Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?

     Throughout the Bible, God (the supreme Being Who created the universe) is given many names and titles. Along with His personal name, “Yahweh”, and His title “God” (Elohim or θεος), He is called the Lord, the Father, Most High, the living God, God of gods, the only true God, and more. But is this God of scripture the same as the “triune” God of Christianity, who is one being in three Persons (the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit)?

    The Father

In the Old Testament, Yahweh is called “the Father” figuratively, in terms of His relationship with His covenant people Israel (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 1:10; Ps. 103:13; Isa. 63:16). In the New Testament, He is called “the Father” in a much more personal sense, by virtue of His Fathership of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God because of the virgin birth (Luke 1:35). Through the Spirit of God which indwells believers, God also can be called our Father (Rom. 8:14-17).

    This leads us to the first defining characteristic of Yahweh, the “living and true God”. He is the Father of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is His son (1 Thess. 1:9-10). Not only is He the Father of Jesus, but He is also the God of Jesus (John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:12). However, according to the Christian doctrine of trinitarianism, Jesus is also one and the same as Yahweh and God. This leads to a logical absurdity:

Premise 1. Jesus Christ is Yahweh and God.

Premise 2. The Father is the God of Jesus Christ (see above).

Conclusion. There is a God above Yahweh (contra Exod. 20:2-3).

And another logical absurdity:

Premise 1. Jesus Christ is Yahweh and God.

Premise 2. Jesus Christ is the son of Yahweh, the living God (Matt. 16:16, 1 Thess. 1:9-10).

Conclusion. Jesus Christ is the son of Jesus Christ.

I could go on further, but these examples of reductio ad absurdum clearly demonstrate that it is, biblically, impossible to suggest that Jesus is one and the same as Yahweh and God. Furthermore, and rather unfortunately, this means that anyone who worships a “triune” God has turned away from the “living and true God” (who is the Father of Jesus), so by definition, they are worshipping idols (1 Thess. 1:9).

    Objection: It is possible for Jesus to simultaneously be God and the Son of God, because He is simultaneously a man and the Son of Man (for example, see Matt. 18:11 cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).

    Answer: This common trinitarian argument fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of each of these terms. The title God, when used in reference to Yahweh, refers to a singular Being (Deut. 6:4), whereas the title “man” refers to any being that is part of humanity.

    As an analogy, imagine a man named John Smith and his son, James Smith. The son could be called “the son of John”, but not “John” himself, because the name “John” refers to a specific person. However, he could be called both “the son of Smith” and “Smith”, because the name “Smith” refers to a group of people. In the same way, Jesus, being both the human Messiah and the son of God, can be called “the son of man”, “man”, and “the son of the living God”, but not “the living God” (because that refers to a specific Being who is Jesus’ Father).

    Objection: Jesus is called “God” in the Bible, and therefore He must be one and the same as Yahweh.

    Answer: Actually, there are only two places in the entire New Testament where the Greek text is unambiguous in calling Jesus “God” (John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8), and one in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6), in contrast to over one hundred places where the Father is unambiguously called “God”. This is in line with the ancient Jewish idea of representational deity, in which those who work out the will of Yahweh on His behalf can be called “God” in a secondary sense.

    For example, when Moses was told that his brother Aaron would speak on his behalf to the pharaoh of Egypt, Yahweh told him that he would be God to Aaron (Exod. 4:16), and again in Exodus 7:1, Moses and Aaron are said to be God to the pharaoh. In Psalm 82:1, 6, God tells the human judges of Israel that they are elohim (gods) because of the authority which He has given them. Even Satan is called ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου (“God of this age”) in 2 Corinthians 4:4, because he has been given authority over unbelievers in this age (Luke 4:6).

