he pretended to rub the coin into his elbow with the left. He then shows the audience his left hand, which does not contain a coin.
In the movie "The Prestige", Cutter draws out the nuance of this stage of the trick:
The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled.
Then comes the final stage - the Prestige. Cutter explains why this stage is necessary:
Making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back.
For Rollins' trick, he would walk over to a table where he had placed another coin underneath a glass of water before the show, lift the glass, and present the other coin - which was presumed by the audience to be the same coin he had "rubbed into his elbow", but which was, in reality, hiding inside of his shirt.
Rollins compares the Eucharist to these three stages in the same way - and it is interesting to note that the oft used magic words "hocus pocus" were most likely a lampoon of the Latin phrase (which was interpreted quite literally by Catholics for centuries): hoc est corpus meum ("this is my body"). When Jesus presents the bread, representing his body, Rollins contends that this is the Pledge. Jesus then breaks the body - for us - and this is the Turn. But as Cutter explained in the movie, for this to be a proper magic trick, the magician must take the ordinary something and make it do something extraordinary. Breaking "the body" - while being extraordinary in the way that Jesus gives his body willingly - is not quite what we're looking for. So Jesus must bring back it back in the Prestige stage of the trick.
But as we know from the way the coin trick works, what comes back is never the same as what was made to disappear in the Turn. And yet so much of theology reduces the Resurrection to a resuscitation - the same matter that goes into the tomb comes out again.
But if this is the purpose of the Eucharist, then why does Paul say in I Corinthians 12:27:
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (emphasis mine)
What if the point of the Eucharist was much bigger? When we consume the bread of Jesus - turning the life of Jesus into nourishment for our souls which, when digested, becomes the material making up our cells - and then live out the commandments of Jesus (see John 14:15 and 23), we become the living embodiment of Jesus - and thus we become the incarnation of God, as I John 4:7-21 points towards! And that is something truly extraordinary - something magical!
How Does the Sun Illuminate and Cast Out Shadows? So if the sun we are supposed to turn towards in the model Jesus gives us is not some object outside of ourselves, but is unconditional love itself, and thus resides within - the next question we must ask is: how does the sun illuminate and cast out shadows? Are we supposed to designate certain portions of humanity as "shadow" and turn away from them, as so much religion does?
The light of the body is the eye. So then, if your eye is generous, the whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is grudging, your whole body will be in the dark. If, then, the light which is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
You might note - as I did when I first read this - that most translations do not say "if your eye is generous", but "if your eye is healthy" or "if your eyes are good". Barclay defends his translation like so:
HERE, Jesus speaks of one special virtue which fills the eye with light, and one special fault which fills the eye with darkness. The Authorized Version speaks here about the eye being single and the eye being evil. Certainly that is the literal meaning of the Greek, but the words single and evil are here used in a special way which is common enough in the Greek in which Scripture is written.
The word for single is haplous, and its corresponding noun is haplotēs. Regularly in the Greek of the Bible, these words mean generous and generosity. James speaks of God who gives generously (James 1:5), and the adverb he uses is haplōs.
Similarly in Romans 12:8, Paul urges his friends to give generously (haplōs). Paul reminds the Corinthian church of the generosity (haplotēs) of the churches in Macedonia, and talks about their own generosity to all (2 Corinthians 9:11). It is the generous eye which Jesus is commending.
The word which is translated in the Authorized Version as evil is ponēros. Certainly that is the normal meaning of the word; but both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint, ponēros regularly means niggardly or grudging.
The whole point of Matthew 6:22–23 is that if we want to see clearly, we must be generous - which is really love in action (and thus, a manifestation of God). Jesus is saying that if we are not generous - but are always accusing each other and seeking to blame everyone else for the problems of this world (a theme I return to again and again in my series: Satan: Lifting the Veil) - we will have a distorted view of life and of people. Thus, when we love others, we are not only being incarnational (we are the embodiments of "the sun"), but we are also able to see more clearly - we are casting out the shadows through our love! And perhaps this helps to explain why the Gospel of Thomas has the Golden Rule:
Love your brother like your soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye.
Through understanding generosity as the key to seeing clearly, we see that loving others is the key to clear sight, and when we love our brother, we will discover our soul.
One final Biblical picture may help to clear this up. In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells a story that presents a big problem for what often seems to be the Protestant theology of faith without works (if you have all the right ideas, you are magically saved) - this story is commonly referred to as the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. In the story, the King is separating the sheep from the goats (Jesus is mixing his metaphors a bit here - turning the King into a shepherd). And what is problematic for much common theology out there is the fact that the defining characteristic between the sheep and the goats has nothing to do with saying the right words or having the right ideas - indeed, when the goats are sent away, they call the King "Lord", demonstrating that they have the right ideas and can say the right words!
