The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited

by Scot McKnight

Contemporary evangelicals have built a "salvation culture" but not a "gospel culture." Evangelicals have reduced the gospel to the message of personal salvation. This book makes a plea for us to recover the old gospel as that which is still new and still fresh. The book stands on four that the gospel is defined by the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15 as the completion of the Story of Israel in the saving Story of Jesus; that the gospel is found in the Four Gospels; that the gospel was preached by Jesus; and that the sermons in the Book of Acts are the best example of gospeling in the New Testament. The King Jesus Gospel ends with practical suggestions about evangelism and about building a gospel culture.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, Religion, Faith, Christian Living

193 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2011

About the author

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author or editor of forty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL. Dr. McKnight has given interviews on radios across the nation, has appeared on television, and is regularly speaks at local churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries in the USA and abroad. Dr. McKnight obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham (1986).

Reviews

[Knowlton Murphy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a response to an issue McKnight perceives in the American Evangelical world: an overemphasis on salvation experience without properly caring for discipleship and obedience in the Christian life. McKnight argues that for most American Evangelicals, personal salvation through an easily recalled salvation experience is for all practical purposes the end of what it means to be a Christian. Such a person (in an extreme example) might say, “Sure, I’ve cheated on my spouse, ruined my life with substance abuse, robbed a bank, and now I’m in prison for life, but I know I’m a Christian because thirty years ago at a summer camp I prayed a prayer to accept Jesus as my Lord and now I know that I know that I know that I know (etc.) that I’m going to heaven when I die.” McKnight’s concern is that in the Bible, the call to obedience to Christ as Lord is embedded in the call to salvation—one’s very salvation, then, is evidenced by a life of obedience to Christ. McKnight worries that we American Evangelicals have become so obsessed with salvation (becoming what he terms soterians because of our singular care about soteriology) that we’ve ceased to care about what Scripture takes for granted—discipleship, obedience, etc.

The good: I was surprised by how much I liked. McKnight has long been a name looming on the periphery of scholars I have a working knowledge of, and his name has in the past only evoked murky connotations. I respect him for identifying an issue and doing something about it. My own experience as a missionary kid, as someone who got a bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies, and who then went on to get an MDiv at a theologically conservative seminary and find myself on staff at a church I’m theologically in step with, is somewhat separated from the people McKnight describes. I read this with a friend who is older than me (in his 60’s, I believe), though, and he said that McKnight’s description does indeed fit a lot of people. Something I have seem in a missiological context is the way some megachurches have taken initial data on short term mission trips and interpreted them like this: 500 people made a decision for Christ, so we have 500 converts/Christians. This is absolutely absurd, but I think it reflects a deeply held value: the salvation experience itself is key in determining whether someone is or isn’t a Christian. For them, if someone prays a prayer, they are a Christian. A more biblical approach would be evaluating a person on the basis of their conversion, but also on the basis of the fruit of their life. At the end of the day, McKnight sees the American Evangelical church as a group of people who claim to be Christ’s, but who don’t live like it, and it’s a good observation, and it’s good that he wants to change it.

Additionally, McKnight’s desire is that this be changed by familiarity with and imitation of what we see in Scripture. I love this approach and respect it. McKnight things that our need is to become a people of the story of Christ, and that the only way for that to happen is to immerse ourselves in it.

One critique I saw in an article before reading this book was McKnight's deficient appreciation of doctrines like substitutionary atonement. This didn't seem as big of a deal to me--McKnight clearly articulated substitutionary atonement at one point and called it essential (paraphrase). I think we have every right to be gracious to an author who doesn't talk about things we want him to talk about when he's devoting the majority of his efforts to talking about something else--you only have so much time and space. So just going by that one article, I think McKnight can be given more grace than I would have initially wanted to give him.

The not so good: McKnight wants to connect the story of Jesus to the story of Israel. I think that’s right—but McKnight limits Jesus too much in this regard. He argues that the Old Testament is the story of Israel, and if that were true, I’d agree with his emphasis on Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. But I disagree with McKnight’s opinion here: I don’t think the Old Testament is about Israel. Not primarily, anyway. It’s about God creating a people to rule/exert dominion as his eikons, precisely as McKnight argues, but McKnight twists the narrative so that it’s man-centered when it is more rightly reckoned as God-centered. It’s less the story of the pot and more the story of the potter, less about the people and more about the creator of the people. It isn’t just a history of Israel for Israel’s sake, it’s the story of God’s creation of worshippers among the nations through special worship agents in a chosen people. It’s the story of a Creator blessing peoples (plural) by blessing a people (singular). So when McKnight comes out and says Christ is the completion of the story of Israel, I disagree: Christ fulfills the story of mankind in a much bigger way. Why did God elect Abraham? Not just to bless Abraham’s offspring, but to bless all the nations of the world. Israel matters then, and is crucial to the story of God’s redemptive work in His world, but it isn’t what the books of the Old Testament are ultimately about.

Another key issue that I struggle with here is the method of gospeling. McKnight argues that to tell the story of the gospel rightly, you have to present it as the completion of Israel, as I just talked about a little bit. His evidence is taken from the Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles—but his main body of evidence is taken from Jewish Christians talking to Jewish people. My issue is, how much of the way the gospel was presented there was done that way because of contextualization? I have no issue with presenting the story of Christ in metanarrative—that’s how I share the gospel when I get a chance—but McKnight refers to that metanarrative as the story of Israel. It seems like the best place to see Paul speaking to non-Jews would be at the Areopagus. But McKnight cheats a little when he addresses this. Paul refers to Adam (but not by name), and he refers to Christ (also not by name)…so McKnight says, “There! It’s the story of Israel!” So is Adam and the creation account simply “the story of Israel”? And just when Paul would have every reason to present Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah…does he? McKnight argues that surely people listening to Paul would draw him aside and ask him who he was referring to, at which time Paul would be able to present the story of Israel—but it’s purely speculative. So the question I’m faced with is this: when I speak to people in my town about Christ, do I only evangelize properly when I present Jesus as Israel’s messiah? I do love to present Christ in a large context—some variation of creation, fall, salvation, return/renewal—but am I only doing this faithfully when I emphasize his primary role as Israel’s messiah? Not so sure about this. To elucidate this crisis even more, the friend with whom I read this is a missionary to an unreached people group that is primarily Muslim. As he read this, he wondered the same thing: am I being faithful to my call to witness and discipleship in this Muslim context if I don’t present Christ first and foremost as Israel’s Messiah?

