What do you think of the suggestion that Paul’s summary of the Gospel in this chapter includes verses 20-28? If in verses 5-19 Paul gives extra attention to the resurrection because of the problems with it in Corinth, in v. 20 he picks up his thought where he left it at v. 4.
If this is so, then the Gospel includes not only Christ?s past work (cross and resurrection), but his present reign and future consummation. And to believe the Gospel implicates one in what God is doing in Christ right now, ?subduing? his enemies by transforming them into friends (see Rom. 5:10) through the witness of the Church. This ?subduing? is of course not political, but through the proclamation of Christ?s victory over sin, Satan and death.
If Paul?s full summary of the Gospel, then, is I Cor. 15:1-4 and 20-28, discipleship and the mission of the Church are not add-ons to it, but part of its warp and woof. Christ is at this moment continuing to subdue our hearts (II Cor. 10:5) while using us to reach others in his name.

So – doesn’t this passage, in fact, lend weight to the comments of the Pastor in the airport (see Nov. 12), and ChrisB on several of these posts: that the gospel is preached correctly by much of the evangelical church? Well not quite perhaps – one cannot preach the cross alone, because the victory didn’t come with his death, but with his death and resurrection; one must include and even emphasize the resurrection.
The “gospel” of Jesus is the “so what” – the consequence of obedience. The consequence is reinforced, not negated in the writings of Paul, Peter, and John. So the word gospel is used with slightly different intent by Paul and by Jesus.
Of course we need to preach, teach, and practice the entire thing – not just a transaction.

Mark,
To me, the ascension and reign are also part of the resurrection.
RJS,
The question that constantly rotates in my mind: Why does this definition of the gospel get all the attention and not others? Does this articulation upstate Jesus or is it another way of saying what Jesus said?

Scot,
Why is probably a good Ph.D. dissertation topic – but…is it possible that the Gospel of Paul is that the death and resurrection of Jesus initiate the Gospel of Jesus, modeled and preached during his life – the good news of the present and coming kingdom of God?
In this case any privileging of Paul’s gospel over Jesus’s gospel misses the point. I think that this is also clear if we read all of Paul. Interesting to think about.
(By the way – I’m four for four on failed initial submissions this morning, fortunately I copy before submission, so the frustration level is minimal.)

RJS,
I too had a failed comment; weird message. But, I too copy before I click so I had it in memory and it went through the second time.
Yes, I do think the life, death and Res of Jesus — with Pentecost — make possible the kingdom gospel of Jesus and reveal its mechanism.

Scot,
I?m with you in wondering why this text is used to prop up a reduced gospel–Jesus died, was buried, rose again, do you believe it? It?s as if Jesus and Paul never said anything else at all about the gospel. I think it is traceable to the penchant for proof-texting that so dominates some approaches to the Bible in the USAmerican evangelical church.

John
This text clearly shows the structure of the saving events — no Spirit, of course — and these events need to be at the heart, but two things:
1. I know of very few who preach a gospel that includes resurrection (let alone ascension, etc).
2. Salvation is hereby reduced to forgiveness of sins. Yes, of course, but more and more is what we want in order to be faithful to the full biblical picture of “gospel.”

I have been rereading John Piper’s “God is the Gospel” and thought I’d put in a defense for him on this matter (he occasionally gets bashed hereabouts as one of those Reformed types who would only preach “a reduced gospel–Jesus died, was buried, rose again, do you believe it?”). On page 29 he states, “But there would be no gospel if Jesus had stayed dead… This is why Paul’s definition of the gospel in I Corinthians 15:1, 3-4 includes both the death and resurrection of Jesus… Jesus made clear that he would rise from the dead, and Paul made clear that this was an essential part of the gospel.”

Scot,
This is the passage I was taught that was the summary of the gospel. It is easy fodder for “easy-believism” evangelism. How do you think this interacts with the expectations of Jesus regarding how we live the gospel?