    With this in mind, it may be asked, how could Jesus not be called a god in scripture? After all, Yahweh gave to Him all the authority both in heaven and on the earth (Matt. 28:18), over the dead and the living (Rom. 14:9), and made Him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36; 5:31), so the notion of representational deity certainly applies to Him. In fact, in one of the only two places in the New Testament where the Greek text is unambiguous in calling Jesus “God”, it is explicitly said that God anointed Him to become a god:

unto the Son: “Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign; thou didst love righteousness, and didst hate lawlessness; because of this did He anoint thee — God, thy God — with oil of gladness above thy partners“ (Heb. 1:8-9)

Therefore, the fact that the title “God” is applied to Christ does not mean that He is the living God or the only true God (titles which apply to the Father alone; see John 17:3), because this title is used in the secondary sense as referring to someone to whom authority was given by Yahweh.

    Objection: Jesus calls Himself the “I am”, which means that He is one and the same as Yahweh according to Exodus 3:14.

    Answer: This argument, although common, is actually inexcusably misleading. Jesus used the phrase εγω ειμι to describe Himself, a phrase which means “I am [He]”, but this is not the same as the title used by God in Exodus 3:14. The LXX translates God’s title in Exodus 3:14 as Ο ΩΝ (essentially meaning “the self-existent Being”), not as εγω ειμι, so Jesus’ audience would not have recognized εγω ειμι as being a divine claim. Furthermore, the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 would likely be better translated as “I will be what I will be”, which makes any connection with εγω ειμι even more tenuous.

    So what did εγω ειμι mean to the Jews? It was often used as a simple identifier, like how the beggar who was healed by Jesus states “εγω ειμι” in response to a question about whether he was the one who had been blind (John 9:8-9). Elsewhere, εγω ειμι is likewise used to answer a question about one’s identity (Mk. 14:61-62; John 18:4-6). Occasionally, Jesus uses εγω ειμι where the implied predicate is “Messiah” or “Son of Man” among other titles that belong to Him (Mk. 13:6 cf. Matt. 24:5; John 4:25-26; 8:28; 13:18-19).

    Essentially, the only reason to believe that Jesus’ statements of εγω ειμι were divine claims is if one already believes that Jesus is Yahweh, in which case the implied predicate is “I am [Yahweh]”. However, there is no obvious connection between εγω ειμι and any title of God in the Old Testament, and so these statements by themselves do not show that Jesus believed Himself to be the God of the Old Testament. Instead, it is far more likely that the majority of the time Jesus stated εγω ειμι, the implied message is “I am [the Messiah]”, which better fits the context of these statements.

    The living God

Another important title of Yahweh is “the living God”. This title represents the fact that “life”, as a property, is inherent to God Himself and that He is the source of all life (Gen. 2:7, Num. 27:16; Acts 17:28). If God ceased to be alive, then He would not only no longer be “the living God”, but He would no longer be Yahweh (a name which is often assumed to describe God’s self-existence). As noted already, the title “living God” is often used to distinguish Yahweh from false idols, such that anyone who does not worship a God who is “the living God” is worshipping an idol (Jer. 10:10-11; Acts 14:15; 1 Thess. 1:9).

    However, according to trinitarian forms of Christianity, Yahweh is a “triune” God that includes the Person of Jesus Christ, such that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. This means that while Jesus was dead during the period between His crucifixion and resurrection, according to Christianity, Yahweh was dead. This means that, if Christianity worships Jesus as Yahweh and God, they are worshipping a God who is no longer “the living God”. Consider the following logical argument:

Premise 1. Life is a state, or property, of existence which is directly opposite to and incompatible with the state of death. (Although this should be obvious, see my article on soul sleep for a defense of this position, or simply read Ecclesiastes 9:4-10.)

Premise 2. Life as a property is inherent to God, by virtue of which He may be called “the living God”, and because of which David was able to write that “[God’s] years shall have no end” (Ps. 102:27), and Paul wrote that God is incorruptible (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17).

Premise 3. Between the time of His crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus was in the state of death.

Conclusion 1. Between the time of His crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus was in a state which is directly opposite to and incompatible with the property of life which is inherent to God [P1 - P3].

Conclusion 2. Jesus Christ is not the living God.

If anyone worships Jesus Christ as the supreme God, Yahweh, then they are worshipping a God who is not “the living God”, and therefore they are worshipping an idol.