But, rather, the defining characteristic that separates sheep and goats is how they treat the people who most need to be shown love! If they treat these with kindness, they are sheep - thus, Jesus demonstrates the prevailing theme of his ministry: you will know the disciples of Jesus by their love! (See John 13:35.)
But before we take this to mean that if we see people who are unloving, we can proceed to treat them as condemned individuals beyond hope - consider the irony of the situation: once the goats (who were presumably rich and well off individuals) are cast out from the kingdom, do they not become the very same "least of these" whom so desperately need to be shown love? And if God were not willing to show these individuals mercy, would he not be acting like a goat Himself?
Often I have heard Christians justify their hatred of certain individuals with the phrase Paul quotes in Romans 9:13 (originally from Malachi 1:2-3):
I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.
To take this as an excuse to bear a grudge that is never let go ignores so much of the Bible - especially when Jesus tells us to love our enemies, and then tells us that God does this perfectly (see Matthew 5:43-48). But it also ignores the connection between the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats and the end of the story of Jacob and Esau - for when Jacob and Esau reconcile, Jacob sees the face of God through his former enemy (who was always his brother): Esau! (See Genesis 33:10.)
It is when we love unconditionally that we experience the presence of God - and not only this, but we embody the presence of God to others.
And so I reword the Māori proverb as: We are all stars, and if we turn towards the shadows and let our love shine, the world will be filled with light, and there will be no more shadow.
The True Gospel
In “A New Kind of Christianity”, by Brian McLaren, he describes having lunch with
another pastor who asks him “if you were to summarize the gospel in one
Biblical statement, what would it be?”Without any hesitation, McLaren quoted Ephesians 2:8-9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can
boast.”McLaren’s friend replied:
“you’re quoting Paul.Why aren’t you
quoting Jesus?”McLaren views this point
in time as a turning point for him where he began a paradigm shift, and when I
read this story it was a similar point for me, as I would have answered in the
exact same way beforehand.
So this conversation caused a paradigm shift for McLaren.He began to see the Bible differently afterwards.In “A New Kind of Christianity”, McLaren describes how the average Christian has been
conditioned to read the bible like a lawyer – picking out single verses, out of
context, in order to prove their position.In this method, any verse from anywhere in the Bible has the same weight as any other verse in the Bible. McLaren calls this the Constitutional method of reading the Bible, and it has
been responsible for such things as defending slavery, burning heretics at the
stake, witch hunts, and crusades.McLaren suggests a new way of viewing the Bible.He uses two very poignant illustrations for
this method.
I like to adapt the first illustration slightly, as McLaren breaks it up into two illustrations, whereas I think it can be expressed in one clean move. In my version of the illustration, you must imagine 12 people – this would work great in a classroom
with 12 volunteers lined up at the front of the room.Each person in the line is given a sign to
hang around their neck, with the following labels (in order from left to
right):
Adam
Abraham
Moses
David
Amos/Isaiah/Jeremiah/The Prophets
John the Baptist
Jesus
Paul
Augustine
Luther/Erasmus
Calvin/Wesley/Newton
Modern theologians: Billy Graham/John Piper/N.T. Wright/etc.
Now, some people take a look at this lineup, and they
come at it from the right side – so they look backwards from the modern
theologians to Calvin/Wesley/Newton, and from that group to Luther/Erasmus, and
so on.So they are seeing Jesus through
the lens of other theologians, whom they are seeing through the lens of more
modern theologians, whom they are seeing through the lens of more modern
theologians, and so on.
Other people take the opposite approach – they love the
Old Testament, and start from the other side – so they see Adam, then Abraham,
then Moses, then David, etc.So they are
seeing Jesus through the lens of the Old Testament.
But what McLaren suggests we should do is to rearrange
the lineup so that Jesus is at the front, and the lines on either side fan out
behind him like a V.We ought to see that
Adam led the way to Abraham, who led the way to Moses, etc. – and the whole
group of Old Testament characters on up to John the Baptist were leading the
way to Jesus.We see these characters
through the lens of Jesus as being the necessary preparation for His appearance
onto the scene.Likewise, Paul was
reflecting on Jesus, and Augustine was reflecting on the teachings left behind
by Paul, etc.So we look at the modern
theologians through the lens of Jesus – every theologian since Jesus has merely
been trying to reflect on Him, and unpack what his life and teachings meant for
us.Jesus is central.
Another way to illustrate this idea is to take a Bible
and open it up, laying it flat on a table.This is the constitutional approach to reading the Bible – everything
within has the same value as everything else and we can take a single verse out
of context to “prove” that slavery is Biblical.Now in this illustration, the left side of the Bible that is spread out
like this represents the Old Testament.Some people like to lift up the left side and say “now the Old Testament
– that’s the stuff!That’s where it
is!”They often emphasize a wrathful
God, as a result.Other people like to
lift up the right hand side of the Bible – which represents the epistles on up
to Revelations.These people say “now
Paul – that’s the stuff!That’s where it
is!”These are the people who will
typically quote Ephesians 2:8-9 as the best summary of the gospel there is.