I have more thoughts, but these are the main things I enjoyed and wondered about. I’m looking forward to looking at another perspective of this as I look into Greg Gilbert’s thoughts.

[JR Rozko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scot wrote a book that needed to be written and wrote it well. It will appeal to a broad readership. Some will understand it... and get angry. Others will misunderstand it... and get angry. Then there will be people like me... who get it, but far from getting angry, feel like he should have said more, or at least different things in order to A) get his point across and B) be more constructive w/ his proposal. In the final analysis, I think he does his readership a dis-service by overly separating what he calls "a gospel culture" and "a soterian culture." In my estimation, the real problem isn't that we've conflated these ideas, but that we've misunderstood them. Put another way, the gospel-problem as I see it played out, both in theology as well as int he life of church communities, isn't that we've focused on salvation when we should have focused on the gospel, it's that we haven't rightly understood the proper relation between these things. Scot does a great job of critiquing the un-biblical notion of "personal salvation," as a way to understand the gospel, but could (or ought to really) have said more about a more proper way to understand the relationship b/t the gospel and salvation. In a future book perhaps.

[Janet Richards · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that really tells you much about the how or the who. What it does very well for a long-time church girl like me is challenge theology I've been exposed to that has weakened my understanding of the gospel.

I grew up in an old testament, doomsday cult. They were slightly less extreme than you are probably thinking, but only slightly. I have a lot of theological and spiritual baggage from that experience, but one of the things that was done right was give me an appreciation for the Story of Israel. A historical appreciation, not the obsession today with seeing Israel restored.

In our old tradition, Jesus didn't have his proper place in the Godhead. That was another thing, I had to correct. So I already started with a very bad understanding of the gospel.

When I finally understood Jesus, I think I came very close to how the gospel is described in this book. It seemed like Jesus' life was a logical conclusion to the Old Testament story and as celebrated in the biblical Holy Days we kept.

Later, as a member of an Assemblies of God church, I encountered various evangelizing strategies. This seemed like a much easier way to share the gospel!! So simple - it fits on a note card. As McNight says, that actually should have been a warning.

Eventually, most of these approaches did not sit well with me. I could not see how you would take someone already in a difficult period and convince them how much of a sinner they are. They are already convinced of their worthlessness. Where do you tell them they are made in the image of God? Where do you give them hope that God doesn't abandon people because they have failed (again and again)? When do you tell them that they are suffering not just from their sins, but the sins of the society, nation and community. In fact, it's those sins that may reach them first. The story I was taught to use seemed so incomplete.

I also thought it really only works for relatively wealthy, self-absorbed westerners. It doesn't speak to minorities in this country or most people in the rest of the world very well.

So - basically I haven't used it much. But did not have to words to express why I thought it as such a simplistic and limited tool, until this book.

I have never let go of the story of Israel, and always felt a bit out of sorts in the evangelical world to keep mentioning it. That isn't the only thing that makes me terribly out of sorts in the evangelical world! As an African American, it is a story that makes Jesus meaninfug to me. It is a story that shows that his redemption is long and pure. That just like Isreal, the suffering of my people is not forgotten with a just God. Yes, I appreciate my personal salvation. But I also long for a restoration of the world as it should be. I want to be in a Kingdom where all is restored, not just my physical hide. This book helped give life to that version of the gospel that I hold on to.

[Kayti · Rating 5 out of 5]

McKnight thoroughly unpacks the true and comprehensive meaning of “the gospel” with excellence and manages to do it in a way that is accessible to the non-academic.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

McKnight started to write a book that desperately needed to be written, unfortunately he didn't finish it.

The strength of McKnight's book is in his message that "we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the word salvation. Hence, we are really “salvationists.” When we evangelicals see the word gospel, our instinct is to think (personal) “salvation.” We are wired this way. But these two words don’t mean the same thing, and this book will do its best to show the differences." In doing this, he corrects the biggest weakness in Greg Gilbert's "What is the Gospel?".

He actually addresses Gilbert directly, writing:

"Please recognize that I’m not saying Gilbert’s expositions of specific points are wrong even if I would frame things differently. What I am saying is that Gilbert begins in the wrong place because he equates gospel with salvation — the Plan of Salvation — and does not therefore see the fundamental gospel to be a declaration about Jesus Christ as the resolution of Israel’s Story. He has processed the story through the lens of the Plan of Salvation, but the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15 processes the gospel through the lens of Israel’s Story, finding its resting place in Jesus Christ. In doing this Gilbert has omitted fundamental layers of the gospel."

This is dead on--which is why I would never give Gilbert's book to a non-believer. He criticizes what he calls the "soterian" gospel model, writing:

"When the plan gets separated from the story, the plan almost always becomes abstract, propositional, logical, rational, and philosophical and, most importantly, de-storified and unbiblical. When we separate the Plan of Salvation from the story, we cut ourselves off the story that identifies us and tells our past and tells our future. We separate ourselves from Jesus and turn the Christian faith into a System of Salvation."

One of the most helpful arguments he makes, is to push his readers back to the four gospels. It is there that we ought to work to seek to understand what the gospel is. The four books were named "The Gospel According to ..." for a reason.

