📖 Where does "gospel" come from?

Have you checked out the Bible Made Simple podcast?

Like the newsletter, this show is designed to help you better understand the Bible and apply its wisdom to your life. New episodes release every Monday. Find it below.

I. If you want to grow in your faith and walk with Jesus in 2026, here are three primary actions I would recommend to you:

1) Read the Bible at least four days a week

2) Commit to a local church and prioritize the weekly Sunday gathering

3) Trust God with your money by budgeting to give away a consistent percentage of your income (I do think 10% is a good aim to shoot for, but the first step is to give consistently every month as a way to grow in your faith and demonstrate your submission to God in your life)

———————-

II. Are you still under God’s wrath against sin and darkness?

In John 3:36, we’re told, “The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who rejects the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him.”

In other words, the Son (Jesus) gives eternal life. But if we reject Jesus, we are not moving into a worse position. We are remaining in the position we are already in.

Jesus did not come to make the path to God narrower. He came to make a path to God possible at all.

What the Gospel of John is showing us is that those who reject Jesus have not stumbled into darkness. They have never actually left it. They remain in it.

And if you want grace, freedom, love, and mercy, if you want to participate in the kingdom of God, the response is clear. We receive the Son, the one who gave His life for us and was raised in victory on our behalf.

In Galatians 4, Paul uses what would have been a culturally unusual way to describe the birth of Jesus.

“4 When the time came to completion, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.”

While it is biologically true that Jesus was born of a woman (Mary), this is an abnormal way to describe someone in an ancient context. The reason being, everything flowed through the father legally and in terms of family lineage.

Saying someone was “born of a woman” was technically true, but not a normal thing to say. So why does Paul use that language?

There are two main reasons.

1) To show Jesus was truly human

He was not an angel. He was not simply a divine being who came to earth. Jesus, while God himself, also literally took on flesh and lived as a human.

2) To show that Jesus fulfills God’s ancient promise

In Genesis 3:15, God told Satan that he “will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring…”

With the coming of Jesus, the promised seed of the woman has come.

The word gospel comes from the Greek word euangelion, which means “good news.”

In the Roman world, this word was commonly used to announce major public events like military victories, the accession of a new emperor, or the birth of a future ruler.

It was political, public, and authoritative news, not private spiritual advice.

When the New Testament writers used the word gospel to describe the message about Jesus, they were doing so intentionally. They were declaring that Jesus is the true King, that His life, death, and resurrection are world-changing news, and that His reign outranks every earthly power.

In other words, the gospel is not just good advice about how to live. It is a bold announcement that God’s King has come and everything has changed.

Food Intelligence by Belluz & Hall

A book about food, what it does to us, and how to better understand what happens when we eat certain foods.

This is a hard one to give a brief review on. Ultimately, I am glad I read the book. Some of the content was not new to me (though it would certainly be new for those who haven't read much on the subject), but it also addressed some areas I have been curious about.

I also appreciated the authors' real desire to follow the data and not try and push one nutritional or dieting approach over the other where the science is inconclusive.

I did walk away with a few new nuggets, which makes a book a good read. However, there were times it was a bit confusing to track with, and times where it became a little bit of a slog to read.

I also felt like the book was trying to do too much. I can't fault the authors for trying to give solutions to the problems they share about our food supply, but it almost felt like I was reading two separate books at time (what food does to us and what we should do about it at a legal/governmental level).

At times, it felt like the book tried too hard to be politically correct. The authors argue strongly for reducing meat consumption, often for moral reasons (a point I strongly disagree with, both morally and because of the unique nutritional benefits meat provides).

Also, while it’s good to recognize that people and body types differ, they added too many caveats. The book would have been stronger if they had simply presented clear principles where the evidence leads, while still acknowledging individual differences.

Overall, it is still an enlightening read and one I would recommend if you are interested in the topic.

8/10

P.S. The vacuum will have a birthdy it will never forget…