Gospel on Trial
The Gospel in Focus: Part 2
Today, we are going to review different attempts at describing the gospel of Jesus Christ. There have been many influential voices who have described the gospel in their writings and messages. How correct are they? This is an important missional question: if we’re to proclaim the gospel, we must get the gospel right!
Our Criteria
The way we’ll evaluate these descriptions (links to each description in the footnotes) is by comparing them with the five foundational principles noted in the last post. The gospel is:
Good news (about Jesus): Is the gospel summary sharing a message about Jesus that is good news?
Royal-political announcement: Does the summary explicitly lean into royal-political tones? Is it an announcement of good news about a king? The definition must go beyond simply calling Jesus “Christ” (unless “Christ” is used explicitly as a title: “the Christ” or “the Messiah”)
A story: Does the description lean into the idea that the gospel shares the story of Jesus? Is there a sense of chronology in the gospel? Does it connect to Israel’s story? This does not mean that the gospel description is told narratively (but bonus points if it does!)
Jesus-centered: Is Jesus the main character of the gospel message, or is Jesus more of a tool to help the main character?
Defined by Scripture: Does the content of their gospel match the content of the gospel as described in the New Testament? Do they add to the content? We’ll be more flexible if certain elements are not included in simplified summaries, but if the author is presenting a holistic summary of the gospel, absent details will be noted.
If someone’s gospel presentation does not meet one of these requirements, then their gospel summary is either inaccurate or incomplete. This does not necessarily mean what they share about Jesus is wrong— it just means that it isn’t the gospel in the most precise sense!
A brief note: you may think I am being a little nitpicky in some of my assessments, and I might even pick on a preacher or organization that you value. I am not going to be attacking any person in this post, just the content that they share. I have even found value from many of these individuals, but I think some of them have seriously misconstrued the intended message of the gospel. So what might seem nitpicky to some is my attempt to be faithful to the words of the New Testament. Additionally, these authors may have presented gospel definitions elsewhere; I am merely using one example from each for simplicity’s sake.
John Piper/Desiring God
“The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy. That’s the gospel.”1
Good news (about Jesus): Yes! Piper shares a message about Jesus, and it is called good news explicitly.
Royal-political announcement: It is barely here. Of course, using the royal title “Christ” fits this category, but there must be more for a summary to qualify. The closest we get is with the language “eternally triumphant.” This leans into a victory (that is the result of Jesus’s kingship), but I think Piper could have gone a step further. Even something like “reigns from his heavenly throne” would suffice.
A story: There is a small sense of chronology— Jesus died, rose, and is triumphant. Beyond this though, there is a lack of story. Jesus isn’t connected to Israel or the greater biblical narrative, and the story of Jesus as a whole is limited to 3 aspects of his life.
Jesus-centered: Jesus is the focus. While there is a note of him dying for us, that is not out of line for the gospel.
Defined by Scripture: Piper falls short the most in this category. He adds information into the gospel that is not shared in the New Testament; “no condemnation for those who believe” is not a part of any gospel passage, and neither is “everlating joy.” Is either statement untrue? Absolutely not, they’re just not part of the gospel! They are a part of an entirely separate category (we will talk more about this next post). This is even inferred: “for those who believe.” Believe what? Believe… the gospel. For those who believe Jesus died, rose, and is triumphant, they will receive joy in place of condemnation. Not the gospel, but a result of the gospel. Belief cannot be part of the gospel that we’re told to believe in.
David Platt/Radical
“The gospel is the good news that the only true God, the just and gracious Creator of the universe, has looked upon hopelessly sinful men and women and has sent his Son, Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, to bear his wrath against sin through his substitutionary death on the cross and to show his power over sin and death in the resurrection from the grave, so that everyone who turns from their sin and themselves and trusts in Jesus alone as Savior and Lord will be reconciled to God forever.”2
Good news (about Jesus): This message is a message of good news. It is good news that happens as a result of Jesus’ existence, so this fits well enough.
Royal-political announcement: This is greatly lacking. There are no royal tones in this gospel message beyond calling Jesus “Christ” and “Lord,” but even “Lord” is not always defined in royal language.