All this being said, the setup is great--he really seems to understand what is missing in our "plan of salvation" culture. What is missing is the back story--the Old Testament. But here is the greatest weakness of the book, he doesn't do much to explain that back story. What little he says, is much too brief and flat.

Because he does so little to develop the story that Jesus completes, the rest of the book is a bit hollow. Much more could have been said and developed than was, and this is the most glaring weakness of the book.

So this is a better book than "What is the Gospel?" but I'm still looking for a book that really articulates the breadth of the gospel in a satisfactory way.

[Camden Garrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

McKnight contends that so-called evangelicals are better labeled "soterians" because the gospel they preach is better classified as the "Plan of Salvation." The common gospel in the West is that "We are sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God and that God so loved the world that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. So put your faith in Christ Jesus and God who raised Him from the dead and He will give you eternal life." These statements are true and should, of course, be proclaimed, but the gospel is not reducible to them. McKnight assesses the common "decision" culture in which many profess belief in that plan-of-salvation as a one-time decision that can be added onto one's life despite no change in living. Contrarily, the gospel of the earliest believers and in the gospels themselves is the story of Jesus as the completion and fulfillment of the story of Israel. Belief in these things leads to salvation. McKnight emphasizes 1 Corinthians 15, the sermons in Acts, and the four gospel accounts that draw upon language from Isaiah in the Old Testament. Overall, I feel McKnight rightly brings to light that the gospel is "according to the Scriptures" and should not be divorced from the story of Israel. I fear that his position might be mischaracterized as rejecting the plan of salvation, but McKnight is adamant in justification by faith alone and the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. I may want to investigate this topic further before declaring to what degree I agree with McKnight, but his contributions should be considered by those who call themselves evangelicals.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scot McKnight's new book, "The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited," is a keeper. In fact, I would say it's one of the best theological books I've ever read. Part of what makes it exciting is that McKnight is excited himself! You can sense his energy and his joy in his subject, as he leads us step-by-step through his own theological development. It takes some work to read Jesus in his own context, and McKnight is patient with us.

I used this book in my classes at a Christian school, to help bolster my case that Christians should read the Old Testament more. My students were honest in their admission that they don't read the Old Testament much, and don't see the point. McKnight argues that, unless we understand the story of Israel, we cannot really understand Jesus.

I appreciated his critique of the Reformation, his insistence that we learn about the early church, and his endorsement of prayer-books and creeds. If you don't see how those are connected with Jesus in first-century context, you'll just have to buy the book and find out for yourself!

My only real question concerns the "contextualization" question. McKnight presents a solid case that Apostolic preaching looked like thus-and-such. Basically, the preaching of Peter and Paul was dramatically different than our "four spiritual laws" presentations and arm-twisting methods of "gospel" persuasion. Granted. But, Peter and Paul were preaching to a largely Jewish culture. Even when Paul is writing to sort out problems between Jews and Gentiles, he's still working within Jewish categories. When we take the Gospel to Africa, do we still stress every aspect of Old Testament history as much as the Apostles did? Stephen's speech in Acts wouldn't seem to work so well in remote jungles. I hope McKnight will take this up in another book.

Overall, this is a splendid book, and I hope it will help to shake up the anemic and shallow American church!

[Tristan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh this was my first McKnight book but will not be my last!! I have heard him spoken of so highly and I really appreciated what he did in this book. His provocative question: Did Jesus preach the Gospel? reveals how narrowly we define the Gospel. So often we merely preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but this is not the Gospel, the Good News, that the gospel writers proclaim. I was already in agreement that sharing your personal testimony as a reason that people should become a Christian is not the most effective (or God honoring) method of evangelism, but am now persuaded to preach Jesus as the messiah of the Jewish scriptures as the whole Gospel. If someone ever asks me what the Gospel is, I'll now respond with: Well do you have an hour?

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book helpfully corrects the reductionistic definitions of the gospel so prevalent in contemporary evangelicalism by showing the storied-shape of the apostolic kerygma. The chapter on building a gospel culture is quite good. There is little in this book with which I would disagree, however, I do find McKnight’s polemical tone a bit grating at times. 3 1/2 stars.

[Nathan Mladin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much needed corrective to soteric reductionism (sobering quote: "We have reduced the life of Jesus to Good Friday, and therefore reduced the gospel to the crucifixion, and then soterians have reduced Jesus to transactions of a Savior" - p. 119).

My main quibble with McKnight is that he's given us a more or less snappy, little book, when such an important theme would have deserved a lengthier and even more nuanced treatment. For example, his definition of the gospel as the story of Jesus completing or consummating the Story of Israel has not lead to 'aham' reactions, rather to a series of questions like: what about pre-Israel biblical material? what about Adam and Eve? The controversial question about the relationship between Israel and the Church also popped up? What do contemporary Romanian, British, American Christians (etc.) have to do with Israel's story being completed? Admittedly, McKnight has cogently answered many of these questions on his blog. However, it would have been better to produce a much more substantial treatment from the outset, rather than qualify and clarify in subsequent blog posts all sorts of loose ends in the snappy book. Nevertheless, the book is a good start. It will constitute a good trigger and point of departure for healthy theological reflection. I still feel he has downplayed a bit the soteric aspect of Jesus's ministry in the attempt to present him in His Kingly capacity, as the Messiah and Lord.

We do indeed need the bigger vision, narratively framed, in order to understand particular functions of Jesus' ministry. And for this purpose, McKnight's King Jesus Gospel is just great.

[Kristi Mast · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just bought two copies of this for my mom and her ministry in my home town. This kind of return to a Biblical Gospel is vital for our evangelism and our faith.

[Benjamin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had heard some rave reviews of this book, so thought I'd give it a chance. However, since I was already familiar with some of the basic ideas in it, my expectations were not overly high. The problem McKnight proposes to tackle is truly an important one: how to see those in churches become disciples. While the discussion is worthy, I don't believe that his answer really holds water.

