In Luke 9 the disciples “preach the Gospel” even though the crucifixion/resurrection was “hid from the disciples” until later; what does this imply about what early Christians (and the first hearers) assumed the Gospel was, and how does that challenge the idea that the Gospel is primarily a detailed explanation of substitutionary atonement?
Another way to ask: In Luke 9 the disciples preached the Gospel before they understood the cross and resurrection. What does that suggest they thought “the Gospel” meant, and how does that challenge the idea that the Gospel is mainly about substitutionary atonement?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker’s point implies the disciples’ early “Gospel” message was mainly the proclamation of God’s kingdom and the King’s arrival, not a full explanation of the cross and resurrection (since they did not yet understand it).
Support from Transcript:
Luke 9 shows Jesus sent them “to preach the kingdom of God,” and they went “preaching the Gospel.”
The speaker asks whether they could have preached, “Jesus was going to die on a cross… and you can go to heaven,” and answers that the “mystery of the crucifixion and resurrection… was hid from the disciples until the resurrection… and the coming of the Holy Spirit.”
He uses Peter’s later reaction as evidence they didn’t grasp it (Peter rebukes Jesus for predicting his death and resurrection).
He “links” Luke 9:2-6: “preach the kingdom of God” equals “preaching the Gospel.”
He concludes: “the message of the kingdom of God and the Gospel are synonymous.”
Discussion Follow-ups
The transcript doesn’t directly discuss “substitutionary atonement” as a doctrine. How might our Gospel presentations change if we begin with “kingdom” and “allegiance” rather than starting with an atonement explanation?