In proclaiming
the gospel as evangelists we have been concerned to make a point of contact with the people, but because the faith as thus presented has been set in too narrow a context and has not been addressed to the mind as well as the heart, it has often failed to lead to a permanent and constructive reorientation of life.
Not exact matches
As a matter of fact it is obvious that at least in some instances — one need think only of the
Gospel of John — the kerygma was put into the mouth of Jesus by the
evangelists.
Its narratives Contain many echoes of the stories in Mark and some of those which occur in Luke, and the
evangelist has modified and added to the earlier traditions (his
Gospel is generally agreed to be the latest of the four) in such a way
as to make them the vehicle for a great body of deep religious truth.
Also
evangelists often see social justice
as a gutless way of living out the
gospel, whereas people engaged in social action often assume the
evangelists are hypocritical Bible bashers, but actually we need both proclamation and demonstration.
His
Gospel was written,
as were those of the other
evangelists, to assure believers that their losses and grief, their sorrows and anguish, were not the last word.
As we saw, the early missionaries were
evangelists and social reformers in one, because they believed that both functions belonged together in the message of the
gospel.
An
evangelist, then, is someone who both understands the call of the
gospel as found in Scripture and lives it out in their own life
as a way to invite other people to believe in Jesus and live out the
gospel as well.
Since the
gospel is about all of life, then the
evangelist who lives the
gospel will be showing others how the
gospel affects their entire life
as well.
The
evangelists lives out the
gospel in front of others
as a way of gathering people together
as the church.
One of the most constructive emphases of the Amsterdam Conference was that it is the whole Church — not professional
evangelists or even ministers only, but laymen
as well — that is called to witness to the
gospel and transmit it to others.
To emphasize this close connection, I have suggested elsewhere that the term «gospelist» might be a better translation than «
evangelist,» [3] but since this word us unlikely to receive wide acceptance, maybe the word could be translated
as «one who teaches the
gospel.»
Reflecting the basic orientation of its namesake, the late nineteenth - century
evangelist Dwight L. Moody,
as well
as that of the school he established, Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, the journal has
as its main concern the task of evangelism — that is, the preparation for, understanding of, reporting about, and inciting interest in the proclamation of the
gospel.
So far
as we can tell today, there is no single pericope anywhere in the
gospels, the present purpose of which is to preserve a historical reminiscence of the earthly Jesus, although there may be some which do in fact come near to doing so because a reminiscence, especially of an aspect of teaching such
as a parable, could be used to serve the purpose of the Church or the
evangelist.
Yet
as soon
as these closing verses of the prologue are connected to the opening words of the
evangelist, the body of the
gospel that follows must necessarily be included because the subsequent content of Jesus» life elucidates the disclosure of 1:18 b
as well
as the discrepant eschatologies that are conveyed by the two numerical schemes of verse 17.
Hitchens himself would come to master that medium,
as entertainer and
evangelist, albeit proffering a very different
gospel.
The discourses of Jesus, for example, upon Baptism (3) and upon the Eucharist (6) reflect the same fundamental conception of the significance and necessity of these two rites; that this conception was that of the
evangelist is plain, e.g. from 3:16 - 21, where Jesus» words have passed insensibly into the
evangelist's reflection upon them; if the
evangelist was the son of Zebedee, it would be natural to accept his accounts
as substantially correct records of incidents and discourses from Jesus» ministry, but, if he was not, a comparison with the synoptic
gospels and with the teaching of Paul and others on the sacraments would suggest doubts
as to the historical value of both discourses.
Perhaps
as a result of the unsettlement and chaos that accompanied the Jewish rebellion against Rome the
evangelist left Palestine for Asia, where he later wrote the
gospel, while John was still alive in Palestine, partly from recollections of what the apostle had said or written, but largely from his wider knowledge of traditions about Jesus and his teaching, and in the light of his own interpretation of the teaching and of the significance of the facts of Jesus» life.
The miracles recorded in the
gospel follow the same general pattern
as in the synoptic
gospels, although the tendency of the
evangelist to use them
as a peg for a controversy or discourse introduces a further artificial element into his
gospel.
All the
evangelists report facts, and the facts in John's
Gospel are just
as reliable
as those in Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's.
For this reason the
gospels are important witnesses to the life of the church in the time in which they were written,
as well
as to the life of Jesus which the
evangelists endeavour to describe.
Almost all analysis of when, why, where, and how the
gospels were written ultimately fails because it neglects the extent to which the
evangelists were involved in the transmission of the Christian tradition
as well
as the extent to which they were free to arrange and rewrite their materials in ways which seemed meaningful to them and to the communities of which they were members.
If those scholars are right to conclude that in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers there are practically no reflections of the synoptic
gospels, the Apostolic Fathers stand almost
as close to the earliest traditions about Jesus
as the synoptic
evangelists do.
The 144,000 Jewish
evangelists are sealed and given a new song,
as they spread the eternal
gospel.