Pauline Dispensationalism: Dispensing with Objections (part 3 of 6)

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-introduction_01700454243.html

     In the first two posts of this series about Pauline dispensationalism, I demonstrated that because of the massive amount of discrepancies and contradictions between Paul’s epistles and the other writings of the New Testament, there must have been two different gospels preached during the New Testament, namely, Paul’s “gospel of the uncircumcision” to the nations, and the “gospel of the circumcision” to the Israelites which was heralded by Jesus (during His earthly ministry), James, and the twelve apostles (Gal. 2:7-9 cf. Rom. 15:8).

    However, as I’ve come to realize, every doctrinal position has passages of scripture that can be used (or misused) as arguments against it. Although I do believe that Pauline dispensationalism is the only way to resolve the major contradictions between Paul and the other New Testament writings, as with any theological view, there are also arguments against it. In this article, I hope to show why these arguments ultimately fail under careful consideration.

    First, though, before considering these arguments, I’d like to note that the burden of proof is on those who would argue against Pauline dispensationalism. Not only is the existence of two separate gospels explicitly attested in scripture (Gal. 2:7) which any detractor of hyper-dispensationalism must be able to explain, but as I showed previously, there are very many contradictions between Paul and the rest of the New Testament. Anyone who wishes to take a different position must either demonstrate that all of these contradictions are merely illusory, or else admit that their position renders large portions of scripture fallible and contradictory.

    With this in mind, let’s take a look at the arguments against Pauline dispensationalism.

    Galatians 1:6-7 demonstrates that there is only one gospel

I wonder that ye are so quickly removed from Him who did call you in the grace of Christ to another gospel that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the gospel of the Christ (Gal. 1:6-7)

According to some detractors of Pauline dispensationalism, this passage not only shows that there is only one gospel, but also that hyper-dispensationalists are “perverting the gospel of the Christ”. This argument centers around the phrase, “another gospel which is not another”, or in Greek,

ετερον ευαγγελιον ο ουκ εστιν αλλο.

As you can see, the two words translated “another” are actually different in the original Greek. The perverted gospel which Paul condemns is called a ετερος (heteros) gospel, which is not αλλος (allos).

    According to the BibleHub concordance, the Greek word heteros means “another of a different kind... in contrast to allos, ‘another of the same kind’”. Therefore, when Paul called this perverted gospel a heteros gospel which is not allos, what he meant is that this gospel was another gospel of a different, wrong kind in contrast to another gospel which was of the same, correct kind. Far from saying that there is no other gospel than his own, Paul actually implies the existence of an allos gospel apart from his own - namely, the “gospel of the circumcision” that he explicitly acknowledges elsewhere in the same epistle (Gal. 2:7).

    But what was the perverted, heteros gospel that the Galatians were being deceived into following? As Paul later explains, they had fallen into the error of attempting to combine the justification by faith alone that he had taught them with works of Law (Gal. 3 - 4). The Galatians’ error was in their acceptance of a perverted combination of Paul’s message of salvation (by grace through faith alone) with Peter’s message of salvation by both faith and works of Law. Ironically, this error is much closer to non-dispensationalism (which believes that Paul’s and the apostles’ messages should be combined) than Pauline dispensationalism.

    Galatians 2:14-16 shows that Peter was saved by faith apart from works

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, “If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to judaize?”

We [are] by nature Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh. (Gal. 2:14-16)

Detractors of Pauline dispensationalism use this passage to argue that, because Peter was “living in the manner of the nations”, and because Paul seems to say that Peter knew salvation was by faith and not works of law, Peter and the twelve apostles must have been following the same principle of “justification by faith alone” that was preached by Paul.

    The first objection centers around the meaning of the statement that Peter was, at that time, “living in the manner of the nations”. Does this mean that Peter was not following the Mosaic Law and was living by faith alone, or does it mean something else? I believe that to suggest that Peter was, at that time, not under the Mosaic Law would directly contradict certain scriptures.

    Jesus previously told His Jewish disciples, including Peter, that they were under an obligation to follow the Law in all points until heaven and earth pass away (Matt. 5:17-19 cf. Rev. 21:1) and that they must observe every command of the Pharisees with a humble heart (Matt. 23:1-3). In accordance with this teaching, when Paul went to visit James and the apostles in circa 57 AD, he found that their church comprising tens of thousands of Jews were “all zealous of the Law” (Acts 21:20). Furthermore, the dietary restrictions of the Law were never lifted for Peter; the “sheet vision” of Acts 10 was only meant to show that Jewish believers were now allowed to associate with non-proselyte Gentiles (Acts 10:28).

    So, then, in what way was Peter “living in the manner of the nations”? The context of the passage in Galatians shows what Paul had in mind when he said this:

And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy, for before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision (Gal. 2:11-12)

The way that Peter was living in the manner of the nations was not that all the commandments of the Mosaic Law were lifted for him, but rather that this specific commandment - not to eat or associate with Gentiles (which was not actually part of the codified Mosaic Law, but part of the Pharisaic ‘oral law’) - was not in effect for him. As Peter himself said in Acts 10:28,

Ye know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race, but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean

Therefore, Peter was not “living in the manner of the nations” by rejecting all the commandments of the Mosaic Law, but by rejecting the specific commandment not to associate and eat with Gentiles. 

    As for the second objection, which is that Paul in vv. 15-16 says that “we by nature Jews” know that salvation is by Christ’s faith alone and not works, there is no evidence that Paul was including Peter in the “we by nature Jews”. It is just as likely that Paul’s rebuke of Peter ended in v. 14, and vv. 15-16 was written to Jewish members of the body of Christ in Galatia, those who had come to understand by Paul’s gospel that “a man is not declared righteous by works of law” (a statement which, as I showed above, cannot be properly applied to Peter himself). 

    This is not an ad hoc suggestion, contrary to what some detractors might suggest. Instead, it is the only way to reconcile Galatians 2:14-16 with the many passages that show that Peter was following, and teaching, the Mosaic Law.

    1 Timothy 6:3 shows that Jesus’ earthly ministry is applicable to Gentiles

If any one be teaching otherwise, and do not consent to sound words — those of our Lord Jesus Christ — and to the teaching according to piety, he is proud, knowing nothing (1 Tim. 6:3-4)

Detractors of Pauline dispensationalism argue that this means that any person (Jew or Gentile) who does not apply Jesus’ teachings from His earthly ministry to their own life is “proud” and “knowing nothing”. But if this is what Paul meant, he would be directly contradicting Jesus’ own words, as He said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Likewise, Paul said elsewhere that while Jesus was on earth, He was “a ministrant of circumcision... to confirm the promises to the fathers” (Rom. 15:8).

    Furthermore, Jesus preached many things contradictory to Paul’s messages to the Gentiles, including full adherence to the Law (Matt. 5:17-20; 23:1-3), so if Paul were referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry in this passage, he himself would be “proud” and “knowing nothing” by his own standard.

    Instead, we should look to the context to see what Paul meant by “sound words... of our Lord Jesus Christ”:

As many as are servants under a yoke, their own masters worthy of all honour let them reckon, that the name of God and the teaching may not be evil spoken of; and those having believing masters, let them not slight [them], because they are brethren, but rather let them serve, because they are stedfast and beloved, who of the benefit are partaking. These things be teaching and exhorting; if any one be teaching otherwise, and do not consent to sound words — those of our Lord Jesus Christ... (1 Tim. 6:1-3)

The “sound words” which Paul was speaking of was his own teaching in the previous two verses, that believing masters should be kind to their slaves, and vice versa! Paul could not have been referring to Christ’s teachings to the Jews during His earthly ministry, because He never taught on the subject of slaves and their masters. Instead, Paul was referring to his own words as the “sound words... of our Lord Jesus Christ”, which makes sense, because as he said elsewhere, all of his teachings were given by revelation of Christ Himself (Gal. 1:11-12).