    Objection: Jesus Christ did not die, at least, His divine nature stayed alive while His human nature was dead. Therefore, He can still be “the living God”.

    Answer: I challenge anyone who makes this claim to find a single passage that says or implies this. On the contrary, there are a vast number of passages that say that Jesus indeed died. In fact, it is fundamental to Paul’s gospel, which means that anyone who believes that Jesus did not die cannot be in the body of Christ. Since the biblical definition of death is a lack of consciousness, to say that any part of the person who was Jesus Christ remained alive between His crucifixion and resurrection is a denial of this gospel.

    Objection: Jesus received worship many times in the New Testament, and we are commanded to worship Him and told that one day everyone will worship Him (Php. 2:9-11). Therefore, worshipping Jesus as the supreme God cannot be idolatry.

    Answer: This is a fallacious argument because the conclusions do not follow from the premises. Jesus did indeed receive worship (Matt. 28:9, 17; Lk. 24:52; John 9:38) and will yet receive worship at an even more exalted level (Php. 2:10-11; Rev. 5:8-14), but this does not mean that He is to be worshipped on the same level as His God and Father, Yahweh.

    In fact, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, some humans are worshipped (since the word ‘worship’, translated from shachah and προσκυνεω respectively, simply means ‘to bow down’ as a sign of respect), and this practice is never condemned. The only time that it is wrong to ‘worship’ someone is if they are evil (as in false gods and demons), or if they are on the same level as you (Rev. 22:8-9); however, it is perfectly fine to ‘worship’ someone who is on a higher level (Gen. 23:7; 42:6; 1 Sam. 24:8; 2 Sam. 14:22; 1 Kings 1:23, 53; etc.) It is in this sense that Jesus ought to be worshipped, and all our worship towards Jesus in this manner ultimately goes to the glory of the Father (Php. 2:11).

    However, when ‘worship’ is used to mean reverence and praise toward a divine being, we are only supposed to worship the Father. In John 4:23, we are told that true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Likewise, when Jesus taught us how to pray, He specifically said to pray to the Father (Matt. 6:6-9). Therefore, although Jesus is supposed to receive worship (as in paying homage), it is not with the same level of divine reverence that we are to worship God the Father, the living God. If we worship Jesus as the supreme Deity, then we are placing an idol of our own creation above the living God.

    The only true God

Another title which is given to Yahweh in the New Testament is “the true God” (1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20), the “only true God” (John 17:3), “the one God” (Mark 12:32; 1 Cor. 8:6), and other variations on this title. What did Jesus have to say about this title? Let’s see:

Jesus answered him — “The first of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of thy soul, and out of all thine understanding, and out of all thy strength — this [is] the first command”... And the scribe said to him, “Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He“... And Jesus, having seen him that he answered with understanding, said to him, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk. 12:29-30, 32, 34)

We see here that the correct interpretation of the Shema (“Yahweh is one”), the interpretation which Jesus Himself endorsed, is the traditional Jewish understanding that God is one being and one person (not a “triune” God). But who is the “one God”, of which there is “none other but He”? Well, as Jesus said elsewhere,

These things spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to the heaven, and said — “Father... this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ” (John 17:1, 3)

Jesus believed the title of “only true God” to apply to the Father alone, and distinguished Himself from that title. Therefore, if the Father alone is the “one God”, and there is “none other but He” (a statement which Jesus Himself agreed with), then Jesus cannot be the supreme Deity along with the Father.

    As Paul also said,

Concerning the eating then of the things sacrificed to idols, we have known that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that there is no other God except one; for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him (1 Cor. 8:4-6)

one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who [is] over all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:5-6)

Again, the title of “one God” is twice applied to the Father alone, and distinguished from the Lord Jesus Christ. This demonstrates conclusively that the “one God” apart from whom there is no other is the Father alone, and Jesus Christ cannot be part of a “triune” God along with the Father. Again, this demonstrates that the trinitarian God of Christianity is actually an idol:

Premise 1. Any God who is not the “one God” or “the only true God” is, by definition, a false god and an idol, except when the word “God” is used in a representational sense as with Jesus Christ.

