I contend that there is - contrary to hyper-dispensational ideas (ala Bullinger & others) - only one "Gospel." I further contend that this one Gospel is the "Gospel of the Kingdom" spoken of so often by Jesus. As such, it exalts Christ as Lord. I further contend that the majority of NT texts, in exalting Christ as "Lord," are not principally referring to His Deity, but rather to the exalted Man Jesus -- per Psalm 110:1. Finally, I contend that the Lordship of Christ has direct bearing on salvation in the sense that conversion requires a commitment to Him "as Lord" on the part of the sinner.

I. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOSPEL:

Jesus and His disciples preached "the Gospel of the Kingdom" (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14-15) -- and so did Paul -- see Acts 20:21-27. Our great commission has only one Gospel in view -- this same "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 24:14; 26:13; 28:18; Mark 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Luke 7:22; 9:6; 20:1; Acts 8:25, preached to Samaritans; Acts 14:7,21; 15:7; 16:10). It is for Jew and Gentile (Acts 15:7; Romans 1:16; 10:12,16).

Note that Paul's entire "olive tree" analogy takes place within the context of the Gospel -- Romans 11:28. In Romans 15, we see that Paul's "Gospel of God" is in fact "the Gospel of Christ" -- now read Mark 1:1 to see that this Gospel is the very same one that is unfolded in the synoptic gospels! Paul's Gospel is Christ's (2 Cor. 2:12) -- we dare not accept another (2 Cor. 11:4,7; Gal. 1). Paul preaches Jesus Christ and recaps Christ's great commission in Romans 16:25-26. The "everlasting God" (Romans 16:26) has given us an "everlasting Gospel" (Rev. 14:6). This "mystery" was contained in the OT prophets -- Romans 16:25; Gal. 3:8. The "mystery of the gospel" that Paul speaks of was "made manifest" by the appearing of Jesus Christ -- 2 Tim. 1:9-10. This "everlasting Gospel" is the same Gospel that has always been preached -- Heb. 4:2; 1 Peter 1:25.

Don't be fooled by theories depending on the fact that different terms are used for the Gospel in different contexts -- such is no proof of "different" Gospels! Don't be fooled by elaborate theories concerning when certain Epistles were written, to whom, and advancing misdefinitions of words like "dispensation." (1) NO -- there is one "Gospel" throughout the NT. I would challenge anyone to show otherwise, and furthermore to explain the above referenced passages within such a context.

II. THIS ONE GOSPEL IS "THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM"

This is one of the first titles of the one Gospel -- e.g., Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14-15. Have you ever asked yourself why? I suggest that the Kingdom of God and of Christ is the central feature of the Gospel! Consider this startling fact: the Gospel was widely preached by Christ and His disciples before His death and resurrection were even understood! Of course Christ's death and resurrection are indispensable to the Gospel, but why? Because the work of Christ is what grants us entrance into the Kingdom via a new birth (cf. John 3). Wow! The Gospel is "the word of the kingdom" (Matt. 13:19). And it never changed -- there are not different gospels for different groups in different time periods.

Read carefully Paul's words in Acts 20:21-27 -- this passage is foundational to understanding that Paul preached the same "Gospel" preached by Christ - that is, the Gospel of the Kingdom. Didn't Jesus teach us that the Kingdom was to be our first priority in Matt. 6:33? Paul's Gospel includes such Kingdom themes as the Last Judgment (Romans 2:16), Christ's Lordship (Romans 10:12,16), and Christ's present rule and the "delivering up" of His Kingdom at the Second Coming (cf. 1 Cor. 15). Look at 2 Tim. 2:8 -- why do you think that Paul threw in "of the seed of David"? Read Peter's sermon in Acts 2 for the answer (in verses 29-36) - that Christ is truly "the Seed of David" is essential to the Biblical understanding of the Kingdom.

We preach an incomplete Gospel when we leave out the fact that Christ has "all power" now (Matt. 28:18), being exalted to the right hand of God in His humanity (i.e., as "the seed of David") -- where He rules now, "making His enemies His footstool" (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). (2)

III. CHRIST AS LORD

Jesus Christ's exaltation by the Father is found throughout the NT. What was He "exalted" to? To LORDSHIP! He reigns as Lord NOW in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, at "the right hand of the Father." He wasn't kidding when He stated that He had been given "all power" (Matt. 28:18)! Christ is most often called "Lord" in the NT after this sense - He reigns as "the seed of David" in His glorified Humanity. This is important -- it is an OT Messianic designation rooted in Psalm 110:1 (cf. Matt. 22:41-46 and Acts 2:29-36). Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted/referenced OT verse in all the NT, and was the most quoted passage in the first century Church. [3]

Of course the Deity of Christ is necessarily implicit in such a title, but "Lord" is not simply the equivilent of "God" (with some obvious exceptions, determined by context - e.g., 1 Cor. 15:47). When Christ is called "Lord" it is in the Messianic sense of King and Master per Psalm 110:1-2. (4)

IV. "LORDSHIP SALVATION" IS THE ONLY KIND

Therefore, when we are told to "confess Jesus as Lord" -- we are really being told to willingly submit ourselves to the Reigning King. He is to be, in the Messianic sense of Ps. 110:1, our "personal" Lord -- note David's expression "My Lord" (Heb., adon - not adonai) and also the obvious implications that Jesus drew from it in Matt. 22. Christ always made a point of teaching that the Gospel places practical demands on the lives of those who would receive it -- He tells us to "count the cost" (Luke 14:28); to "take up our cross" (Matt. 16:24); and so on.

The new birth is an entrance into a kingdom -- His Kingdom (cf. John 3; Col. 1:13). Are we to enter His Kingdom having made no decision about submitting to the King? Such an idea is ludicrous! No - the word translated "believe" (Greek, pistis) carries the connotation of commitment to Christ - not simply an intellectual assent concerning "facts," which even the demons have (James 2:19, illustrated in Matt. 8:28-29 and Mark 1:23-24). Any "faith" that is not manifested in works is dead faith -- see James 2. Those who promote an "easy believism" must explain - if saving faith is simply the belief in an objective fact - the obvious examples in the NT of false faith that does not save -- e.g., 1 Cor. 15:2. In what way could there even be such a thing according to the teaching of those who deny so-called "Lordship salvation"? How can one read Christ's Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:2-20) and not see the folly of such "easy believism"? (5)

To "believe the Gospel" is to "believe the Gospel of the Kingdom" -- Christ is Saviour, Mediator, Propitiation, our Atonement, High Priest, and Lord. Christ is all these things, and so much more - to truly "receive Christ" is to receive all that He is. Thankfully, oftentimes the salvation experience of believers is far better than the subsequent theology which they adopt.

1. See my online article Problems With Dispensationalism. <BACK TO TEXT>

2. I do not believe that a particular millennial viewpoint is necessary to hold and teach "the Gospel of the Kingdom" - all major millennial views recognize a present reign of Christ. Nevertheless, I find that the amillennial viewpoint best interprets all of the relevant Scripture passages. See my online article Realized Millennialism. Also, my online article, An Exposition of First Corinthians 15:12-57. <BACK TO TEXT>

3. David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 15. <BACK TO TEXT>

4. See ThinkMail #10, under BITS & PIECES, item 1, for a discussion of Psalm 110:1. <BACK TO TEXT>

5. See John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Waco, Texas: Word Publishing). <BACK TO TEXT>