    Therefore, this passage does not show that Jesus’ earthly ministry is applicable to Gentiles today. Rather, it demonstrates that Paul considered his own words inspired by the glorified Christ.

    Another verse sometimes used to argue against Pauline dispensationalism is 2 Timothy 3:16:

every scripture [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness

It is argued that because Paul says that all scripture is “profitable for teaching”, it cannot be true that only the epistles of Paul are directly applicable to Gentile believers. However, this argument proves too much by interpreting “profitable for teaching” as “directly applicable”; if this verse is interpreted that way, then we would have to conclude that, for example, the ceremonial laws of Leviticus are still directly applicable to Gentile believers today (along with previously fulfilled prophecy, etc.)

    Instead, we must recognize that although not all scripture is directly to us (in fact, only Paul’s epistles are), all scripture may be profitable for us in other ways. For example, the ceremonial laws of Leviticus are a type of Christ, and fulfilled prophecy can provide useful historical information. It is in this way that all scripture is “profitable for teaching”, not in that it is all directly applicable to our own lives, but in that some might be profitable as prophecy, other scripture for historical purposes, still others as prophetic types of Christ, etc. I can personally attest that I have used all of the Bible in my own study of scripture. This does not mean, however, that all of scripture is written directly to the Gentiles; only Paul was the apostle to the nations (Rom. 11:13).

    1 Peter 1:18-19 shows that Peter understood Christ’s death for our sins

As I described in the first post of this series, the gospel messages preached by Paul and the other New Testament writers were very different. While Paul’s audience needed to believe in Christ’s death for our sins, entombment, and subsequent resurrection to be saved (1 Cor. 15:1-4), the other apostles said that all one needed to believe to be saved was that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God (Matt. 16:16; John 20:31; Acts 2:36; 1 John 5:1). This fact alone demonstrates that the gospel preached by Paul cannot be the same one which was preached by the twelve apostles.

    However, because of what Peter said in 1 Pet. 1:18-19, some critics of Pauline dispensationalism argue that Peter did believe that his audience was saved by Christ’s death for our sins:

having known that, not with corruptible things — silver or gold — were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted — Christ’s

The problem with this is that, although Peter may have begun preaching Christ’s death “for our sins” later in his ministry (although I don’t think he did, see below), he never presented it as a belief necessary for salvation. In fact, the few times that a sermon of Peter is recorded in the book of Acts, he presents Christ’s death as bad news for his audience rather than good news, because they, the first century inhabitants of Jerusalem, were the ones who killed Him (and therefore needed to repent of His death).

    For example, let’s take a look at Peter’s message in Acts 2:36-38 to see what he taught that his audience needed to believe and do to be saved.

1. Believe that Jesus is the Christ

2. Repent (of sins generally, and of Jesus’ murder specifically)

3. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sin

4. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

In contrast, here is what one needs to do to be saved under Paul’s gospel and enter into the body of Christ:

1. Believe that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-4)

2. Be sealed by the Holy Spirit as a promise of our future inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14) and be spiritually baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)

This shows that, if Peter did ever preach Jesus’ death “for our sins”, it wasn’t as a message that his audience needed to believe to be saved, because he never preached Jesus’ death as good news in Acts 2, 3, or 10 (even though many people were saved each time).

    However, I don’t even believe that Peter was preaching Jesus’ death “for our sins” in 1 Pet. 1:18-19, at least not in the same way that Paul did. Instead, he taught that Jesus died as an example of perfect obedience for us to follow (1 Pet. 1:15-16; 2:21-24) similar to the modern “moral influence” theory of the atonement. Likewise, as the author of Hebrews taught elsewhere, Jesus’ death ransomed Israel from the Old Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13; 10:10-18). This is certainly not the same message that Paul preached, which is that Jesus’ death completely erased the sins of all mankind (at least proleptically). Therefore, the gospel messages of Paul and the other apostles are still very different, and there is no way to reconcile the two unless there truly are two gospels.

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/04/pauline-dispensationalism-dealing-with.html

Pauline Dispensationalism: An Introduction (part 2 of 6)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-introduction.html

    Two audiences

Another distinction to be made between the two gospels (perhaps one of the most important) is the audience to which they were heralded. Most of the non-Pauline writings and teachings are explicitly addressed to the Israelites, often to the point of complete exclusion of Gentiles, which is inconceivable if they were sharing a universal message to all people (both Jew and Gentile).

    First of all, the gospel accounts (which deal with Jesus’ earthly ministry) are full of messages to Israel only and not to the Gentiles. As Jesus said, He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). The one time which He did go to the Gentiles, He did so only reluctantly, and dealt with them in a terse manner (Matt. 15:21-28; Mk. 7:24-30). When He sent out His disciples to evangelize, He explicitly commanded them to only go to the Jews, and not to Gentiles or Samaritans (Matt. 10:5-6). “Salvation,” He said, was only “of the Jews” (John 4:22), and any non-Jew who received salvation was merely benefiting off of the Jews’ success (cf. Zech. 8:23). As Paul said, Jesus Christ during His ministry was “a ministrant of circumcision... to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom. 15:8).

    Even during the Acts period, the twelve apostles only preached to Jewish people, and only one group of Gentiles is recorded as having been converted by them, Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:23-48). Apart from him, the apostles and their disciples went only to the Jews, even after being dispersed into Asia where they preached only to the Hellenic Jews of the dispersion (Acts 11:19-21). The first time a large number of Gentiles was preached to was by Paul, only after he was separated to his unique calling (Acts 13:2, 46-48).

    The next non-Pauline writing of the New Testament, following the four gospel accounts and Acts, is the epistle to the Hebrews. As should be obvious from the title (which is likely original, as it was attested in the very early church), this epistle was also written to Jewish believers.

    Likewise, the salutations of the epistles of James and Peter make clear that they were written to Jewish believers:

James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a servant, to the Twelve Tribes who are in the dispersion (Jas. 1:1)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1)

This, now, beloved, a second letter to you [i.e., to the Jewish dispersion in Asia Minor] I write (2 Pet. 3:1)

The significance of this is that even if Jesus, the apostles, and Paul all preached the same gospel (and from what I wrote in the first post of this series, it should be obvious that they didn’t), the teachings of Jesus (during His earthly ministry) and the apostles cannot be generalized to all Gentiles, since they were meant only for Israel and a few select Gentile individuals. In contrast, the teachings of Paul are meant for the Gentiles to whom he was called (Acts 26:17; Eph. 3:1-9).

    Two congregations/churches

for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation; and as many as by this rule do walk, peace upon them, and kindness, and on the Israel of God! (Gal. 6:15-16)

At the conclusion of his epistle to the Galatians, Paul blesses the body of Christ, those who walk by “this rule” - namely, the rule that circumcision and the Law do not avail anything to those in Christ - as well as another group which he calls “the Israel of God”. This necessarily means that the believers whom Paul called “the Israel of God” are not part of the body of Christ, because they are not included in those who are walking by “this rule”. So what was this mysterious, other group of believers that was not part of the body of Christ?