In the introduction, the author makes this statement: "Evangelicals have the same struggle of moving the "decided" into becoming the "discipled", because they've created a smug salvation culture, where the obsession is making the right decision, so we can cross the threshold from the unsaved to the saved, the "decided". A gospel culture though encompasses it all and leads the members into the "discipled" because it equates the former with the latter." McKnight spends lots of time bashing a "soterian" culture that emphasizes a status-change (aka, being born again) as the problem behind the lack of discipleship in the church. It took me a second and third glance to pick up on what the former quote actually implies: the decided ARE the discipled, which means only the discipled can be considered the decided (aka, Christians). Now, at a later point in the book he says that "Initial faith and discipleship are two dimensions of the same response." This later statement at least allows for the understanding that initial faith in Christ begins the process of discipleship rather than equating some attained level of discipleship with being a Christian. To put it more succinctly: birth leads to maturity, but maturity is not a pre-requisite for birth. But while McKnight does seem to give a nod to the idea of being "born again", it is deemphasized to a point where it seems to lose most of it's importance.

McKnight seeks to define "Gospel" in his own way as some kind of magical key to overcoming the discipleship crisis. He often repeats that preaching the Gospel is "preaching Jesus as the completion of Israel's story." He makes a lot out of the contiguous story between Israel and Jesus to the point where he says, "Gospeling not driven by the atonement story, but by story of Israel." He then has to do a good deal of stretching to make Paul's sermons in Acts 14 and 17 fit his narrative. These examples of Paul preaching the Gospel without any reference to Israel ought to make it clear that, while Jesus IS the completion of Israel's story, this truth is not necessarily at the "heart" of the Gospel, nor is it necessary to understand the history of Israel to understand the essence of "the Gospel".

I was reminded a number of times as I read of the words of Tim Keller that, "not everything is the Gospel and the Gospel is not everything." If McKnight had simply sought to bring out more of the richness in Jesus' story against the background of Israel and , it would have been helpful enough. However, as "belief in the Gospel" is what the Bible lays out as the condition for salvation, I believe that loading the term with more than it implies is not only inaccurate but potentially dangerous. It follows that, unless one understands the connections with Israel that McKnight lays out, one has not yet believed "the Gospel". He does reference 1 Cor. 15:3-4 a good deal "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures..." However, he attempts to drag the "story of Israel" into this simple, apostolic definition via the rest of the chapter (which also doesn't necessarily reference Israel.) Besides this, he also tries to separate "the Gospel" and "the plan of salvation", as if they are two separate things. While certainly the Gospel has layers and applications that are not necessary to understand to be born again, to make them two separate things is untrue to the biblical text: "the Gospel...is the power of God unto salvation for all those who believe." (Rom. 1:16)

The author apparently blames the Protestant Reformation for the shift to a Gospel definition that emphasizes guilt and justification and faith and grace. He instead claims that the first 1,500 years of church history were shaped by a "Gospel culture", and cites the Nicean creed as embodying this. However, at one point he does come clean and says, "I'm not contending that the Gospel culture of the first centuries created an inordinate amount of disciples…" This seems exceedingly odd, as the whole premise of the book is that a "Gospel culture" (as McKnight defines it) is the key to solving our discipleship crisis.

He seems to deemphasize and even knock a focus on atonement and justification throughout. While he does not deal with his views on justification directly in this book, McKnight really looks to NT Wright as a mentor of sorts and espouses His dangerous view of justification which it based in a synergistic way on our own works. Knowing this makes many of his disparaging comments about justification unsurprising.

While he often downplays this aspect of substitutionary atonement, he proposes what is essentially a recapitulation theory of atonement. The problem is that, while substitutionary atonement is certainly not the whole picture, neither is recapitulation. Instead, it would've been nice to see McKnight underscore the importance of both. This is only one of the areas in which the book seems more reactionary than balanced and well thought out.

Despite these cautions, there are certainly a few good challenges in the book, such as a renewed appreciation for the creeds and church history, as well as not focusing on penal substitutionary atonement to the exclusion of other valid theories of atonement. Nevertheless, the attempt to redefine the term "Gospel" as including more than it does makes McKnight's theories potentially dangerous to the unexperienced believer. So, while the problem is valid, the solution is unsatisfactory.

Practical notes:

- I listened to the audible audiobook version and had to pause and rewind a LOT. This was the first and last theology book I will listen to as opposed to reading text. Deep thoughts require time to engage, which the audio format does not allow.
- The book is very repetitive. The author could've fit the points he was making into half the space.

[Tim Casteel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very challenging little book.
The gospel is not about you. it is about Jesus.
McKnight says "We are tempted to turn the story of what God is doing in this world through Israel and Jesus Christ into a story about me and my own personal salvation."

I picked up McKnight's book after studying all the occurrences of the word "gospel" in the NT. The majority of its uses have nothing about "Jesus came to die for you to pay for your sins so you could go to heaven;" nor justification by grace.
Pointedly, McKnight asks: "Did Jesus preach the gospel?" His answer: Jesus did not preach "the Plan of Salvation or justification by faith or personal salvation” but he did “preach himself as the completion of Israel’s Story.”
That is McKnight's gospel: "the Story of Israel coming to completion in the Story of Jesus".

I believe much of what is wrong with the American church is downstream from the gospel that we proclaim.
We present a gospel that "is a solution to an individual, private sin-problem" instead of the kingdom and a King.
[Jesus and] "the apostles evangelized by telling the Story of Jesus. Our gospel preaching and evangelism tend to tell the story of how to be saved personally."
We unwittingly preach the story of one person- me.
Instead, we should call people into a "story about God and God’s Messiah and God’s people" that causes them to lose themselves in the greater story.