Premise 2. The titles of “one God” and “only true God” belong to the Father alone (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:4-6).

Premise 3. The triune God of Christianity is not the Father alone.

Conclusion. The triune God of Christianity is not “the one God” or “the only true God”, and is therefore, definitionally, a false god and an idol.

This logical argument demonstrates conclusively that the God of Christianity is not the “only true God” of the Bible, and is instead a false god.

    Objection: Paul says that there is only “one Lord, Jesus Christ”, and yet the title of Lord applies to the Father as well. Therefore, although Paul says that there is “one God, the Father”, the title of God could still apply to Jesus Christ.

    Answer: This trinitarian argument ignores the immediate context of Paul’s statement. In the full passage quoted above, it can be seen that Paul is contrasting the “many gods and many lords” of the pagans with the “one God” and “one Lord” of Christianity. Although the title of “Lord” applies to the Father as well, Jesus Christ (being the one human leader of the body of Christ) is a far better contrast to the many human leaders of the pagans.

    As my fellow unitarian believer, Aaron Welch, wrote in this article of his,

The Father is not the “one Lord” of v. 6. In fact, the very thing that allowed Paul to refer to Christ – but not the Father – as the “one Lord” in v. 6 is that Christ doesn’t have the same divine status as the Father. By virtue of not having divinity, Christ can’t be contrasted with the “many gods” of v. 5. Only the Father (who possesses divinity) is a suitable contrast to the “many gods” of v. 5. And yet Christ can be contrasted with the “many lords,” because he is the only non-divine person (i.e., the only person subordinate to the one God) who is our Lord.

It must also be remembered that Christ’s Lordship was given to Him by God (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9). Because Christ’s Lordship needed to be given to Him, whereas God’s Lordship is by virtue of His very being (Acts 17:24), they cannot be the same “one Lord”. And if they are not the same “one Lord”, then they are not the same “one God” either.

    Objection: But David called both God and the Messiah “Lord” in Psalm 110. Doesn’t this mean that they are the same “one Lord”, and therefore, the same “one God” as well?

    Answer: As a matter of fact, no, they are not the same “one Lord” in that verse. David used the divine name Yahweh to refer to God; but to describe the Messiah, he used the title adoni, a word which was often applied to human leaders but never God, in contrast to the title Adonai which was applied to God. The fact that David used adoni and not Adonai to describe the Messiah is actually strong evidence against the position that David viewed the Messiah as divine, not evidence for this position.

    Furthermore, although some Christians have falsely believed that the fact that Jesus is called “the Lord” makes Him the same as “the LORD” (Yahweh) of the Old Testament, this is simply false. In the Old Testament, both Adonai and adoni were indiscriminately translated by the LXX as κυριος (“Lord”). This is therefore not a title of divinity, but a title of authority that can be applied to both humans and God (and actually, there are subtle differences in the way it is applied to Jesus as opposed to God). Unfortunately, most translations obscure this fact by translating κυριος as “Lord” when used in reference to Jesus and God, but merely “master” or “sir” when used in reference to other humans.

    Conclusion

The God of Christianity, who is a “triune” God (one being in three ‘persons’: the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is very certainly not the God of the Bible. The God which Christians worship (at least trinitarian forms of Christianity) cannot properly be assigned the titles “Father”, “living God”, or “only true God”, which means that, definitionally, the God of Christianity is a false god and an idol. In contrast, Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is the Father alone, and Jesus Christ is His Son, the human Messiah.

Pauline Dispensationalism: The council of Jerusalem (part 6 of 6)

Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/04/pauline-dispensationalism-justification.html

(This post reiterates many of the arguments made by Aaron Welch, which can be found in his article here.)