    As Paul writes in Romans 9:6, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel”. As he goes on to say, God is righteous to harden the majority of Israel and show mercy to only a remnant of Israel, because He has done so in the past (Rom. 9:7-18, 25-30; 11:1-5). This shows that, when Paul spoke of the Israel of God, he meant the remnant of believing Israelites, who, apparently, were not walking according to “this rule” (i.e., they were still following the Law) and therefore not part of the body of Christ.

    The Israel of God is elsewhere figuratively called “the bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17), “sons of the bride-chamber” (Matt. 9:15; Mk. 2:19; Lk. 5:34), or simply “the bride” (John 3:29). Jesus called the Judaism of His day “an adulterous generation” (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38), and yet no one can be adulterous without first having been married, meaning that the Jews had been in some way married to God.

    Jewish believers would have been well aware that, in the Old Testament, Israel and Judah were figuratively considered the wives of YHWH (Jer. 2:2; 3:1-14; Ezek. 16:8-21; Hos. 2:2-7). For this reason, it is only natural that the remnant of believing Israelites, the “Israel of God”, should be considered “the bride”. These are the Jews who were saved under the gospel of the circumcision, through the evangelism of James and the twelve apostles. However, the Gentiles cannot be part of the “bride”, because they were never married to God in the first place; only Israel and Judah were.

    It should be apparent that the “body of Christ”, the congregation who were saved under Paul’s gospel (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:4, 12; 5:29-30; Col. 2:17), is separate and distinct from the “bride of Christ”, since one’s body and one’s spouse are, quite obviously, separate things. Even apart from the clear statement of Paul that the congregation called “the Israel of God” is separate from the body of Christ (Gal. 6:16), we could still easily determine that they are distinct based on this very different language used for the two congregations. For how can the body of Christ, metaphorically represented as a virgin (2 Cor. 11:2), be the same as the bride of God which was adulterous and now reconciled?

    Finally, there is incontrovertible evidence that many (in fact, tens of thousands) Jews were saved while not being in the body of Christ. According to Acts 21:17-20, when Paul went to visit James in Jerusalem, there were tens of thousands of Jews there who were in the church of the apostles and were “zealous of the Law”, and were confused about Paul’s teaching to the Gentiles. And yet, Paul wrote to the church in Galatia - members of the body of Christ - that anyone who did the works of the Law was under a curse, and not righteous before God (Gal. 3:9-12). This leads to the following logical argument:

Premise 1. In circa 57 AD, the church of the apostles in Judea was comprised of tens of thousands of Jewish believers all “zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20).

Premise 2. As early as circa 48 AD, Paul already wrote that those in the body of Christ who do the works of the Law are “under a curse” (Gal. 3:9).

Premise 2a. Paul later wrote in circa 56 AD that even Jewish members of the body of Christ (Jews saved under Paul’s gospel) are dead to the Law (Rom. 7:1-6).

Conclusion. Either the entire church of the apostles in Judea was “under a curse”, or they were part of a believing congregation outside of the body of Christ.

Unless we are to presume that the tens of thousands of believing Jews were all under a curse, including James and the apostles themselves, it is necessary to recognize the existence of a believing congregation not included in the body of Christ - namely, the “Israel of God” or “the bride”. And the existence of two equally legitimate congregations, following two different sets of teachings, implies the existence of two gospels during the Acts period.

    Two destinies

The final fundamental difference between the gospels of circumcision and uncircumcision is the destiny or expectation of those saved under the different gospels. A major question that has been discussed in theological circles is where believers will spend the ages to come: on the earth, or in the heavens? This has sparked a lot of debate between premillennialists, who believe that all believers will be on the earth during Christ’s kingdom, and amillennialists, who believe that all believers will be in the heavens in the age to come (and so, they believe, there will be no Messianic kingdom on earth). Both sides of the debate adduce scriptural support for their position.

    Rather than assuming that all believers will live either on the earth or in the heavens, the way to reconcile these apparently contradictory scriptures is by recognizing that the Jewish believers under the gospel of the circumcision will inherit the earth, thus fulfilling God’s many, many promises to Israel that they would rule a kingdom on the earth (Gen. 12:2-3; 22:18; Isa. 2:2-4; 11:6-9; 24:23; 27:2-13, 35; 65:8-16; 66:12-24; Jer. 23:5-8; 31; 33:14-26; Ezek. 40-48; Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14, 27; Hos. 14; Joel 3:17-21; Amos 9:11-15; Obad. 21; Mic. 4:1-8; 5:5-15; 7:11-20; Hab. 2:14; Zeph. 3:9-20; Zech. 8; 14:8-9, 16-21), whereas the believers under Paul’s gospel of the uncircumcision will reign in the heavens. This distinction is extremely apparent throughout the New Testament.

    See the following passages from non-Pauline writings of the New Testament, which show that Jewish believers will be living on the earth in the oncoming ages:

“Happy the meek — because they shall inherit the land [of Israel].” (Matt. 5:5)

And Jesus said to them, “Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit — ye also — upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and every one who left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my name’s sake, an hundredfold shall receive, and life age-during shall inherit” (Matt. 19:28-29)

They [the twelve apostles], therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And he said unto them, “It is not yours to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority” (Acts 1:6-7)

and he who is overcoming, and who is keeping unto the end my works [also notice, this is a salvation of works], I will give to him authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron — as the vessels of the potter they shall be broken — as I also have received from my Father (Rev. 2:26-27)

“and [thou] didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.” (Rev. 5:10)

and I, John, saw the holy city — new Jerusalem — coming down from God out of the heaven, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband... and he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and did shew to me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God (Rev. 21:2, 9)

Notice in the final example, the New Jerusalem is descending out of the heavens onto earth, which means that even during the final age of the Ages of the Ages, John’s audience will still be reigning on the earth. Although Jesus did say that the reward which His Jewish disciples would receive was in the heavens (Matt. 5:12; 6:19-21; 16:19; 18:18), as did Peter (1 Pet. 1:4), both of them also made clear that Christ would be bringing their reward from the heavens to the earth at His second coming (Matt. 16:27; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 22:12), and so ultimately their reward would be experienced on earth.

    In contrast, Paul repeatedly wrote that the place where the body of Christ would be experiencing life in the oncoming ages, in Christ’s kingdom, was in the heavens:

For we have known that if our earthly house of the tabernacle may be thrown down, a building from God we have, an house not made with hands — age-during -- in the heavens, for also in this we groan, with our dwelling that is from heaven earnestly desiring to clothe ourselves (2 Cor. 5:1-2)

Blessed [is] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless us in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3)

[God] did raise [us] up together, and did seat [us] together in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, that He might show, in the ages that are coming, the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6-7)

that there might be made known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly [places], through the assembly [the body of Christ], the manifold wisdom of God, according to a purpose of the ages, which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph. 3:10-11)

because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12)

For our citizenship is in the heavens, whence also a Saviour we await — the Lord Jesus Christ — who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things. (Php. 3:19-20)

We know from elsewhere in scripture that, following His second coming, Christ’s kingdom will exist both on earth (Rev. 5:10) and in the heavens (Rev. 12:10-12). Therefore, it seems that during the oncoming Ages of the Ages for which Christ will be reigning (Rev. 11:15), the Israel of God will be reigning together with Christ in His kingdom on earth, subjugating the nations (Rev. 2:26-27), at the same time that the body of Christ will be in His kingdom in the heavens, subjugating the spiritual forces there (Eph. 3:10; 6:12).

