On Wed, 02-7-07 9:47 am
Yesterday morning, as usual, I stopped by Milton’s and read his post, “What is the gospel, really?” He took me by the elbow and led me to a couple of posts by Darryl Dash that were, in turn, prompted by a soon-to-be-released book by Ron Martoia (Static). As Darryl reminds us, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once commented that Paul taught us
as many as fifty gospels in a nutshell. If the gospel is that rich and layered, encompasses the whole biblical story, then it makes sense to spend a bit of time making sure we haven’t settled for a truncated version.”
Since I have an aversion (especially at my age) to anything truncated, I took note of the statement but didn’t pursue it any further at that time. 
Later in the day, however, when I was clicking through old issues of Bibliotheca Sacra, I came across a series on The Book of Romans written by S. Lewis Johnson. (To purchase the software, which includes hundreds of years of various journals, click the BibSac link.) Johnson has influenced me considerably by his commitment to scholarship and thoroughness and I therefore was drawn to read one article in particular, “The Gospel That Paul Preached.” Johnson begins his 1971 comments by observing,
A host of commentators on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans have said that verses sixteen and seventeen of chapter one are a concise summary of the content of the letter. Professor C. K. Barrett has gone further in his comments on the verses. He has written, ‘Most commentators recognize in them the “text” of the epistle; it is not wrong to see in them a summary of Paul’s theology as a whole.’ It would be difficult to disagree with Barrett, particularly when one considers the use to which Paul in his writings has put the concept derived from Habakkuk. ‘The just shall live by faith,’—it is, without question, near the soul of Pauline theology.
“On the other hand, one may legitimately wonder if the commentators have gone far enough. Remembering that the Pauline text is derived from the prophet Habakkuk, and that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also puts the text to use (cf. Heb 10:38), would it be an exaggeration to suggest that in the text from Habakkuk, with Paul’s additional explanatory clauses of verses sixteen and seventeen , there is a pithy expression of the essence of the doctrine of the Word of God?
“It has been said somewhere that the whole Law, according to the Jews, was given to Moses in 613 precepts, that David reduced them in the fifteenth Psalm to eleven, that Isaiah further diminished them to six, Micah to three, Isaiah in a later passage to two, but Habakkuk condensed all 613 into one,—’the just shall live by faith.’ Be that as it may, Habakkuk’s great text, with his son Paul’s comments and additions, became the banner of the Protestant Reformation in the hands of Habakkuk’s grandson, Martin Luther. ‘The just shall live by faith,’—the clause is a marvelous cameo of scriptural truth. It is safe to say, too, that the truth of the clause has had as profound an effect upon the history of the West as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence.
“If this great truth of justification by faith is at the heart of Paul’s letter to the Roman church, then the epistle may come as something of a surprise to modern ecclesiastics. One might have expected the apostle to address believers at Rome, a city crammed with social problems, with a social manifesto or, at the least, a recitation of the primary truths of Christianity in their application to the social problems of the imperial city. Rome was a city of slaves, but Paul does not preach against slavery. It was a city of lust and vice, but he does not aim his mightiest guns at these evils. It was a city of gross economic injustice, but he does not thrust the sword of the Spirit into the vitals of that plague. It was a city that had been erected upon, and that had fed upon and prospered by the violence and rapacity of war, but the apostle does not expatiate upon its immorality.
“Apparently, if one is to judge the matter from a strictly biblical standpoint, Paul did not think that social reform in Rome was ‘an evangelical imperative.’ To him the evangelical imperative was expressed most penetratingly in the words which introduce the texts considered in this article, ‘I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel (that must be defined by the content of the epistle, as well as by the clauses that immediately follow) to you that are at Rome also’ (Rom 1:14-15, AV).
“The gospel of the revelation of a righteousness acceptable to God and available to men graciously upon the condition of faith was Paul’s imperative. It is still the imperative of the Christian church, and the Christian church will advance only to the extent that its gospel advances.” – “The Gospel That Paul Preached,” Bibliotheca Sacra, V128 #512—Oct 71.
As you all know, the gospel is simple: “The just shall live by faith.” There is much, of course, to be unpacked from those six words and the study of their implications and ramifications could consume a lifetime of study. But the declaration remains effectively brief, as Johnson goes on to say:
The apostle does not set forth the details of his gospel.’ The interpreter, however, is upon reasonably safe ground in assuming that they are found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. The gospel is the good news of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances, together with the apostolic explanation of the doctrinal significance of these great facts. It is that which the apostle expounds in Romans, particularly chapters one through eight .
The word euaggelion (AV, ‘gospel’) by New Testament times came to mean good tidings, good news, and it carried with it a note of excitement. ‘Good news’ was and is the type of message one might shout across the street to a friend or neighbor. ‘The war’s over!’ ‘It’s a boy!’ ‘The [Colts] won!’ The Christian message has that same note of exhilaration. ‘The atonement’s accomplished!’ ‘God welcomes sinners!’
The good news is the statement of war’s end, a birth, a victory, or a salvation accomplished. Anyone hearing such news, were they interested, would immediately ask for the details, which would then be happily given. But the gospel remains encapsulated in Habbakuk’s words. As Johnson says, “the apostle’s meaning is simply this: The gospel is the power of God that leads to complete salvation, salvation from the penalty, power and, ultimately, the presence of sin.”
And that is, quite simply, good news, indeed!
““The just shall live by faith.†There is much, of course, to be unpacked from those six words and the study of their implications and ramifications could consume a lifetime of study. But the declaration remains effectively brief….”
A declaration is meaningless unless the words of it are understood. Did the author intend faith to be considered a passive belief or an active one? What are the ramifications of a misunderstanding of a key word in a declaration?
George:
Did you actually read the post? Or did you just read an excerpt somewhere and then follow a link so you could deposit your rant?
If you think this post – actually, article by S. Lewis Johnson – did not answer your questions, maybe it\’s because it wasn\’t designed to answer them. There are other fish to fry, you know.
But, if you had read or paid attention to the last quote from the article, you might have noticed that Johnson does identify the essence of the gospel. Maybe that\’s not good enough for you, but it seems to be what Paul gave to the Romans, Corinthians, and others – including us.
That was a rant?
You’re correct that I came to your blog by a link, and that I was interested in the 613 to 1 topic. But I then became interested in the assertion about faith. My questions focused on what is meant by the faith of which Paul wrote.
But back to the 613 to 1 topic. Here’s what Paul wrote to the Romans concerning that:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,†“Do not murder,†“Do not steal,†“Do not covet,†and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.†Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
That is, to use your words, good enough for me.
Mike, given your response, I must conclude you were either having a very bad day or else you’d prefer to not have me as a commenter/reader.
George:
You are certainly welcome to comment here and I was not having a (terrible, horrible, no-good, very) bad day yesterday, although some might argue that I am having a bad life – but that is another matter.
Try reading your initial comment again but as the recipient instead. Basically, after quoting me, you make a declaration and follow it with two abrupt, almost-accusatory questions. Your tone, intended or not, can be construed as less-than friendly and maybe disrespectful.
So try being a bit more cordial or polite with your initial words and you can get away with being as blunt and disagreeable as you like later. I actually welcome constructive criticism and want to learn if I am wrong or ignorant – or both.
But I will require respect: I do not like people coming into my house for the first time and yelling at me. If you do not mean to yell, then re-read your comment carefully before hitting the Submit Comment button.