But what McLaren suggests we should do instead is to lift
the Bible up by the spine so it makes a teepee-like shape – the spine
represents Jesus.The side which
represents the Old Testament is seen as leading the way to Jesus – anticipating
him and waiting for him, showing why He was necessary.And the epistles, sloping downward from
Jesus, were theologians reflecting on Jesus and seeking to understand the
connotations of what He had done, and what it all meant.
Now, this radical new way of looking at the Bible is
really not so revolutionary as you might think.I heard a
story about Charles Spurgeon where he describes a young intern he had hired,
and what happened after this intern gave his first sermon.The young man asked Spurgeon what he thought
afterward, and Spurgeon said “the format was good, you spoke clearly, and
inspired the audience – but you left the most important thing out.”The young intern asked what that was, and
Spurgeon replied “you left Jesus out.”The young intern replied “but I was preaching from Ezekiel!”Spurgeon replied “son, until you can find
Jesus in Ezekiel, you will not set foot at my pulpit again.”
“Tell me,” I said to the group, “what is the gospel?” A young lady raised her hand. “The free gift of God.” “Good,” I said. I went to the chalkboard and wrote gift from God. “Somebody else?” “Freedom from sin,” a man near the back called out. “Eternal life,” said another. “Keep going,” I said. I stayed busy at the chalkboard, listing the items as they came in. Freedom. Righteousness. Moral purity. Grace. Unconditional love. Healing and deliverance. Redemption. Faith in God. New life. After five minutes or so, we had filled the chalkboard with a list of things that we believed were the gospel. “Excellent,” I said. “Did we miss anything?” The room was silent for a minute. I could see heads turning. I could hear pages rustling. Everybody seemed to think there was something significant missing, but nobody wanted to volunteer to name the missing item. Finally after the second minute of silence, a girl near the front raised her hand. “How come none of us mentioned Jesus?” “Exactly,” I said. We closed the session and went to a break. Point made.
The idea of using Jesus as a starting point for understanding
scripture is also Biblical.Take a look
at John 1:1-18 - in the first verse it says:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Now, John is actually speaking on multiple levels here –
something he excelled at.First off, no
Bible reader can see the phrase “in the beginning”, and not immediately think
of Genesis.John is trying to tell us
something – he’s telling us that Jesus is a new starting point.Jesus gives us new vision into the creation
story and everything that happened, because, as it says in verse 2, “he was
with God in the beginning.”
It’s interesting that John refers to Jesus as “the Word”
– when I speak a word, it is, in a certain sense, a part of me.It certainly comes from within – a breath
from my lungs causes my vocal chords to vibrate, and my mouth and tongue form a
shape that affects the sound that comes out.But it also comes from the thoughts of my mind, and the attitudes of my
heart.People who hear this word feel
they are able to know something about me from this word, and they assume that I
intended this word.“But you said…”,
people will say, if I later on do or say something that contradicts my earlier
word.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
When God speaks, things happen.John is saying that Jesus is God’s Word – God’s creative power embodied in the form of a person, which goes forth from God
to make things happen; to begin new creation.We will talk some more about the concept of new creation later on.
But this isn’t where the meaning of John’s phrase, “the
Word”, ends.In the times when Jesus
came, Greeks were very concerned with reason.As I mentioned before, there were great debates between philosophers
(such as Plato and Aristotle), considered the wise men of their day.The original Greek word that John uses here
is “logos” – literally meaning "a ground", "a plea",
"an opinion", "an expectation", "word",
"speech", "account", "reason".But this word “logos” had a deeper meaning than just the literal - it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning
with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order
and knowledge.John is saying that if you
want to understand reason - if you want a principle of order and knowledge by
which to base all of your reasoning - look no further than Jesus.
What’s also interesting is that we’ve come to use the phrase “the Word” to speak of the Bible.So once more, John’s choice of phrasing speaks on multiple levels – if
you want to understand the Bible, look right here!Look at Jesus!
But Jesus is so much more than just reason and
understanding – in verse 4 and 5 of the passage, John says “in him was life,
and that life was the light of mankind.The
light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”Jesus gives new life!How does he do that?By illuminating – he is light.He doesn’t confuse us, he illuminates!Jesus makes clear what has been muddled by
the shadow we live in.
So let’s talk about the Gospel.To understand what it is, we must understand a bit about the history – the background story.In the world Jesus was born into, the Roman Empire was in control.