    This solution is the only way to reconcile the apparent contradictions between these two sets of passages (after all, it is impossible that believers could be simultaneously living in the heavens and on the earth in the oncoming ages). And the existence of two distinct destinies or expectations in the New Testament requires the existence of two different congregations, and therefore two different gospels.

    Two perspectives on baptism

This is a more minor difference, but still important, especially for Christianity today. Between Paul’s writings and the rest of the New Testament, we see two very different perspectives on baptism. When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the Jewish Pharisee, He said that there were two different types of baptism, both necessary to be “born again”: the baptism of water and the baptism of Spirit (John 3:5). Likewise, Peter and Philip present water baptism as absolutely necessary to be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38; 1 Pet. 3:21). The twelve apostles are repeatedly seen baptizing Jewish believers in water throughout the book of Acts.

    In stark contrast, Paul writes that there is only one baptism necessary to become a “new creation”: the baptism of Spirit into the body of Christ (Eph. 4:5 cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). In fact, Paul explicitly says that he was not sent to baptize in water, but solely to proclaim his gospel to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:17).

    As strange as it may seem today, especially to Christians who have been taught otherwise, being “born again” of both water and Spirit is actually not a custom that was ever meant for Gentiles, nor can Gentiles enter into the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 via being “born again”. Water baptism into the New Covenant was explicitly said to be for Israel alone, and it would be the method by which God would make the Israelites able to keep the Mosaic Law in all points (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27).

    Since the Mosaic Law has been absolutely abrogated for the Gentiles under Paul’s gospel (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:3-4), and Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant anyway (Rom. 2:14-15), the New Covenant is definitely not meant for us. Rather than being simply “born again” as those in the Israel of God, those in the body of Christ are a completely “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) and a “new man” (Eph. 2:15; 4:24).

    Ironically, Gentile Christians who would baptize themselves in water and call themselves “born again” (which, unfortunately, includes the majority of conservative Christians) are actually erroneously co-opting customs meant for Israel, and are rejecting the gift of God’s grace in favor of works of law and a New Covenant that was never meant for us.

    Two perspectives on racial distinctions

Another important difference between the gospel of the circumcision, evangelized by the twelve apostles, and the gospel of the uncircumcision evangelized by Paul is their differing perspectives on racial distinctions.

    Under the gospel of the circumcision, the Israelites were still God’s chosen people, and salvation was “of the Jews” (that is, salvation came only through the Jews; John 4:22 cf. Zech. 8:23). This can be seen in Peter’s message to the Jewish crowds at the temple, in which he states that they are the descendants of Abraham through which the nations will be blessed (Acts 3:25). Repentance is only to be given to Israel (Acts 5:31), and Gentiles can only be rewarded with salvation through pious acts (Acts 10:2-4).

    Under Paul’s gospel, racial distinctions are irrelevant. As he says in Galatians 3:28, in the body of Christ, there is “neither Jew nor Gentile” (cf. Rom. 10:12). If any Jew were to be saved under Paul’s gospel (and we know that some were, per Acts 14:1; Acts 21:21; Rom. 7:1; and several other passages), they would lose their privileged status above the nations. This is in stark contrast to what Peter preached, which is that Jews who were saved under the gospel of circumcision would gain an even more privileged status as the believing remnant of Israel.

    Conclusion

Between Paul’s writings and the rest of the New Testament, there are many major differences, including the existence of two distinct gospel messages, two different methods of salvation, two audiences, two congregations/churches (the body of Christ vs. the Israel of God), two destinies, two very different perspectives on baptism and the New Covenant, and two perspectives on racial distinctions. All of these contradictions are irreconcilable unless we recognize that Paul preached his own, unique gospel to the nations (in accordance with Galatians 2:7), while the rest of the New Testament (including Jesus’ earthly ministry) was written to the Israelites.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-dealing-with.html

Pauline Dispensationalism: An Introduction (part 1 of 6)

     Over the history of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians have believed that there is only one Gospel in scripture, or one “good news” by which people are saved. This position has led them to believe that the modern church, the body of Christ, began at the Pentecost following Jesus’ ascension due to the miraculous events recorded in Acts 2 (known as “Acts 2 dispensationalism”), and that all the teachings and commandments of the New Testament - from Jesus’ earthly ministry to Revelation - are binding on the body of Christ today.

    However, more recently (since the nineteenth century), a minority of Christians have believed that there are actually two Gospels in the New Testament: the gospel heralded by Paul to the Gentiles, and the gospel to the Israelites heralded by Jesus (in His earthly ministry) and the twelve apostles. This position is known as “hyper-dispensationalism”, “mid-Acts dispensationalism”, or “Pauline dispensationalism” [1].

    Although I was initially very skeptical of Pauline dispensationalism, as I began to test this idea (1 Thess. 5:21) and study the New Testament in more detail, I came to the conclusion that there are very certainly two separate gospels that were heralded to the Gentiles and to the Israelites. In this article, I will explain why Pauline dispensationalism is a necessary conclusion from the disparate teachings of Paul and the other apostles, and how scripture absolutely refutes the idea that there is only one gospel to both the Gentiles and Israelites alike.

    Two gospels?

but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with [that] of the circumcision, for He who did work with Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, did work also in me in regard to the nations, and having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision may go (Galatians 2:7-9)

This was the first passage that truly indicated to me that there may be two gospels in the New Testament, one to the Gentiles (the “uncircumcision”) and one to the Israelites (the “circumcision”). Most Christians believe that this passage is saying that the same gospel was being heralded to two different groups by the different apostles.

    However, the Greek here is absolutely clear. Rather than being in the dative case, which would mean that the same gospel is to the two different groups, the nouns “uncircumcision” and “circumcision” are in the genitive case, which means that they are referring to the character of the gospels in question. Therefore, this passage shows that there is a difference in character between the gospel being heralded by James, Peter, and John to the Israelites, and the gospel being heralded by Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles.

    Obviously, it is dangerous to establish such an important doctrine on the basis of a single verse. But this idea that Paul preached his own, personal gospel to the nations appears repeatedly throughout his writings:

in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ. (Rom. 2:16)

And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent (Rom. 16:25)

According to the grace of God that was given to me, as a wise master-builder, a foundation I have laid, and another doth build on it (1 Cor. 3:10)

For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you the nations, if, indeed, ye did hear of the dispensation of the grace of God that was given to me in regard to you, that by revelation He made known to me the secret, according as I wrote before in few [words] (Eph. 3:1-3)

I did become a ministrant according to the dispensation of God, that was given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God, the secret that hath been hid from the ages and from the generations, but now was manifested to his saints (Col. 1:25-26)

Remember Jesus Christ, raised out of the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel (2 Tim. 2:8)

Before I came to understand Pauline dispensationalism, I thought that Paul was being sacrilegious and presumptuous, by making “the gospel of Jesus Christ” (Mk. 1:1) out to be his own! But if the gospel that Paul preached was a revelation made solely to him, then suddenly his insistence on calling it “my gospel” makes perfect sense. He called it “my gospel” in order to distinguish it from the separate gospel to the Israelites that was preached by the James and the twelve apostles.

    Furthermore, as shown above, Paul repeatedly states that the gospel he preached was a secret that had not been revealed before his time (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26). And yet, Peter said that the gospel was revealed by the prophets hundreds of years before Christ (Acts 3:24; 10:43). Is this an irreconcilable contradiction that shows the Bible to be false? Not if Paul and Peter were preaching different gospels, one of which was revealed long ago, and the other of which was revealed first to Paul. In fact, Paul explicitly says that his gospel was revealed to him by the glorified Christ, in a vision:

And I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man, for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12)

Could Paul have been any clearer that the gospel he preached was not the same one heralded by the apostles before him?