McKnight's 4 Spiritual Laws are:
1. The gospel is the Story of Israel coming to completion in the Story of Jesus
2. Jesus is King
3. Our response - repentance, faith in Jesus
4. The gospel saves and redeems. We receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and justification

Still chewing on what this means for how we should share the gospel.

[Dorothy Grace Barrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book combined with reading the Bible in 90 days (shout out to Every Word!), and Nancy Guthrie’s biblical theology workshops, have greatly shaped my understanding of the gospel. The gospel is not the emotional experience of “asking Jesus into your heart” that American culture can make it to be. Instead it is a lifetime journey of understanding how The story of Israel is resolved by Jesus. How his life, death, burial and resurrection is infinitely important and how knowing and becoming part of this story, forever changes our story.

[Melvin Kauffman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A refreshing take on the Gospel story in our "sinner's prayer", personal salvation based Christianity today.

[Titus Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I genuinely enjoyed this book. I loved the way he framed the difference between Plan of Salvation and the Gospel being the story of Jesus throughout the book and our responsibility as Christians and the Church.

[Robert Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every now and then, someone comes along and writes a book that turns upside down all our thinking about what Christianity is all about and what we're supposed to be doing in the meantime. Some folks have said that Brian McClaren's books"Generous Orthodoxy" or "A New Kind of Christian" were such a book. Those books, however, only asked a lot of questions and really didn't put forward many answers. There was no roadmap, really, of how to move forward from the questioning that is so prevalent in post-modernist/post-Christendom thinking and discussions. Even the missional conversation has spent a lot of time asking questions.

McKnight has hit a home run with this one. There is so much talk among Christian circles about what we're supposed to do next, how do we change our churches, how do we do these different things. But no one, until now, has taken us back to the beginning of the whole story and said, "We must start here". McKnight has done so. All our other conversations about what "church" should look like, what Christians should be doing, what the mission of God is" spend time looking at the effects of the gospel. McKnight takes us to what the REAL gospel is and sets aside all sorts of bad assumptions and bad ideas to take us to the heart of the problem. Hints of this were in the "Jesus Creed" but I think, as a starting point moving forward for Western Christianity, "The King Jesus Gospel" is, by far, the best book for grounding us firmly in who Jesus is and what it means for our lives.

Read it.

Read my blog at Abnormal Anabaptist for a more detailed review.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

McKnight asks the question, "what is the Gospel?" He argues that when evangelicals answer this question, they are usually presenting the plan of salvation and not the gospel. While salvation is included in the gospel, it is not the gospel. Part of his argument here is that the "gospel" many evangelicals preach is not what Jesus preached which means Jesus did not preach the gospel. Such a point alone should cause us to rethink things.

McKnight starts with 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul reports the Gospel that was passed on to him. From his McKnight argues that the Gospel is that Jesus Christ has completed the story of Israel (or, the story of Jesus completes the story of Israel as revealed in the Old Testament). Along with 1 Corinthians 15, McKnight's argument hinges on the story of Jesus in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These four books are called "gospel" which means they must preach the gospel, not just serve as background for the other parts of the New Testament where we have traditionally gone looking for gospel. McKnight looks at what Jesus preached, arguing Jesus preached himself as completing Israel's story (and this is gospel). Then we move through Acts, where Peter and Paul also preach Jesus as completion of Israel's story, thus again the gospel is Jesus.

McKnight ends with a chapter on how this plays out in evangelism today and a chapter on creating a gospel culture (or how this gospel plays out in communal church life). Overall, this is a fantastic book and a must read for pastors and church leaders.

[Vance Christiaanse · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior I naturally dug into the Bible. The picture I got was roughly what Scot McKnight lays out in this profoundly important book. Obviously Scot McKnight's wisdom is far beyond mine; I only mean the path he lays out so clearly is the path I saw but much less clearly. He stresses many of the Bible passages that I focused on and, in some cases, committed to memory. As I got more involved in the church I learned that I wasn't supposed to be memorizing those passages; I was expected to focus on proof-texts for the Four Spiritual Laws. So... reading this book was a joyful return for me to the excitement of my early days of actually following Jesus.

It is one thing to be able to present two different views of the Gospel. I can switch my mind back and forth between the smaller Gospel that has taken over the church and the bigger, deeper Gospel in the Bible. But it's very difficult to talk to someone who only has one of those two views in their mind. Just describing the other one sounds like gibberish. But Scot McKnight identifies clear and specific differences that can serve as concrete discussion points to bridge the gap.

If you suspect there might be more to Christianity than reciting the sinner's prayer and then waiting until you die so you can go to heaven, this book is for you!

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

I notice there are many great reviews on what Scot McKnight has done with this particular piece of writing. I won't rehash what has already been said.

Perhaps the best thing I could say (or would want someone to say if it were my book) is that this explanation of the Gospel and the Story we say we believe has motivated me more than any other recent book I've read to press on in my own journey with Christ.

I want to spend more time in the Scriptures...getting to know the story of Israel which Jesus fulfills, immersing myself in the gospel accounts of Jesus' story, exploring the early church's "acts" of gospeling, and even digging out my old church history texts from seminary by Gonzalez and studying the ways in which the church carried on the gospeling from then until now.

I'm more compelled than ever to engage the Word in the context of community and incorporate the Christian calendar, daily prayer, and other spiritual disciplines in order to more faithfully live out my role as a member of the People of God.

What McKnight lays out here really challenges a reductionist (soterian) approach to the Gospel and makes you think deeply about evangelism as well. For such a brief, easy-to-read book it really packs a punch!