In the Roman Empire, when a new Caesar came to power, he would send out messengers
throughout the Empire to tell them the news – basically they would tell the
Empire that “everything is going to be OK now – I’m in control of the Empire
now, and I’m going to set things right. I am Lord now, and you will be
saved through me. I am the savior through which you will find economic
stability and safety from your enemies. There will be peace and
prosperity through me.”This was called
the “euangelion” – or, gospel – and it was good news for Caesar’s
friends. But to the new Caesar’s enemies, the news was not good.
Caesar controlled through power.Caesar saved his friends by destroying his
enemies.Caesar brought economic
stability by giving support to the rich and powerful and marginalizing the poor
and disenfranchised.Caesar brought
peace through war.
Jesus’ gospel was an answer to the gospel of a new Caesar, but it was a stark contrast. When
Jesus was born, an angel told Shepherds that there was “good news that will
cause great joy for all the people.” (see Luke 2:8-11) Notice two contrasts with Caesar's gospel here:
The news does not come first to the elites, but to lowly shepherds.
The news is good and causes joy for all the people.
Then, when John the Baptist began to “prepare the way for
the Lord”, what did he preach? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has
come near.” (see Matthew 3:1-2) Now, this phrase has also
been translated into English as “is near”, “has drawn near to you”, and “is at
hand.” I, personally, prefer the “at hand” translation because I feel it
is ripe with metaphorical imagery – it tells me that though the kingdom is not
yet fully realized, it’s so close that if I were to simply stretch out my hand
in faith I would be able to touch it; to grasp a small piece of that kingdom now, in this world and time.
After Jesus was baptized by John, he was tempted, and after he was tempted, Matthew 4:17 tells us that he began to preach
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Now, this verse is also similar to Mark 1:15, where Jesus' first message is "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" A proper understanding of this phrase and its historical context highlights one of the weaknesses of the language and understanding of modern culture. In our modern culture, we read "repent and believe" and we think that it means something along the lines of: "feel really sorrowful and insert dogma into your head." But modern scholars have discovered that many Jewish "messiahs" used the same language of the Kingdom of Heaven/God, repenting and believing. And when you insert the language into its proper historical context, you find that "repenting" has more of a sense of doing a 180 degree turn in your life in order to follow the messiah, and "believing" means to follow this messiah as they lead the way to establishing the Kingdom of God. This is quite different from the lazy theology of modern thinking that believes that if you insert the right dogma into your head, you have a ticket to a place called "Heaven" which is "out there somewhere" but not ever on this earth in this time. The proper understanding of "repenting and believing" - in order
to become part of establishing a Kingdom - is a much more active way of life.
But let's move on with the story:
Later on, in Matthew 10:7-8, Jesus sends his disciples out
to proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven has come near”, and he tells them to
“heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out
demons. Freely you have received; freely give.” See, these are all
signs that what they are saying – that the kingdom of heaven is at hand – are
true. This is another contrast to Caesar’s gospel - Caesar proves his
gospel through violently destroying his enemies. Jesus proves his gospel
through healing and restoration – even for his “enemies”.
This message – “the kingdom of God/Heaven is at hand/has
drawn near/is near” – is repeated all throughout the New Testament, and this
should indicate to us its importance! Not only is the message “the
Kingdom of Heaven/God is at hand” repeated throughout all four gospels and then
later on in Acts and even the epistles, but most of Jesus’ parables start out
with “the kingdom of Heaven is like….”
Now, as a side note, it should be noted that the phrase “the Kingdom of Heaven”
seems to be interchangeable with “the Kingdom of God”, and this may cause some
confusion, but it is easily explained. When Moses asked God what His name
was, God says “I Am Who I Am” – this isn’t really a name. And God never
really gives himself a name, though the Jews used many names for Him. But
the phrase, “I Am Who I Am”, is often represented by the Hebrew letters “YHVH”,
which do not produce a pronounceable word, or name. Many Jews believed
that this, in conjunction with the command not to take the Lord’s name in vain,
meant that they should not ever say
the name of God, and so they would substitute the word “Heaven” for his
name. This is somewhat similar to the practice in American culture of referring to things that "the White House" did. So when Jesus preached, he kept his audience in mind, and in some
areas he would say “Kingdom of God” – because they had no qualms with that
phraseology there – and in other places he would say “Kingdom of Heaven”.
Moving on with the story, after Jesus’ death and resurrection, right before His ascension, He
says:
Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
All authority in heaven and on earth - right before Jesus
died, he said “it is finished.”All
throughout the story of his life on earth, he had been preaching “the gospel”,
proclaiming his kingdom was near.Then,
after he is raised, he said that all authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to him.
If you want to understand “the gospel”, and want to summarize it with one short phrase that comes from the Bible, you should use the phrase: “the kingdom of God is at hand!”