    Two gospel messages

And I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood, through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain, for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4)

Many indeed, therefore, other signs also did Jesus before his disciples, that are not written in this book; and these have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name. (John 20:31 cf. 1 John 2:22, 5:1)

Further proof that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (in His earthly ministry) and the twelve apostles is the fact that the messages preached by these two groups were entirely different. Paul’s gospel - the message by which the Corinthian church was saved - is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day. In contrast, the gospel message by which John hopes his audience will be saved is simply that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. The existence of two gospel messages, different messages that people need to believe to be saved, necessitates the existence of two different gospels.

    The fact that the messages preached by Paul and the other apostles was different is confirmed in the book of Acts, where Peter repeatedly exhorts his Jewish listeners to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Peter never preaches that Jesus’ death “for our sins” is a necessary belief to be saved, and only ever uses His death and resurrection as evidence that He was the Messiah (not as the foundation of salvation). In fact, rather than preaching Christ’s crucifixion as something glorious, as Paul did (1 Cor. 1:18), he acted as though it were a shameful event that his audience needed to repent of!

“Men, Israelites! hear these words, Jesus the Nazarene, a man approved of God among you by mighty works, and wonders, and signs, that God did through him in the midst of you, according as also ye yourselves have known; this one, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, being given out, having taken by lawless hands, having crucified — ye did slay... assuredly, therefore, let all the house of Israel know, that both Lord and Christ did God make him — this Jesus whom ye did crucify... Repent [i.e., of the crucifixion], and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:22-23, 36, 38)

“Men, Israelites! why wonder ye at this? or on us why look ye so earnestly, as if by our own power or piety we have made him to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, did glorify His child Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, he having given judgment to release [him], and ye the Holy and Righteous One did deny, and desired a man — a murderer — to be granted to you, and the Prince of the life ye did kill, whom God did raise out of the dead, of which we are witnesses... and God, what things before He had declared through the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ should suffer, He did thus fulfil; repent ye [i.e., of the crucifixion], therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:13-15, 18-19)

“Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears! ye do always the Holy Spirit resist; as your fathers — also ye; which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed those who declared before about the coming of the Righteous One, of whom now ye betrayers and murderers have become“ (Acts 7:51-52)

Finally, Jesus’ disciples during His earthly ministry did not understand that He was going to die (and certainly not that His death would be “for our sins”), but were still saved through their belief that He was the Christ (Matt. 16:15-22). This is incontrovertible evidence that Israelites were saved at that time not by belief in Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection, but by belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

    The fact that the Gentiles (under Paul’s gospel) were saved by their belief in Jesus’s death for our sins and resurrection, whereas Israelites (under Jesus and the twelve apostles) were saved by their belief that Jesus is the Messiah (while not fully understanding that Christ’s death was for our sins), demonstrates absolutely that Paul preached a different gospel than did the twelve apostles, or even Jesus during His earthly ministry.

    Two methods of salvation

Furthermore, throughout the New Testament, there are two entirely different methods of salvation being preached. Jesus, during His earthly ministry, along with James and the twelve apostles, actually preached that water baptism and the keeping of the Mosaic Law was necessary along with faith to be saved. See the following passages:

“Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands [of the Law] — the least — and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the kingdom of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matt. 5:19) 

Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples, saying, “On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not” (Matt. 23:1-3)

Then said Jesus to his disciples, “If any one doth will to come after me, let him disown himself, and take up his cross, and follow me, for whoever may will to save his life, shall lose it, and whoever may lose his life for my sake shall find it, for what is a man profited if he may gain the whole world, but of his life suffer loss? or what shall a man give as an exchange for his life? For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work.” (Matt. 16:24-27)

Peter said unto them, “Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)

For whoever the whole law shall keep, and shall stumble in one [point], he hath become guilty of all; for He who is saying, “Thou mayest not commit adultery,” said also, “Thou mayest do no murder;” and if thou shalt not commit adultery, and shalt commit murder, thou hast become a transgressor of law; so speak ye and so do, as about by a law of liberty to be judged, for the judgment without kindness [is] to him not having done kindness, and exult doth kindness over judgment. What [is] the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him? (Jas. 2:10-14)

And dost thou wish to know, O vain man, that the faith apart from the works is dead?... Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only (Jas. 2:20, 24)

wherefore, the rather, brethren, be diligent to make stedfast your calling and choice, for these things doing, ye may never stumble, for so, richly shall be superadded to you the entrance into the age-during kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:10-11)

And in this we know that we have known [Jesus], if his commands we may keep; he who is saying, “I have known him,” and his command is not keeping, a liar he is, and in him the truth is not; and whoever may keep his word, truly in him the love of God hath been perfected; in this we know that in [Christ] we are. He who is saying in him he doth remain, ought according as he walked also himself so to walk. (1 John 2:3-6)

    As should be obvious, Jesus (in His earthly ministry), James, and the twelve apostles did not teach works as the ‘natural result’ of a saving faith (as most Christians would argue), but they taught that works of the Law were necessary to be saved. Jesus preached that those who fail to keep and teach the Law will be least in the Messianic kingdom, and most interestingly, He commanded to do everything the Pharisees say to do (i.e., the entire Mosaic Law).

    James writes that a man is justified by works along with faith (and the context shows “works” to mean “keeping the Mosaic Law in all points”). Peter says that only those who “never stumble” may enter into Christ’s kingdom, which is necessarily a salvation by works. John says that only those who “overcome”, which means keeping God’s commands (1 John 5:1-4), will receive eschatological rewards (Rev. 2-3).

    In contrast, Paul preaches that we are justified by faith alone, even if we do not have works of law. Indeed, he says that doing works of law in addition to faith is reckoned not as righteousness, but as a debt or a curse!

Where then [is] the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith: therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law. (Rom. 3:27-28)

For if Abraham by works was declared righteous, he hath to boast — but not before god; for what doth the scripture say? “And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him — to righteousness;” and to him who is working, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt; and to him who is not working, and is believing upon Him who is declaring righteous the impious, his faith is reckoned to righteousness (Rom. 4:2-5)

I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness [be] through law — then Christ died in vain. (Gal. 2:21)

For as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, “Cursed [is] every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law — to do them,” and that in law no one is declared righteous with God, is evident, because “The righteous by faith shall live;” and the law is not by faith, but — “The man who did them shall live in them.” (Gal. 3:9-12)

For by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you — of God the gift, not of works, that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9)

not having my righteousness, which [is] of law, but that which [is] through faith of Christ — the righteousness that is of God by the faith (Php. 3:9)

The first set of passages is logically contradictory to the second set of passages. James says, “a man is declared righteous by works of law” (Jas. 2:24). Paul says, “a man is not declared righteous by works of law” (Gal. 2:16), and actually preaches against works of law. Although many Christians would argue that Jesus and the apostles were merely saying that works are the result of true faith, it should be obvious from both the passages themselves and the context that they meant works were a necessary condition of salvation (as I showed above).

    How can these massive discrepancies between Paul and the other apostles be reconciled? Paul recognized the apostolic authority of James, Peter, and John (Gal. 2:9) as they did him (1 Pet. 3:15-16), so it cannot be that any of them were “false teachers” as some have suggested. Instead, the only possible solution is that they actually did preach two different gospels. The Gentiles, whose gospel Paul heralded, were to be saved by faith alone apart from the Mosaic Law, whereas the Israelites, whose gospel the apostles (and Jesus, while on earth) heralded, were to be saved by faith and the Law combined.