[Patrick Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved this book! I'm leading a core group here at the campus ministry where we're doing evangelism/discipleship training, and the first few weeks of the semester we've been looking at what the 'gospel' is according to the Bible (and not what's become the common answer in the western church). I am majorly indebted to McKnight on many things, and this book just added yet another reason why he's my favorite scholar/author to read/study. One of the best takeaways from this book, is seeing that what we pass as the 'gospel' today is actually a 'Good Friday only' gospel, that centers ONLY on the death of Jesus. The Scriptures paint a much bigger picture (one that INCLUDES Good Friday, obviously), one that extends the entire breadth of the Scriptures and is much more consistent with what the early church believed. McKnight even traces (in a VERY brief overview) the history of Christian thought in regard to what the 'gospel' is, and helps us to see where in church history the shift from the biblical gospel to today's version began. I HIGHLY recommend this book! I believe this is one of those books EVERY Christian would benefit from wrestling with, ESPECIALLY if their version of the 'gospel' consists ONLY of Good Friday.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Defining the gospel has become a battleground between warring theologies. Is the gospel primarily about justification by faith, the kingdom of God, or the restoration of all things? McKnight’s offering here is an important (game changing?) contribution to the discussion. McKnight begins at First Corinthians 15 and fleshes out the contours of the gospel: The story of Israel (shorthand for God’s self-revelation throughout the OT) brought to completion in the story of Jesus. This is the gospel that Paul preached, and Peter (McKnight walks us through their “gospeling” in Acts). In fact, this is the gospel that Jesus preached: Himself – and ultimately His own death and resurrection – as the fulfillment of God’s work in Israel. McKnight calls to repentance the contemporary church, which often sees the gospel only in terms of salvation (four spiritual laws). This truncates a rightful understanding of God’s work in history. McKnight’s contribution to the gospel debate is a must-read. A+

[Bradley Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall a good book to combat what McKnight calls "soterian reductionism." I think he overstates his point at times, but the book is a good, challenging read that invites us into a larger story of the gospel. I agree with the majority of what he says, but that his emphasis is off at times. Also, his criticisms turn into caricatures at points, which distort his message. I love that he focuses on the story of Jesus as the gospel. I don't like that he fails to emphasize how central forgiveness is to that story (to be fair, it isn't absent just under emphasized).

[Tanner Hawk · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Most of evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples" (18).

"Our focus on getting young people to make decisions--that is, 'accepting Jesus into our hearts'--appears to distort spiritual formation...focusing youth events, retreats, and programs on persuading people to make a decision disarms the gospel, distorts numbers, and diminishes the significance of discipleship" (20).

"we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word 'gospel' with the word 'salvation.' Hence, we are really 'salvationists.' When we evangelicals see the word 'gospel,' our instinct is to think (personal) 'salvation.' We are wired this way. But these two words don't mean the same thing...What has happened is that we have created a 'salvation culture' and mistakenly assumed it is a 'gospel culture'" (29).

"sometimes we are so singularly focused on the personal-Plan-of-Salvation and how-we-get-saved that we eliminate the Story of Israel and the Story of Jesus altogether" (38).

"One reason why so many Christians today don't know the Old Testament is because their 'gospel' doesn't even need it!" (44).

"Instead of 'four spiritual laws,' which for many holds up our salvation culture, the earliest gospel concerned four 'events' or 'chapters' in the life of Jesus Christ": that Christ died, that Christ was buried, that Christ was raised, and that Christ appeared (49).

"The Story of Jesus Christ, then, isn't a story that came out of nowhere like the Book of Mormon, and it isn't a timeless set of ideas as with Plato's philosophical writings. The Story of Jesus Christ is locked into one people, one history, and one Scripture: it makes sense only as it follows and completes the Story of Israel" (50).

"Jesus died (1) with us (identification), (2) instead of us (representation and substitution), and (3) for us (incorporation into the life of God)" (51).

"the Story of Jesus Christ is a complete story and not just a Good Friday story" (53).

"The gospel story of Jesus Christ is a story about Jesus as Messiah, Jesus as Lord, Jesus as Savior, and Jesus as Son...the emphasis here in the gospel is that Jesus is Lord over all" (55).

"When we separate the Plan of Salvation from the story [of Israel and Jesus], we cut ourselves off from the story that identifies us and tells our past and tells our future. We separate ourselves from Jesus and turn the Christian faith into a System of Salvation" (62).

"While each of those books [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] would have been called 'the Gospel,' no one referred to them in the plural (e.g., 'we read in the four Gospels') for more than a century after they were written...authors of these books did not see themselves as authors or biographers of Jesus so much as witnesses to the one gospel when they told the Story of Jesus...to 'gospel' is to tell the Story of Jesus" (81-2).

"I would encourage readers of the Gospels to read a passage or a chapter and then to pause and ponder long enough to permit their knowledge of Israel's Story--the Old Testament Scriptures--to help them find connections between what the evangelists are saying and what the Old Testament told us" (87).

"Paul's apostolic 'for our sins' is tied to the death of Christ in that apostolic summary [1 Cor. 15], but let us not forget--as we are so prone to do with our emphasis on the cross of Christ--that apart from resurrection the cross remains nothing more than an instrument of torture and suffering" (89).

"the gospel question is not, 'Did Jesus preach the Plan of Salvation or justification by faith or personal salvation?' but, 'Did Jesus preach himself as the completion of Israel's Story in such a way that he was the saving story himself?'...This new question shifts the entire focus from the benefits of salvation that we experience to the Person who himself is the good news" (92).

"From the promises to Abraham of a land and a people and kings, to God's promise to David for an eternal king and kingdom, right on through the prophetic visions 'shalom' and justice and heartfelt Torah observance, all of this and more, Jesus balled up into the word 'kingdom' and said, 'Get ready, it's almost here. In fact, in some ways it is already here'" (96).

"When Jesus talks about moral vision, he sees himself completing the Torah and the Prophets. When he summons the twelve to be his apostles, he is summing up Israel's hope and Israel's covenant community as its Lord. And when Jesus speaks about his premature death, he sees it as fulfilling Scriptures, not the least of which is the defining event: Passover itself" (111).

"too often we have...
reduced the life of Jesus to Good Friday, and therefore
reduced the gospel to the crucifixion, and then soterians have
reduced Jesus to transactions of a Savior" (119).

