Cold Case Christianity: Wallace apparently thinks Jesus' understanding of the gospel is irrelevent

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

What Does “Gospel” Really Mean?

Posted: 15 Jan 2018 04:00 AM PST

We often describe God’s gracious offer of Salvation as “good news”, and while this makes sense, given the magnitude of God’s gift to us, there are actually good etymological reasons for describing Salvation in this way.

Why doesn't your article appeal to what Jesus thought the gospel was?

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."    (Matt. 28:18-1:1 NAU)

Maybe you are a dispensationalist?  You know...you think the gospel Jesus preached before he died on the Cross no longer applies to the current dispensation of the modern-day church?  But the above-highlighted words of the allegedly resurrected Jesus indicate his pre-Cross teachings are what future Gentile followers ("disciples of all the nations") are required to not just 'learn' or 'believe', but to obey.  

That's a severe problem for you because nobody speaks about a saving belief in Christ's death for sin and resurrection as constituting "obeying".  You can believe in Jesus' death and resurrection without "obeying" anything.  The resurrected Jesus' choice to say "obey" therefore makes it clear that the emphasis of the true gospel is on the moral walk.

Indeed, Jesus' had a specific mission to Gentiles before he died:

12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee;
 13 and leaving Nazareth, He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali.
 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 15 "THE LAND OF ZEBULUN AND THE LAND OF NAPHTALI, BY THE WAY OF THE SEA, BEYOND THE JORDAN, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES--
 16 "THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED."
 17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."    (Matt. 4:12-17 NAU) 

 15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
 16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
 18 "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
 19 "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
 20 "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
 21 "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." (Matt. 12:15-21 NAU) 

30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
 31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
 32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel." (Lk. 2:30-32 NAU)

So you cannot escape this trap by saying Jesus didn't "really" evangelize the Gentiles before he died.  Yes, he did.

I think the reason one of Christianity's allegedly greatest apologists did not quote Jesus to answer the question of what the gospel is, because this apologist in real life likes Paul's law-free gospel much more than the legalistic method of salvation Jesus preached.  So that while you don't actually ever forthrightly assert that the gospel Jesus preached before the cross is the way of salvation, your ceaselessly focusing our attention on Paul's version and nearly never focusing our attention on Jesus' version tells us more than any media statement you might make saying you think the 4 canonical gospels are relevant today.

The word “Gospel” is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word, “godspel”, or “good story” and was substituted for the original Greek word “euaggelion” which first signified “a present given to one who brought good tidings”, or “a sacrifice offered in thanksgiving for such good tidings having come”. In later Greek uses, it was employed for the good tidings themselves. That’s exactly what God is offering us with the Gospel; “good news” about what he did for us through Jesus Christ:
 The Gospel is All About What God Did For Us
God wants us to rejoice over the good news of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Although our sin deserves death, Jesus paid the price and even defeated death so we too can live forever with God:

Sorry, Wallace, but a) your definition here still avoids Jesus' own definition of the gospel, and b) there you go again, emphasizing Jesus death as if it were somehow "more important" than other gospel matters, when in fact according to Matthew 28:20, the statement that future Gentile disciples must be taught to obey all that Jesus taught the original apostles, is most reasonably interpreted as placing all of his teachings on an equal par.

What Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount is not less important or central to the gospel than his death and resurrection.  Yet Paul always focuses on Jesus' death and resurrection and infamously doesn't give his readers jack shit about what Jesus said or did before dying on the Cross.  Jesus' earthly ministry meant nothing to Paul, and a few blurbs about how 1st Timothy 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7, or how Paul mentioned what Jesus said and did at the last supper in 1st Cor. 11:23 are not going to change the fact that Matthew and Paul have radically different ideas about what constitutes the gospel.

Matthew's own gospel contains not much more than the things that Jesus said and did, so when Matthew tells us at the end that the resurrected Jesus required future Gentiles to obey all that he had taught the original apostles (Matthew 28:20), Matthew clearly thinks the gospel consists of ALL that Jesus did and said between birth and ascension.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

So apparently what Paul received wasn't what the resurrected Jesus said in Matthew 28:20, as this Jesus didn't think the gospel was limited to his death and resurrection.

The Gospel is All About Grace
Paul devoted his life to sharing what he believed to be very “good news”. He thought it was good news because he understood God was giving us a free gift only He could offer: the gift of Salvation, given freely as an act of grace (unmerited favor):
 Acts 20:24
However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me-the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

Jesus' method of salvation was legalistic:

 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.   (Matt. 5:17-22 NAU)

In the immediate context, "your righteousness" is defined in terms of personal morality, i.e., legalism, i.e., you will go to hell for unjustly calling your brother a fool.  Again, the immediate context for Jesus' legalistic sounding requirement that his followers evince great righteousness, is his own discussion about morals and ethics.