    Conclusion

I wasn’t able to get to everything I wanted to write in this post, and there is actually even more evidence for Pauline dispensationalism than I wrote above. However, the above should by itself suffice to show that there must have been two distinct gospels being heralded during the New Testament. Not only does Paul explicitly recognize the existence of two separate gospels, one being heralded by himself to the Gentiles and the other by the apostles to the Jews, but there are also two distinct gospel messages and two different methods of salvation being preached, between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament writings. There can really be no other solution to these contradictions than the fact that two separate gospels were being preached at this time.

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-introduction_01700454243.html

______________________________

[1] To be distinguished from ultra-dispensationalism or “Bullingerism”, the belief that Paul’s gospel did not begin to be heralded until his imprisonment in Rome. This view is contradicted by Galatians 1:8, which shows that Paul could not have begun preaching a new gospel after he wrote the epistle to the Galatians.

A Scriptural View of Christ's Atonement

(Note: this article reflects and gives a fuller treatment of the views found in this study of Romans 3:21-26 by Aaron Welch. Please go and visit his blog, there is a lot of great exegetical work there!)

“And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit; and lo, the veil of the sanctuary was rent in two from top unto bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks were rent.” (Matthew‬ ‭27:50-51‬)

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the very foundation of our faith. Something that happened at the moment of His death fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between God and mankind, so much that we now have the ability to be saved and reconciled to Him (on this point, all Christians are agreed). Jesus tore the veil of the temple upon His death, a symbolic gesture demonstrating that the wall between the Holy of Holies (God) and the outer temple (mankind) had been broken down. However, across Christianity, there is a wide variation in views about what actually happened on the cross, and how it achieved God’s ultimate purpose of salvation.

    Penal substitutionary atonement (the idea that Christ took the punishment for all our sins) is taken for granted as the correct view of Christ’s sacrifice by evangelicals and conservative Protestants, whereas liberal Protestants, following Socinus, tend to hold the view of “moral influence” (that Christ’s sacrifice was meant to change mankind’s attitude toward God, rather than God’s attitude toward mankind). Catholics and Orthodox are divided among many theories including the ransom theory of atonement (that Christ was sent to Hades as a ‘ransom’ for the devil to free all the sinners therein) and the satisfaction theory of atonement (that Christ’s ultimate act of obedience via death on the cross outweighed all our acts of disobedience, and so covered our sins).

    Which of these views is correct? As always, scripture should be our guide for determining truth, so let’s see what the Bible actually says about these differing views.

    Is God wrathful?

Some of the atonement theories described above, including the “moral influence” and “ransom” theories of the atonement, believe that Christ’s sacrifice was not meant to avert God’s wrath on sin (and indeed, some deny that God Himself is wrathful at all toward sin). Rather, these views postulate that it altered some outside beings’ attitudes to allow for salvation, with the “moral influence” theory arguing that Jesus died for the sole purpose of showing humans how to act in obedience to God (and so receive salvation), and the “ransom” theory arguing that Christ’s so-called “harrowing of hell” fundamentally voided Satan’s authority over humanity (and so brought salvation).

    But is this the right view? Does God have wrath toward sin, and did Christ’s sacrifice avert that wrath, or did He die for a different purpose?

    Contrary to these views, there can be no doubt that God indeed is justly wrathful towards sin. As Paul says in his epistle to the Romans, God’s wrath is revealed upon impiety and unrighteousness, and it is the “righteous judgment of God” that those who are disobedient are “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:18, 32). And, as a matter of fact, Paul actually anticipates the objection that God’s wrath on sin is unjust:

Is God unrighteous who is inflicting the wrath? (After the manner of a man I speak.) Let it not be! Since how shall God judge the world? (Rom. 3:5-6)

Notice that this clearly refutes the view that the wrath of God is simply the passive consequences of sin, as some proponents of moral influence theory have suggested, because it is God who is (actively) inflicting the wrath. Moreover, in many places in the New Testament, the “wrath of God” is specifically mentioned as coming upon those who disobey (John 3:36; Rom. 3:5; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Rev. 19:15). I say this not to provoke terror and fear, but because God’s justice and wrath is a necessary part of His character; anyone who worships a God Who has no wrath is not worshipping the one true God of the universe.

    But as Paul goes on to say, Christ’s sacrifice ultimately causes us to be “saved through Him from the wrath [of God]”:

For in our being still ailing, Christ in due time did die for the impious; for scarcely for a righteous man will any one die, for for the good man perhaps some one also doth dare to die; and God doth commend His own love to us, that, in our being still sinners, Christ did die for us; much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath; for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. (Rom. 5:6-10)

And furthermore, the ultimate result of Christ’s death on the cross is that the sins of all people may no longer be reckoned by God, and thereby for all to be conciliated to Him (2 Cor. 5:14-19). Although Jesus certainly meant to provide a moral example by being perfectly obedient to God and loving through His life and death (John 15:12-13), that was not the primary purpose of His sacrifice, which was to somehow cover the sins of others and, in doing so, avert the wrath of God.

    It is very, very important to note, however, that God’s wrath toward sin is by no means His only characteristic, or even His primary characteristic. It was ultimately God Who purposed Christ to die and cover our sins, and in doing this His mercy and love superseded His righteous wrath.

    For Him to be Just and a Justifier

Paul writes in Romans 3:25-26, his most detailed description of Christ’s atonement, that

God did set forth [Jesus Christ as] a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God — for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faith of Jesus.

We see here a three-step description of why God purposed Christ to die, and I’ll discuss the meaning of each in turn:

1. “because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God”

This, according to Paul, is the reason for which God set forth Christ as our atonement. Apparently, God was already passing over sins in His forbearance prior to Jesus Christ, through the sacrificial system which He gave to Israel (Leviticus 1 - 7). David writes in one of his Psalms that

YHWH is merciful and gracious, Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. He will not always strive with us, Nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities. (103:8-10 NKJV)

The amazing truth affirmed in these verses is that God did not punish people for their sins in Old Testament times, despite the apparent picture of a constantly wrathful God sometimes painted in the Hebrew scriptures. Since every act of disobedience is deserving of death (Rom. 1:32, 6:23), every time that someone sinned in the Old Testament and was not struck dead was an act of complete mercy. 

    Although there were certainly times that God acted out His righteous judgment on sin to set an example, most notably, via the Genesis flood (Gen. 6:3-7), I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the time people sinned prior to Christ, God was merciful toward them. After all, we have detailed records of ancient society from extra-biblical sources, and I’m fairly sure that people weren’t dropping dead the very first time they sinned.

    Let this be clear, God’s mercy toward sinners prior to Christ was not merely a passive act by which He chose not to kill them. Rather, because God is the very force upholding the universe by His own power (Heb. 1:3), anyone who does something disobedient to God must die simply as a matter of course. As David writes in Psalms 36:5-6, it is by God’s kindness and faithfulness toward humanity that He “preserves man and beast”. So every single time that someone sinned prior to Christ and did not die, God was sustaining them by His mercy! For an example of this, look to 2 Samuel 12:

Then Nathan said to David... “Why have you despised the commandment of YHWH, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon”... So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against YHWH.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.” (2 Sam. 12:7, 9, 13)

The sin of David in murdering Uriah was put away or passed over, and so he did not die; this is certainly the sort of thing that Paul had in mind when saying that God “passed over the bygone sins in His forbearance”.

