What is the Gospel according to Greg Gilbert?

In the article “What is the Gospel?” on the 9Marks (Reformed) website, author Greg Gilbert quotes 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 and then writes:

“The gospel Paul preached to them and which they received was that ‘Christ died for our sins . . . was buried . . . [and] was raised.’ The continuing references to the appearances shouldn’t be taken as part of ‘the gospel,’ as if we have to tell someone that Jesus appeared to Peter, the twelve. . . .”¹

I think it’s important to point out at the outset that there are a number of Reformed theologians that wouldn’t even agree with Gilbert’s statement when he says that the resurrection appearances of Christ are not part of the gospel. For example, S. Lewis Johnson would not agree with Gilbert on this issue, but let’s skip that whole discussion for the moment. I just want to quote one statement from The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, in response to Gilbert’s statement. Commenting on Paul’s gospel in 1 Corinthians, W. Harold Mare writes: “Part of the gospel message Paul passed on to the Corinthians was eyewitness reports of the resurrection of Christ.”² So Mare’s statement at least has reference to 1 Corinthians 15:5, which Gilbert argues is not part of Paul’s gospel to the Corinthians. But clearly the resurrection appearances of Christ are part of Paul’s gospel if we take the apostle’s words at face value.

What Do the Scriptures Say?

    

Let’s consider the Scriptures. Paul’s gospel “was promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1:1-2, cf. 10:15-17). Is this part of the gospel (the resurrection appearances of Christ) ever prophesied in the Old Testament? Consider Psalm 22, a Messianic Psalm. In The Scofield Reference Bible, Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:

“Psalm 22. is a graphic picture of death by crucifixion. The bones (of the hands, arms, shoulders, and pelvis) out of joint (v. 14); the profuse perspiration caused by intense suffering (v. 14); the action of the heart affected (v. 14); strength exhausted, and extreme thirst (v. 15); the hands and feet pierced (v. 16); partial nudity with the hurt to modesty (v. 17), are all incidental to that mode of death. The accompanying circumstances are precisely those fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ. The desolate cry of verse 1 (Mt. 27. 46); the periods of light and darkness of verse 2 (Mt. 27. 45); the contumely [insults] of verses 6-8, 12, 13 (Mt. 27. 39-43); the casting lots of verse 18 (Mt. 27. 35), all were literally fulfilled. When it is remembered that crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish, form of execution, the proof of inspiration is irresistible....At verse 22 the Psalm breaks from crucifixion to resurrection; fulfilled in the ‘Go to my brethren,’ etc., of John 20. 17. The risen Christ declares to His brethren the name, ‘Father.’”³

Similarly, in Isaiah chapter 53, a chapter which Scofield affirms is one of “the evangelistic messages of Isaiah (Isa. 53),”⁴ Isaiah prophesied that after the Messiah’s resurrection “He shall see His followers” (Isa. 53:10, Berkeley Version; cf. Jn. 12:23-24, 14:18-19, 16:16-22, 20:19-21:14). Are we now supposed to remove the resurrection appearances of Christ from the gospel message because they are a fulfillment of the gospel according to the prophet Isaiah?⁵ That would be a gospel according to scissors, not a gospel according to the Scriptures!

ENDNOTES:

¹ Greg Gilbert, “What Is the Gospel?,” 9Marks website, 6/14/2014, brackets and first two ellipsis his. https://www.9marks.org/article/what-is-the-gospel/

² W. Harold Mare, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 Vols., Vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p. 282.

³ C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), pp. 608-609. Note: See footnote 3 on p. 608 and footnote 1 on p. 609.

⁴ C. I. Scofield, What Do the Prophets Say? (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1918), pp. 57-58.

⁵ For more information see my blog posts titled “The Romans Road Leads to Isaiah 53” (FGFS, July 20, 2010), and “Are Christ’s Resurrection Appearances Prophesied in the Old Testament?” (FGFS, August 13, 2018).

Melchizedek as a Picture of Christ

“…we need to know all we can know about Melchizedek.” 

 —J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, vol. 5, on Hebrews 7:1.

Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:18-19), was a contemporary of Abraham and is an Old Testament picture of Jesus Christ. 

Melchizedek is seen to be a type of Christ first in his position as king. His name translated means “king of righteousness,” emphasizing the redemptive work of Christ. Melchizedek’s title “king of Salem” literally means “king of peace”. Thus his name and title foreshadow Christ’s attributes of righteousness and peace (Psa. 85:10; Isa. 9:6-7; Rom. 3:25-26, 5:1). We also observe that just as Melchizedek ministered in Salem (Jerusalem), Christ will one day set up His earthly kingdom and rule from Jerusalem during the Millennial age. 

Melchizedek is also a type of Christ in his role as priest. “Priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18) emphasizes the universal nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood as opposed to the inferior Aaronic priesthood, which ministered only to Israel. This foreshadows the universal nature of the priestly work of Christ in that "He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation [Acts 16:31; 2 Thess. 1:8-10], being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 5:9-10).

Melchizedek’s priesthood was superior to Abraham like the priesthood of Christ is superior to Abraham (Heb. 7:1-28). Firstly, Melchizedek pronounced a blessing upon Abraham (Heb. 7:6-7; Gen. 14:19). Hebrews 7:7 tells us that “the less is blessed of the better”. Secondly, Abraham (and Aaron thru Abraham) paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:4-5, 7:9-10). Therefore, the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical priesthood. 