Jesus also gave a rather legalistic answer to the rich young ruler who had asked him specifically how it is that one obtains eternal life:

  16 And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"
 17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
 18 Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;
 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"
 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
 23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
 24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?"
 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."    (Matt. 19:16-26 NAU)

The context is quoted so no fundie can insist that I took this out of context or ignored some important quip that puts a different spin on Jesus' words to the rich young ruler.  Nothing in the immediate context of Jesus' words to this man expresses or implies that Jesus believed the man could obtain eternal life without keeping the commandments.  Therefore

"and come, follow Me." 

doesn't mean 

"what I just said is bullshit, you don't need to follow the Law, all you need to do is follow Me". 

The Gospel is All About God’s Work and Righteousness, Not Our Own
God wants us to know it is absolutely pointless to think we could ever contribute to our salvation in even the smallest way with our own efforts (or good works). The Gospel is good news because it demonstrates God will do what it takes to apply His righteousness to us if we will only place our faith in Jesus. It is faith alone, “from first to last,” that saves us:

Fuck you, the risen Christ requires all future Gentile followers to not just learn or believe, but to obey ALL the teachings he taught the original apostles, Matthew 28:20.

Romans 1:16-17
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

It's also curious that Paul was so intent on documenting his gospel from his interpretations of the OT, if in fact we must presume he believed Jesus preached the way of salvation for at least three years to the original apostles. Common sense says God's latest light on the gospel is probably going to create less confusion, yet Paul shuns the latest light and prioritizes his own treatement of OT texts as more important than anything Jesus had to say.

A “Works” Gospel is No Gospel At All
Finally, God wants us to understand it’s our nature to slowly drift from the good news of grace and slip back into thinking our own good works are actually saving us. But a “works based” Salvation is not good news;

Then you must think Jesus' definition of the gospel was "bad news".

we offend God when we try to act like our righteousness is anything compared to His.

But God still thinks people are righteous in his own sight where they obey all of his commands, a thing that at least two 1st-century people were apparently capable of actually accomplishing:

 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
 6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years. (Lk. 1:5-7 NAU)

Luke 1:6 thus contradicts the Pauline dirge that says we can never be righteous in the sight of God.

It is hopeless to depend on our own goodness when trying to reach a perfect God. We are simply never going to be “good” enough.

Which means you would seriously argue that Luke 1:6 doesn't mean we can ever be good enough for God on the basis of our obedience to his commands.  In other words, you'd rather trifle that there's no contradiction between God viewing a person as righteous based on their efforts to obey his commands, and God telling them at the same time that their efforts to obey his commands can never made them good enough.

Probably because you care more about bible inerrancy and reconciling Paul with everything else in the NT, than you care about common sense.

Galatians 1:6-9
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

In the context of Paul's letter to the Galatians, the "men from James" are the ones who are successful in getting Peter to cease eating with Gentiles (2:12).  Your problem is that you cannot cite Acts 15:24 for the proposition that these men were imposters or otherwise misrepresenting James, since Peter knew James quite well, and would thus have known whether these "men from James" were correctly or incorrectly representing James's view on the matter.  Therefore, Peter's "fearing the circumcision" or the "men from James" only makes sense under the theory that Peter felt those men were correctly representing James, in which the anti-Gentile sentiment of the Judaizer gospel goes all the way back to James, it is not limited to an ultra-conservative faction within the Jerusalem church.  Luke the liar's representation in Acts 15 of James as relaxing circumcision requirements for Gentiles therefore appears to be a falsehood concocted to make the reader think Paul and the Jerusalem apostles were more agreed on these matters than they really were.  Otherrwise, you have to think Peter was fearful of men whom he knew were misrepresenting James, and this is the least likely of the available theories.

God wants us see his gift of grace for what it really is. God’s grace is “good news” because it solves a foundational problem all of us have as human beings. We are fallen. We are rebellious. We are far less than perfect. Beings like us simply cannot enter into a perfect realm without God’s complete and total work in our lives.

It is far from obvious that Jesus believed in original sin.  And your ridiculously intense view of God as infinitely holy so that our best efforts are never good enough, is based on more on modern systematic theology than it is based on biblical truth.  God is completely free to exempt anybody he wants from the required punishments for sin:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." (2 Sam. 12:11-14 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Our faith alone saves us, and that’s good news, because any belief system which argues you can contribute to your own salvation is offensive to God, who is the only source of salvation.

So apparently you think the legalistic gospel Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-20 was offensive to God.

God doesn’t want to merely contribute here. He wants to do it all, because He knows how incapable we truly are in this area.

So incapable, in fact, that while we might be able to be "righteous in his sight" solely through our own efforts at obeying his laws (Luke 1:6),  being righteous in God's sight isn't enough.

You know...anything to glorify bible inerrancy and systematic theology.