    But this system of sacrifice and free forgiveness could not last forever. God, being just toward sin in His holiness, cannot continue doing so without a denial of His very nature. As the author of Hebrews writes,

For the law having a shadow of the coming good things — not the very image of the matters, every year, by the same sacrifices that they offer continually, is never able to make perfect those coming near, since, would they not have ceased to be offered, because of those serving having no more conscience of sins, having once been purified? but in those [sacrifices] is a remembrance of sins every year, for it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10:1-4)

In order to continue acting in mercy, God needed to cause a more perfect atonement to take place, which leads us to “Step 2” of Paul’s reasoning in Romans 3:25-26:

2. “God set forth [Jesus Christ as] a mercy seat, through the faith in His blood”

Paul describes Christ’s atonement as a “mercy seat” or ιλαστηριον, a term which is only used once elsewhere in the Bible, in Hebrews 9:5 to describe the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. Although this is often translated “propitiation” in many dynamic-equivalence versions of the Bible, this is reading too much into the word, and is ultimately eisegeting penal substitutionary atonement into the text (since technically ιλαστηριον could describe either a propitiatory or an expiatory covering of sin).

    The “mercy seat” on top of the Ark of the Covenant was a place where, once every year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the high priest would sprinkle a ram’s blood to cover over all the sins of Israel for the entire year. By describing Jesus Christ as a “mercy seat”, Paul is saying that His atonement on the cross covered over all of our sins, thereby justifying us and causing our sins to no longer be reckoned by God (2 Cor. 5:19).

    Again, we must remember that although God is wrathful toward sin, that is not His most prominent characteristic. Rather, it was He who originally “set forth” Christ to be a mercy seat, so that He could remain merciful while at the same time not denying His justice. This leads us to the final step in Paul’s description of Christ’s atonement:

3. “for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faith of Jesus.”

Or, as the KJV and a few other translations poetically put it, God purposed Christ’s death “for Him to be Just and the Justifier”. That is, for God to remain merciful and be the Justifier of sinners, He needed a “mercy seat” to cover over the sins of all people, so that He could remain just at the same time.

    But what is the “faith(fulness) in [Christ’s] blood” that Paul says in v. 25 to be the very basis by which Christ was set forth as a mercy seat?

    The Faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ

According to Paul in Romans 3:25, Christ was set forth as a mercy seat “through the faith(fulness) in His blood”. He could not have been talking about our faith in Christ’s blood, because Paul never elsewhere describes Christ’s blood as the object of our faith, and furthermore, our faith or faithlessness in Him does not affect the ultimate efficacy of His atonement (2 Tim. 2:13). And yet, our redemption is said elsewhere to come through His blood (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), and apparently from the faithfulness therein. What could this mean?

    To understand this, we must first look to a much larger debate, which is whether our justification ultimately comes from our own faith in Christ, or Christ’s own faithfulness. This debate is over the correct translation of the phrase πιστις χριστου (“faith of Christ”), used eight times in Paul’s epistles, and whether it should be read as an objective genitive (“[our] faith in Christ”) or the more natural subjective genitive (“Christ’s faith(fulness)”). Most interlinear and formal-equivalence translations (along with the KJV) take the subjective-genitive reading, whereas dynamic-equivalence versions tend to take the objective-genitive reading.

    I am of the belief that the correct reading is the subjective-genitive reading, for multiple reasons. First, Paul uses the word πιστις with a genitive name or pronoun twenty-four other times throughout his epistles, and every single time, he uses it subjectively (which is not debated). Although there are a few times outside of Pauline writings where πιστις + genitive is used objectively, because Paul only ever uses this as a subjective-genitive construct, the burden of proof rests squarely on those who would read πιστις χριστου objectively.

    Furthermore, if πιστις χριστου is read as an objective-genitive, then this would create massive redundancies in the text. For example, here are a few of the places where Paul uses πιστις χριστου, translated as it would be if it were read objectively:

and the righteousness of God [is] through faith in Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those having faith (Rom. 3:22)

having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through faith in Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did have faith, that we might be declared righteous by faith in Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh. (Gal. 2:16)

but the scripture did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to those having faith. (Gal. 3:22)

not having my righteousness, which [is] of law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ — the righteousness that is of God by the faith (Php. 3:9)

It should be very clear that translating πιστις χριστου as “faith in Christ” in these instances would cause all of these verses to become absolutely tautological. After all, what could possibly be the meaning of “a man is declared righteous through faith in Jesus Christ, also by having faith in Jesus Christ, to be declared righteous by faith in Christ” (paraphrase of Gal. 2:16)? But if the phrase is translated as a subjective genitive, “Christ’s faith(fulness)”, then these verses suddenly make much more sense:

and the righteousness of God [is] through Jesus Christ’s faith(fulness) to all, and upon all those having faith (Rom. 3:22)

having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through Jesus Christ’s faith(fulness), also we in Christ Jesus did have faith, that we might be declared righteous by Christ’s faith(fulness), and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh. (Gal. 2:16)

but the scripture did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by Jesus Christ’s faith(fulness) may be given to those having faith. (Gal. 3:22)

not having my righteousness, which [is] of law, but that which [is] through Christ’s faith(fulness) — the righteousness that is of God by the faith (Php. 3:9)

If these verses are translated with the subjective-genitive reading, then they are describing the interplay between Christ’s faith (the ultimate source of our justification) and our own faith (which allows us to receive His faith). This is also reflected in Romans 1:17:

For the righteousness of God... is revealed out of faith for faith, according as it hath been written, “And the righteous one by faith shall live”

That is, our justification comes out of Christ’s faithfulness for our own faith. Furthermore, this makes sense of the prophecy in Habakkuk 2:4, “the righteous one by faith shall live”; this is not referring to every person who has faith, but rather a specific Righteous One who shall live by faith, namely, Jesus Christ (Acts 7:52).

    Although this is not a complete description of all the arguments for the subjective-genitive reading, I hope that this suffices to show why the burden of proof rests squarely on those who would take the objective reading - the plain meaning of the text is that πιστις χριστου refers to Christ’s own faith, not our faith in Christ [1].

    Penal substitution vs. “satisfaction theory”

    So we see from these passages, along with Romans 3:25, that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement (by which we are justified) comes primarily from His own faithfulness toward God. This is “the faith(fulness) in His blood” by which He was made a mercy seat for us. And what was Christ’s faithfulness? It was His obedience to God even unto death:

For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death — death even of a cross, wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow — of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth — and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php. 2:5-11)

This shows that penal substitutionary atonement, the idea that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is because He was punished as a sacrifice for all our sins, is false. As the author of Hebrews says, God does not desire sacrifice, but desires us to do His will:

Wherefore, coming into the world, [Jesus] saith, “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not will, and a body Thou didst prepare for me, in burnt-offerings, and concerning sin-offerings, Thou didst not delight, then I said, Lo, I come, (in a volume of the book it hath been written concerning me,) to do, O God, Thy will;” saying above — “Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and concerning sin-offering Thou didst not will, nor delight in,” — which according to the law are offered — then he said, “Lo, I come to do, O God, Thy will.” He doth take away the first that the second he may establish; in the which will we are having been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. (Hebrews 9:5-10)

This passage cannot be clearer. Jesus did not come to offer His body as a sacrifice, but rather to do the will of God and be completely obedient in all things. The amazing part of Christ’s sacrifice is not that He died, but that He was obedient even unto death. This is reflected in the gospel accounts, which do not dawdle on the aspects of Jesus’ death itself, but rather on the fact that He gave Himself up to God’s will and remained obedient:

And having taken Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, [Jesus] began to be sorrowful, and to be very heavy; then saith he to them, “Exceedingly sorrowful is my soul — unto death; abide ye here, and watch with me.” And having gone forward a little, he fell on his face, praying, and saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou.” And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and he saith to Peter, “So! Ye were not able one hour to watch with me! Watch, and pray, that ye may not enter into temptation: the spirit indeed is forward, but the flesh weak.” Again, a second time, having gone away, he prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” And having come, he findeth them again sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And having left them, having gone away again, he prayed a third time, saying the same word...