    So far, in this series of posts on Pauline dispensationalism, I have (1) demonstrated from scripture that Paul preached a unique gospel, different from the gospel preached by Jesus (on earth) and the twelve apostles in Israel, (2) shown why the scriptural arguments against this position fail, and (3) demonstrated the differences between absolute vs. relative “justification” in the two gospels. In this last post, I would like to examine one final text that is also central to the debate over Pauline dispensationalism: the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-29.

    Some background

Before discussing the Jerusalem council itself, some background information about the book of Acts is necessary. This book is not meant to provide an explanation of Paul’s “gospel of the uncircumcision”, as the message that “Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day” (1 Cor. 15:1-4) is conspicuously absent. Out of the only two times which Paul’s evangelization of a city is actually recorded in Acts, the first time he was preaching the “gospel of the circumcision” (since his sermon was only to “Israelites and those fearing God” with the central message that the prophesied Messiah had come; see Acts 13:16, 32-35), and the second time (when he was preaching primarily to Gentiles) his message was cut short by some people who ridiculed the idea of bodily resurrection (Acts 17:31-32) [1].

    Instead, the primary purpose of the book of Acts (apart from simply providing a history of the early churches) is to answer the question at the beginning of the book: “’Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’” (1:6). As both Jesus and the apostles taught, the Messianic kingdom would only come and restore Israel when all of Israel accepted Him as the Christ (Matt. 23:39; Acts 3:19-21; 5:31 cf. Zech. 13:9-14:4). However, throughout the book of Acts, the Jewish people repeatedly reject Christ, such that on three separate occasions Paul condemns and turns away from them (Acts 13:46-47; 18:6; 28:25-28).

    Therefore, because the book of Acts is bookended on the one hand by a question about when the kingdom will come to Israel, and on the other hand by a statement that it will not come to Israel (albeit only for a time; Rom. 11:23-26), it seems likely that the purpose of this book is to explain why the kingdom has not come yet (and why Israel has, for a time, been rejected as the carriers of the kingdom). We should not expect it to provide an extended explanation of Paul’s gospel, or the differences between the two gospels.

    The purpose of the council

The account of the council of Jerusalem is not only given in Acts 15, but an abbreviated explanation of this council is also provided in Galatians 2:1-5 [1]. According to this passage, about eleven years after Paul was separated to his unique gospel and calling (Gal. 2:1 cf. Gal. 1:18; Acts 13:2), he returned to Jerusalem to explain to the apostles his gospel. However, trouble quickly ensued when some “false brethren” arose to suggest that the Gentiles in the body of Christ were still required to follow the Mosaic Law and be circumcised. See the following parallels between these two passages:

Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus; and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the gospel that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run; but not even Titus, who [is] with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (Gal. 2:1-3)

And having come to Jerusalem, they [Paul and Barnabas] were received by the assembly, and the apostles, and the elders, they declared also as many things as God did with them (Acts 15:3)

and [that] because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage (Gal. 2:4)

and there rose up certain of those of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying — “It behoveth to circumcise them, to command them also to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:4)

to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you. (Gal. 2:5)

This passage demonstrates the reason for the Jerusalem council. A sect of believing Pharisees were disturbed by Paul’s gospel to the nations that removed the Gentiles from under the purview of the Mosaic Law, and (misunderstanding the nature of justification under Paul’s gospel) argued that they still needed to be circumcised and keep the Law to receive salvation.

    Although some believe that this council removed all believers from needing to keep the Law, this view is mistaken. The dispute that arose at this time was only about whether the Gentiles also needed to be circumcised and keep the Law to be saved, not about whether God’s covenant people Israel needed to keep the Law.

    The issue of whether Israel needed to keep the Law to enter into the covenant promises was settled over a thousand years earlier, when Moses prophesied that the Israelites would only be allowed to return and enter into the promised Messianic kingdom on earth if they “keep His commands and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law” (Deut. 30:8-10). This was reaffirmed by Jesus who said that “whoever breaks the least of these commands, and teaches men so, will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 5:19-20). Therefore, the decision of the Jerusalem council absolutely cannot be generalized to all believers, whether in Israel or the body of Christ; it only pertains to those saved under Paul’s gospel.