"Anyone who can preach the gospel and not make Jesus' exalted lordship the focal point simply isn't preaching the apostolic gospel...the gospeling of the apostles in the book of Acts is bold declaration that leads to a summons while much of evangelism today is crafty persuasion" (134).

"the fundamental solution in the gospel is that Jesus is Messiah and Lord; this means there was a fundamental need for a ruler, a king, and a lord" (137).

"The issue is not just that we were sinners; we were usurpers in the garden" (138).

"What the apostles were telling us is that the assignment God gave Adam, the assignment transferred to Abraham, Israel, and Moses, and then to David has now been transferred to and perfectly fulfilled by Jesus" (139).

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book happens to be written by my dad, so you should read it! :)
I like how he concludes the book, with C.S. Lewis' description of Aslan (Jesus):
Watch the Lion roam.
Watch the Lion die on the Stone Table.
Watch the Stone Table crack with new creation powers.
Listen to the Lion's Roar.
Trust the Lion.
Love the Lion.
Live for the Lion.

This sums up our gospel as Christians, the King Jesus Gospel.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

(4.5 stars)
In 'The King Jesus Gospel', Scot McKnight suggests that we (in Scot's estimation: most modern Western Christians) need nothing short of a paradigm shift in the way that we understand and perceive the Gospel.

Is the Gospel merely a theory of atonement? Or a message of personal salvation from the penalty of sin? (aptly named a 'soterian gospel'). Scot's answer is a resounding 'no'. Although the atonement and salvation from the penalty of sin are beautiful and vital truths, they are not the gospel, only a part thereof.

The Gospel (good news) is the story of Jesus as King and Lord. A saving, redeeming and transforming story that we are called to take part in and continue as his people. McKnight also places much emphasis on Jesus' story being a continuation and answer to the story of Israel (more on this later).

To prove his thesis, McKnight surveys Paul's gospel summaries found throughout his letters, Jesus' gospel preaching and the apostles' preaching in the book of Acts. He also takes a small detour to trace the history of how the gospel got reduced to inviting Jesus into your heart as Saviour (at least in some circles, whereas in other Christian denominations, the gospel is practically equated with a particular theory of atonement that one must subscribe to by both mentally assenting to and internally trusting in).

In my estimation, Scot clearly demonstrates that the gospel is far more than '5 steps to get saved' or the Penal Substitution theory of atonement (Jesus proclaims the good news of the Kingdom before his death and resurrection, this alone should prove that the gospel cannot be reduced to a theory of atonement) . His defining of the good news as 'The story of Jesus' captures what the New Testament both summaries and details when speaking of the good news: The life of Jesus (teachings and deeds), his death "for our sins" according to the Scriptures, his resurrection and appearance to many disciples followed by his exaltation to the right hand of God and coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords.

A particular strength of this book is its clear distinctions between aspects of the gospel and the gospel in its entirety. Although Paul can summarize "his gospel" or "the gospel" as a few vitally important parts of Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension, it does not mean that the gospel is nothing more than any of Paul's summaries. A rather obvious but perhaps overlooked fact that McKnight points out is that the gospels themselves are titled "the good news according to..." and they tell the story of Jesus as the completion of Israel's story in quite some detail.

Another helpful distinction is that between the gospel and the appropriate response to its proclamation. The gospel is proclaimed as the story of Jesus the risen King (a survey of Luke's second volume quickly confirms this), whereas the appropriate response is faith, repentance and baptism.

One final note: McKnight places some much needed emphasis on the story of Jesus as it relates to the story of Israel. 'According to the Scriptures' is a common phrase that is often overlooked in gospel summaries and preaching throughout the New Testament. However, I think a little too much emphasis is placed on this reality, perhaps as a reaction to its absence in much of today's gospel preaching. Yes the story of Jesus is the answer to the story of Israel in a way, but not to the extent that presenting the story of Jesus without reference to the story of Israel disqualifies it from gospel status. This is the impression that Scot gives.

I would say that the story of Jesus is good news to all the world, and that the emphasis on the story of Israel is because the gospel is first to the Jew and then the Greek. In my reading and reflection on gospel preaching in Acts, heavy reference to the story of Israel is present when Jews and Greek proselytes are being evangelized; those that already understand the story of Israel enough to appreciate the story of Jesus in light of the story of Israel. However, when Gentiles are being addressed who know next to nothing of the Jewish scriptures (i.e. Paul's Areopagus Sermon), none or very little (debatable) reference to the story of Israel is made. Rather, culturally relevant parallels and examples are drawn upon that still find their answer in the story of Jesus.

After conversion, Gentiles are taught the story of Israel to fully appreciate the story of Jesus with more clarity and depth. This is evident in both the New Testament letters that often cite the Old Testament Scriptures even when addressing mixed congregations, as well as in early church history.

Apart from this minor quibble, I would heartily recommend this book.

Additional comment: McKnight's writing style can be rather repetitive. He sometimes speaks in circles and repeats himself one or two times too many. Otherwise, for the most part, he explains and delivers his content in creative and enjoyable ways.

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited," by Scot McKnight. 


The intros really hit on a point that's been on my mind: have we tried to truncate the Good News of Jesus so much so that salvation is affirming a syllogism? If we answer "what is the Gospel?" by pointing to a dead Messiah on a cross then we aren't special. The deserts of the middle east are littered with bones of dead Messiahs. So our trying to make the presentation of the Gospel more bite sized has lead us to espousing some news that's not that good nor original. 