A story: There is a narrative at play: God sees sinful humans, he sends Jesus to take the punishment of sin, and now people can be reconciled to God. I wish we had seen Jesus connected to Israel’s story— instead, Israel is completely skipped. That whole part of the Bible may as well be absent!
Jesus-centered: This one is tricky, but the answer is no. This is a God-centric gospel, particularly God the Father. Notice that God is the one who looks upon creation, he bears his wrath against Jesus, he shows his power, and he is the one whom people reconcile with. Jesus is there, but Jesus becomes a tool for God to save humanity. This is better than a human-centric gospel, but it is not the gospel!
Defined by Scripture: Like Piper, Platt adds information that is not part of the gospel. While the gospel describes Jesus dying for our sins, it does not define how Jesus atones for our sins. I understand that Platt is attempting to expand what “died for our sins” means, but the ideas of bearing the wrath of God and substitutionary atonement go beyond a simple definition of the gospel. While the first statement of God looking upon humanity adds context to the gospel, it is not part of the gospel itself. Finally, Platt adds response elements of the gospel (turning from sin and trusting in Jesus) as part of the gospel when they should fit in a separate category.
Kenneth Copeland Ministries
“Therefore, when the New Testament refers to the gospel of Christ, it’s talking about the gospel of the anointing, the good news of the sin-annihilating, sickness-crushing, poverty-pulverizing, bondage-breaking, yoke-destroying power of God. Jesus brought that anointing into our midst. That’s the reason it’s called the gospel of Jesus Christ!”3
Good news (about Jesus): Copeland barely skirts by with this one. This is seemingly good news “of the anointing,” but Jesus is the one who brings this anointing. Is this good news about Jesus or about something else?
Royal-political announcement: None at all
A story: Absolutely not. Copeland describes the gospel as a power at work rather than a story about someone. The gospel can sometimes fit this idea (see Romans 1:16), but in the more regular usage of the word, a story is part of this message. For Paul to think of the gospel as a power is less about the content and more about the results of the message. There is no connection to Israel’s story either.
Jesus-centered: Jesus is only mentioned three times, two times by name. The focus is on the anointing power of God. Jesus is just how one accesses this power— the power is the good news, not Jesus.
Defined by Scripture: This definition does not include nearly any aspect of the gospel summaries seen in the New Testament: no death for sins, rising from the dead, reigning as king, connections to the prophets, etc. While much of the “sin-annihilating… yoke-destroying” section is true, it is not the gospel. It belongs in a separate category.
Four Spiritual Laws
“The first of the Four Spiritual Laws is, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.’”
“The second of the Four Spiritual Laws is, ‘Humanity is tainted by sin and is therefore separated from God. As a result, we cannot know God’s wonderful plan for our lives.’”
“The third of the Four Spiritual Laws is, ‘Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for our sin. Through Jesus Christ, we can have our sins forgiven and restore a right relationship with God.’”
“The Fourth of the Four Spiritual Laws is, ‘We must place our faith in Jesus Christ as Savior in order to receive the gift of salvation and know God’s wonderful plan for our lives.’”4
Good news (about Jesus): Yes, this is a message of good news that happens through Jesus.
Royal-political announcement: Nothing is present.
A story: There is a sense of logic and chronology to the message itself. However, Jesus’s connection to Israel is missing, and we don’t really get any sense that Jesus himself has a story— we just know that through Jesus, sins are forgiven and we can have a relationship with God.
Jesus-centered: This is a classic example of Jesus being a vehicle for humanity to experience God’s wonderful plan for their lives. Jesus is more like a prop
Defined by Scripture: Perhaps in a more extended version of this approach, we would find more accurate content on the gospel, but in these four basic laws, central content is missing: where is Jesus’s death or his resurrection? What about his kingship? Additionally, the gospel is simply never described in this manner.
The Romans Road
Humans are sinners and unrighteous: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Rom 3:23)
The deserved punishment for sin is death, but there is good news: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 6:23)
God showed sinful humans love through Jesus’s death: “But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom 5:8)
You can be saved if you believe in Jesus: “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation.” (Rom 10:9-10)
Salvation is freely available to all: “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:13)5
This description is a little different because it’s a popular, Bible-centric presentation of the gospel. Each movement is built from a particular verse in Romans, making a neat and orderly way to share the good news of Jesus. However, let’s consider it based on our criteria.