Then saith Jesus to him, “Turn back thy sword to its place; for all who did take the sword, by the sword shall perish; dost thou think that I am not able now to call upon my Father, and He will place beside me more than twelve legions of messengers? How then may the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it behoveth to happen?” (Matt. 26:37-44, 52-54)

Jesus could have chosen to do His own will at any time, and called upon God to release Him from His fate. But instead of taking the easy way out, He chose to die in accordance with God’s will.

    But how exactly did Christ’s act of obedience (the “faithfulness in His blood”) cause Him to become a mercy seat, and justify our sins? Well, as described above, sin is any act of disobedience against God, and the “righteous judgment of God” is that every person who is disobedient is “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32). Sin is ultimately a debt of obedience to God (Matt. 6:12; 18:34-35), and we cannot pay our own debts with acts of obedience, because our obedience is already required of us.

    To fulfill the debt of obedience, an act of overflowing obedience is necessary. And the only possible act of overflowing obedience is the death of a sinless being (because one who is sinless is not already deserving of death). Therefore, because Jesus was perfectly obedient in all things throughout His life, when He died in accordance with God’s will, He committed the only possible act of overflowing obedience, and in doing so all our acts of disobedience are covered.

    This is the “faithfulness in His blood” by which Christ was made a mercy seat, and by which we are saved and reconciled to God.

    The resurrection of Jesus Christ

How does Christ’s resurrection fit into all of this? After all, Paul presents the Resurrection as a necessary part of the Gospel, and argues that “if Christ hath not risen... ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Peter also says that Christ’s resurrection was necessary, because “it was not possible for Him to be held by [death]” (Acts 2:24).

    The satisfaction theory of atonement, as presented above, makes perfect sense of these statements. Because Christ died in perfect obedience to God’s will, He was not actually deserving of death, per the “righteous judgment of God” of Romans 1:32. This means that, unlike us when we die, Christ actually logically could not have remained dead, or else God would not have been just. His resurrection is the confirmation that His death was in perfect obedience to God, and so it confirms to us that the atonement was efficacious in covering over our sins.

    However, if penal substitutionary atonement were true, then Christ was deserving of death, because He died to take the penalties of all our sins. That is, the “righteous judgment of God” would be that Jesus must remain dead. This means that if penal substitution were correct, the Resurrection would not have been a confirmation that the atonement were efficacious - far from it! - it actually would have shown that He did not take the penalties for all our sins, and so He failed to cover over our sins.

    Therefore, Christ’s resurrection not only provides a confirmation that the atonement was efficacious, and that our sins actually have been covered over, but it also shows that penal substitutionary atonement is false. He did not take the penalties for our sins; rather, He took upon Himself the sins themselves, and covered over our disobedience with His overflowing obedience. It was simply not possible for Him to be held by death!

    The ultimate effect of the atonement

This scriptural view of the atonement provides another important consequence. Because Christ was obedient unto death, all our acts of disobedience are covered over by His mercy seat. It isn’t only that we don’t have to take the punishment for our sins; instead, God doesn’t even reckon the sins themselves (2 Cor 5:19)! The logical consequence of this is that everyone for whom Christ died will be ultimately saved, because God simply doesn’t recognize their sins any more (He imputes to us His own perfect righteousness, Rom. 3:22).

    But how many people did Christ die for? Well, Paul repeatedly tells us the answer, which is “all mankind“ (1 Tim. 2:6 cf. 2 Cor. 5:14). From this, a clear logical argument can be made for universalism:

Premise 1. Everyone for whom Christ died as a ransom will be saved (see above)

Premise 2. Christ died as a ransom for all people, everyone affected by Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:15-19; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:6)

Premise 2a. The “all mankind” for whom Christ died includes even Nero, the persecutor of Christians, who was in authority at the time that Paul wrote 1 Tim. 2:2 

Conclusion. All people, everyone affected by Adam’s sin, will be saved (even Nero).

Some Calvinists will dispute this conclusion on the basis of the “limited atonement” (the idea that Christ died for only a small subset of humanity). As noted above in Premise 2a, the context of 1 Tim. 2:6 requires that even the Roman emperor Nero, who initiated a terrible persecution of Christians and remained a pagan until death, was part of the “all mankind” for whom Christ died, which seems to preclude the idea that Christ died only for those who believe in this lifetime.

    However, this Calvinist view of the limited atonement is based largely on Matthew 20:28 and its parallel passages:

“the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Calvinists argue that because Jesus said that He only died as a ransom for “many”, not all, He only died for the “elect”. This assumes that Jesus only died for the “many” in view here. However, elsewhere Jesus says that He died for the sheep of Israel (John 10:15 cf. Matt. 15:24), but that doesn’t mean that Gentiles cannot also be saved. In the same way, just because Jesus said that He died for “many” doesn’t mean that He did not also die for “all”, especially given that Paul later says that He died for “all mankind”.

    Conclusion

Out of all of the theories of Christ’s atonement, only one fits with the testimony of scripture: the “satisfaction theory” of the atonement. According to this theory, Christ’s overflowing act of obedience (by dying in accordance with God’s will) covered over all of our acts of disobedience. Consequently, everyone for whom Christ died will be saved, because their sins are no longer being recognized as sins by God. This means that, because Christ died for “all mankind” per 1 Timothy 2:6, it is absolutely necessary that all people will eventually be saved.

______________________________

[1] For a fuller treatment of the arguments for both the objective and subjective readings, see this summary of the debate written by Greek scholar Matthew Easter.

Salvation and Judgment (eBook Contents)

    I recently decided to compile my many articles on the topic of Universal Reconciliation into one (sort of) eBook, so that it is easier to see the logical progression between the articles, and to combine all of my argument into one place. Just a warning, these articles were not all written in the order seen below (although most of them were), so if my thought process seems to jump around or build on ideas that you’re unfamiliar with, it will be covered elsewhere in the book. Also, as a tip, I suggest reading the appendix “Revelation is not the end” before reading through part 2 of the book, as it will make a little more sense that way.

    If you’re just now learning about universalism, I hope that this will help you to see what universalists actually believe, and to accurately assess the arguments for and against universal reconciliation.

Part 1: The Salvation of All

Erasing Misconceptions about Universalism

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 as a Universalist Prooftext

Pauline Universalist Prooftexts in Context

Universalism in the Early Church (Summary)

For Universalism to be False...

Part 2: Exegeting Judgment Passages

The Ages of the Ages and Universal Reconciliation

The Judgment of the Nations in Matthew 25:31-46

Refuting Anti-Universalist Prooftexts

Gehenna and the Lake of Fire, Part 1 and Part 2

John 3:16, the Gospel in a Nutshell?

Appendices

A Defense of Futurism

Revelation is Not the End

Defying Death: A Defense of the Doctrine of Soul Sleep, Part 1 and Part 2