McKnight would have us first see the story of Isreal as foundational to our understanding of the Gosple. In looking through this Judaic lens we see God sending His Son as Messiah and King in whom the Kingdom came and that King is ruling His Kingdom. This was the mission Adam and Eve failed in which the second Adam succeeded in. Jesus' story finishes Israel's story and makes it salvific. On top of the story of Jesus is the plan of salvation. It is in this section one cab fit God's love, man's being made in His image and our being fallen, the coming of the Son of God and His atonement. This is not the Gospel. It comes from the stories of Isreal and Jesus. Finally the method of persuasion: This is how one articulates the Gospel. 


"One reason why so many Christians today don't know the Old Testament is because their 'gospel' doesn't even need it," p 44.


McKnight makes a point to speak to the importance of the full life of Jesus rather than just having a crucified Christ.


"What this means is that the gospel is a whole-life-of-Jesus story, not just a reduction of the life to Good Friday. In my judgement, soterians (salvationists) have a Good-Friday-only Gospel," p 55. 


McKnight takes us on a journey to see where things got jacked up; why is it that the above illustrated Gosple has been reduced to, often times, a crucified Messiah? We are quickly taken past Augustine and Aquinas, Luther and Calvin to the first Great Awakening. Wesley, Edwards and Whitfield are searched and no truncated Gosple is found. The second Great Awakening is probed: Finney, right?--no. Moody?--he's the first major move to reducing the fullness of the gospel with his three R's (ruined by the fall, redeemed by the blood, regenerated by the Spirit). How about Billy Sunday?--yes, he further simplified the gospel message.


"[R]evivalism is code for post-World War II evangelistic rallies, sermons, evangelism and tracts. Thus, blaming revivalism is criticizing the evangelical habit of working harder at decisions than disciples....," p 89.


So who would have served the coup de grace to a full gospel? You have to read this for yourself. The research in this area is quite good.


McKnight really pounds the nail that can be summed up in the below:


Many have "reduced the life of Jesus to good Friday, and therefore reduced the gospel to the crucifixion, and then soterians have reduced transactions of a savior," p 135.


I've done a horrible job of keeping notes in the second half of this wonderful work so I'll end on an excerpt from the book:


"[T]he gospel story is the story of Isreal that finds resolution in the saving story of Jesus, and that story is about God's work in this world in the people of God. If we are to embrace the gospel in order to create a gospel culture, we will also embrace the story of the Bible as the story about the people of God. We will embrace the church, warts and all, as the people of God," p 175.


#ScotMcknight #TheKingJesusGospel #KingJesus #GoodNews #Gospel #BiblicalScholarship #JesusCreed

[Fred · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scot McKnight thinks that evangelicals have lost their way in, of all things, evangelism. He bases this on two truths. First, the way we share the gospel both in content and technique, does not match what the first Christian themselves did. Second our evangelism does not seem to produce disciples. At best it produces “deciders” not disciples. At worst it leaves people inoculated against actually following Jesus by making them think the gospel is all about them. In his book “King Jesus Gospel” he wants to show us a different way, a way as old as the apostles themselves. McKnight shows that most contemporary evangelicals have reduced the word gospel to “the plan of salvation” and the motivation we use is to make people afraid or guilty of God’s judgement. By contrast, the scriptures, specifically the Gospels themselves, describe the gospel as Jesus, the one promised by God to be the completion of Israel’s story. He is the one we have been waiting for. His story is a saving story, no doubt. He died for our sins. but it is not primarily a story about Jesus saving individuals for their own good. It is a story about God bringing his king and messiah to earth to be Lord over everything. Our acceptance of his atoning work is part of that Lordship. All the apostles describe Jesus as fulfilling Israel’s story. He saves from sin but he does so as Lord and Messiah, not just Savior. Coming to him involves a life altering change of allegiance that moves from self to his story as one of his image bearers doing his will in the world. As always McKnight is both theologically sound and immensely practical. The dilemmas he describes are not vague or hypothetical. Rather he speaks as one who has seen in teaching young adults in various settings.

[Matt]

The King Jesus Gospel challenged my previously held notions about what exactly the gospel of Jesus Christ is, and the implications of not understanding it correctly.

Scot McKnight argues that evangelicals as a whole have created a salvation/decision culture versus a true gospel culture. We glorify the individual’s decision to “accept Jesus into my heart” and receive salvation, but oftentimes leave it at that.

But the gospel isn’t: “Jesus died for our sins” and we receive salvation. Yes, salvation is a product of the gospel, but not the gospel itself. The gospel is the story of the life of Jesus as a fulfillment of the story of Israel, from his birth to his appointment to the throne of God, where he sits now. Jesus can’t just be reduced to our savior, he’s our King, and our lives should be an active, continual display of allegiance to him.

This book gave me a new, theologically rich perspective of the gospel. I have grown up in a culture where the gospel is reduced to personal salvation and a single decision, and I have seen the abundance of lukewarm Christians that that theology produces. I have even see it in myself.

I recommend reading the book, because McKnight obviously does a better job at explaining these complex theological issues than I can do in a Goodreads review.

[Kyle McFerren · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

N.T. Wright and Dallas Willard both wrote forwards for this book, and their influence on Scot McKnight is evident the whole way through. McKnight argues that evangelicalism, especially within the last 70 years or so, has reduced the gospel to a revival-friendly formula that cheapens it and falls short of what its historical definition. Starting from the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 that's widely recognized as a very early creed of sorts, he makes a convincing argument that the gospel is better explained as Jesus completing the story of Israel and fulfilling all of God's covenantal promises; that is, the gospel is the announcement of Jesus himself - that he is Lord, Messiah, and King. This includes the need for repentance and salvation, but goes far beyond that to a story where God is remaking the whole cosmos and putting all of it under the authority of his Son.

McKnight very carefully makes his argument, which makes you want to say 'get on with it already' at times, but overall this book is excellent. He does a particularly good job at taking really big, deep theology and making it very accessible to the average Christian in a less than 200 page book. I would highly recommend The King Jesus Gospel, especially to any evangelical who has ever felt that there was something a little bit 'off' about the way the gospel has been explained to them.