Melchizedek, like Christ, became priest by divine appointment (Heb. 5:1-6). Christ entered into the fulfillment of this appointment at His resurrection (Psa. 2:7, 110:4; Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5-6, 6:20, 7:15-16, 7:22). 

Like Christ’s priestly ministry, Melchizedek’s priesthood was permanent. Hebrews 7:3 (NIV) refers to Melchizedek, “like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.” This is not saying that Melchizedek never died but rather that his priesthood is perpetual and uninterrupted. Melchizedek belonged to an order in which there was no end to the priesthood of those engaged in it. Hebrews 7:8 declared Melchizedek (referring to his priesthood) to be still living. This is a picture of Christ, our great High Priest, who ever lives to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:25). 

We can see that Melchizedek is a type of Christ in that he united the two offices of king and priest in one person. No other Old Testament individual does so. Christ will hold these two offices during His Millennial reign, when He sits on David’s throne as King/Priest. 

The last point that I would like to make is somewhat similar to the others, in that the facts have previously been given. But I will put a different slant on the facts with the hope of drawing more parallels between Melchizedek and Christ. Melchizedek typifies Christ in His “eternal” person. I do not wish to imply that Melchizedek as a person is eternal, but only that Melchizedek as a picture of Christ is eternal. Let me explain this before I go on to show the facts. Notice that in the book of Hebrews the author is not making a comparison between the person of Melchizedek and the person of Christ. Instead, “he is comparing the biblical representation of Melchizedek in his role as a priest/king as given in Genesis 14 with the Priest/King office of Christ.” (Dwight Pentecost, A Faith That Endures, p. 120.) 

Usually, the Bible unfolds a character’s life like a video, where we can look at the whole or zoom in on a certain part. But we are only given a brief snapshot into the life of Melchizedek. Everything we know about him must be gleaned from this one snapshot — and he is never known apart from this snapshot. So we can see that the similarity isn’t between Melchizedek as a person and Christ, but between Melchizedek as he is presented in Genesis 14 and Christ. 

Now, how is Melchizedek pictured as being eternal? He has no recorded parentage or genealogy (Heb. 7:3). His birth and death are never specified (Heb. 7:3). Why are these details intentionally omitted? Simply because they are not relevant to Melchizedek’s priestly office being “like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3). 

Lastly, I will set out to prove, or show beyond a reasonable doubt, that Melchizedek was not a Christophany. If Melchizedek was a Christophany (a preincarnate appearance of the eternal Son of God) he could not at the same time be a type of Christ. In other words, Melchizedek couldn’t be a type of Christ, as well as Christ Himself, at the same time. He had to be either one or the other. 

I will set forth three evidences against Melchizedek being a Christophany. First, every time a Christophany is seen in the Old Testament, He fulfills the purpose of bringing a message from God to men. However, this is not the case in Genesis 14. Secondly, the details of the story, giving actual names and places, argue against Melchizedek being a Christophany. Dwight Pentecost says in his book A Faith That Endures, “Melchizedek could hardly be called ‘King of Salem’ unless he exercised legal authority there over an extended period of time”. Dr. Pentecost is saying that Melchizedek was a real person who ruled over an actual city (Salem) in Old Testament times. Josephus says that Jewish writers of his time regarded Salem as being synonymous with Jerusalem. This seems to be the case in Psalms 76:2, where Salem refers to Jerusalem. Thirdly, some argue that Hebrews 7:3 “made like the Son of God” is an evidence for a Christophany. But the author of Hebrews is simply saying that the only facts recorded about Melchizedek were those things that foreshadowed Christ’s priestly office. 

Clearly, the Genesis account of Melchizedek pictures Christ and His superior priestly ministry as it is set forth in the book of Hebrews. We have seen that Melchizedek’s main purpose in Scripture is to point toward Jesus Christ as the believers’ King and Priest.

My Thoughts on Bill Mounce's Blog Post: "Confess and Believe (Rom 10:9)"

Last week I happened to read Bill Mounce's blog post titled "Confess and Believe (Rom 10:9)". Let me begin by saying that I've been greatly blessed by Dr. Mounce's ministry in regards to the wealth of material that he's made available to study New Testament Greek. He's a gifted writer and teacher. However, judging from some of the things he's written, I do believe he's a Calvinist.

Getting back to his blog post titled "Confess and Believe (Rom 10:9)," my concern is that Mounce seems to promote the false teaching of "Lordship Salvation" (as in the John MacArthur brand of "Lordship Salvation"). Mounce seems to entertain the possibility that in order for a person to really be saved, he or she must continue to follow Christ for the rest of their lives and if they don't, then apparently Mounce thinks that "they never were true Christians or lost their salvation". 

After I read Mounce's article I submitted the following comment in response to his post. Here's what I wrote: 

Hello Dr. Mounce, 

Very interesting blog post! It seems to me that it touches on a number of different theological issues including the long-standing debate between Free Grace theology and what is called by some "Lordship Salvation". I'm surprised the post has not sparked more discussion in the comments. There is so much that I would like to discuss, but let me just pick out one statement to respond to if I may. You said, "I wonder if Paul would agree that a person could come to a point of faith, and later deny his faith, and still be saved. I can find no such teaching in Paul." Those who adhere to Free Grace theology like myself would not see it quite that way, since we do find such teaching in Paul's writings. For example, when he says, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:13, NASB.) My understanding of the previous verse (v. 12) is that Paul is talking about rewards and the loss of rewards, i.e. if we deny Christ (like the apostle Peter did, for example), Christ will "deny us" some rewards that we otherwise could have had.