Good news (about Jesus): Yes, this is good news about Jesus.
Royal-political announcement: Other than describing Jesus as Lord, there is not much else about his reign or the arrival of the Messiah. This is unfortunate because there are so many moments in Romans that fit well (Rom 1:3; 14:9; 15:12)
A story: There’s chronology, but not much story. There certainly isn’t much related to the story of Jesus or Israel
Jesus-centered: This is a human-centric gospel message. One shares this with another person to convince them that they need to have Jesus. But Jesus isn’t the focus— the focus is solving the issue of an individual’s sin and punishment.
Defined by Scripture: While this approach to describing the gospel uses a lot of Scripture, none of it comes from where Scripture defines the gospel! All of what is said is true, but there are categorical errors when it comes to what is and isn’t the gospel. We might be able to say that God gives us the gospel as a result of his love and our sinful state, but his love and our sinful state are not part of the gospel story! Similarly, the way we respond to Jesus is not a part of the gospel— it is its own category.
Two Good Gospel Descriptions
My goal in this post is to highlight that there has been looseness with what constitutes the gospel in Christianity, particularly in the evangelical spaces. Additional content is added when it shouldn’t, and the gospel is framed in a certain way to encourage a response.
However, there have been many who have made efforts to precisely describe the gospel. I will highlight two people who have helped clarify the gospel for me: Scot McKnight and Matthew Bates. Let’s briefly look at their descriptions to see what it looks like to define the gospel accurately.
Scot McKnight
In The King Jesus Gospel, Scot writes this:
“…the gospel for the apostle Paul is the salvation-unleashing Story of Jesus, Messiah-Lord-Son, that brings to completion the Story of Israel as found in the Scriptures of the Old Testament…. the gospel of the full, saving Story of Jesus resolving the Story of Israel, the one we found in shorthand in 1 Corinthians 15 and which then is fully expounded in the Gospels themselves.”6
The King Jesus Gospel is likely in my top 5 must-reads— if you haven’t yet, you need to read this book! McKnight’s major emphasis in the book is that the gospel is that Jesus completes Israel’s story in being the saving Messiah. This is accomplished through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension.
More recently, Scot has provided his “tweet” description of the gospel:
“The gospel is the announcement or proclamation of Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah of Israel’s hope who through his life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension conquers sin and death— personal, systemic— in order to unleash the redemption of God— that is, the kingdom of God, for the transformation of humans and systems.”7
Do you see how this gospel description differs from the others we have seen, and how each foundational principle is honored? McKnight carefully distinguishes the gospel from other things, like the Plan of Salvation or responding to the gospel.
Matthew Bates
Matthew Bates has been influential in my soteriology, particularly in how I understand “faith.” He offers his own description of the gospel:
“Although the exact gospel proclamation varies in the Bible, its main lines can be detected securely. Ten distinct events are repeatedly mentioned, describing how Jesus became the saving king.
The gospel is that Jesus the king
Preexisted as God the Son
was sent by the Father
took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,
died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
was buried,
was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
appeared to many witnesses,
is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,
has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule, and
will come again as final judge to rule.”8
Bates is quite particular in making sure his description of the gospel aligns with what is seen in Scripture. Precision is so important to him that he wrote a book titled The Gospel Precisely! And once again, all five principles are present in this description. This description does not specifically call itself good news, but it is implied in its royal tones.
Describing the Gospel Ourselves
In this post, we’ve noticed pitfalls that we can now avoid when describing the gospel to others. In our next post, I will share my own gospel description and how I carefully categorize what is in my definition of good news.
Find the next post in this series here!
Questions to consider:
Do you agree with my reviews of these gospel descriptions? Why or why not?
Why do you think so many want to add details to their gospel presentations?
How can we make sure we don’t misspeak about the gospel to others?
Scot McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 61
Michael F. Bird and Jason Maston, eds., Five Views on the Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2025), 31.
Matthew Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019), 114.