    Who was the apostle to the Gentiles?

And there were gathered together the apostles and the elders, to see about this matter, and there having been much disputing, Peter having risen up said unto them, “Men, brethren, ye know that from former days, God among us did make choice, through my mouth, for the nations to hear the word of the gospel, and to believe; and the heart-knowing God did bare them testimony, having given to them the Holy Spirit, even as also to us, and did put no difference also between us and them, by the faith having purified their hearts... but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.” (Acts 15:6-9, 11)

This is another passage that is sometimes used to argue against Pauline dispensationalism, because it seems to say that Peter (along with Paul) was also an apostle to the Gentiles, and therefore Paul’s message to the Gentiles cannot have been unique. However, if interpreted this way, it would contradict Galatians 2:7-9, which states that Peter’s primary audience was the circumcised Jews. So what did Peter mean by this?

    The most likely interpretation is that Peter simply meant that, by his evangelization, the Gentiles would first hear the gospel, referring to the salvation of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:23-48. This, however, was not Paul’s gospel being preached, but the gospel of the Circumcision. See the following comparison between Peter’s preaching to the Circumcision in Acts 2:36-38 and the salvation of Cornelius’ household in Acts 10:

1. Believe that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:36)

2. Repent of sins (Acts 2:38)

3. Be baptized in the name of Christ to the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

4. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)

And here is what happened to Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:

1. They believed that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 10:42-43)

2. They received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-46)

3. They repented of sins unto life (Acts 11:18)

4. They were baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:47-48), which was considered a salvation issue for them (Acts 11:16-17)

Apart from the re-ordering of steps (the Holy Spirit came upon them prior to baptism), the method by which they were saved is essentially the same as the Circumcision. In contrast, Paul’s gospel, by which one who believes that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day is automatically saved (Eph. 1:13-14 cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-4), is nowhere to be found here.

    So why did God allow some uncircumcised Gentiles to be saved under the gospel of the Circumcision, which was meant for God’s covenant people Israel? The answer is found in Acts 10:35, where Peter says that “in every nation, he who is fearing [God] and is working righteousness is acceptable to Him”. That is, a Gentile is only eligible for salvation if they (1) fear God and (2) work righteousness. (In stark contrast, at least some, if not most, of those saved under Paul’s gospel were entirely “without God in the world” prior to being saved, per Eph. 2:12.)

    This is most likely a fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 12:3 that those who bless Israel will, in turn, be blessed by God by taking part in the covenant promises (cf. Zech. 8:23; John 4:22). We read in Acts 10:2-4 that Cornelius “did many kind acts to the people [of Israel]”, and that it is because of these “kind acts” that he was granted the opportunity for salvation [2].

    The fact that Cornelius and his household were not saved under Paul’s gospel is confirmed by what James says in the following verses:

James answered, saying, “Men, brethren, hearken to me; Simeon did declare how at first God did look after to take out of the nations a people for His name, and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it hath been written: ‘After these things I will turn back, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down, and its ruins I will build again, and will set it upright — that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations, upon whom My name hath been called, saith the Lord, who is doing all these things.’” (Acts 15:13-17)

The prophecy that James quotes is a paraphrase of Amos 9:8-15, a prophecy about how God will gather the remnant of Israel at the end of their tribulation and return them to the promised land to partake in the Messianic kingdom. This prophecy cannot be applied to the body of Christ, which will be reigning in the heavens during the oncoming ages, rather than on the earth (Eph. 2:6-7; 3:10-11; Php. 3:19-21). Therefore, as the expectation of Cornelius and his household is on the earth, whereas the body of Christ will be in the heavens, Cornelius and his household were not saved under Paul’s gospel. Instead, they were saved under the gospel of the Circumcision in accordance with Peter’s ministry.

    Another objection based on this passage is that, because it says that “through grace... we [the Circumcision] believe to be saved, even also as they”, the salvation of Israel must also be by grace through faith, and there is no functional difference between Paul’s gospel and the gospel of the Circumcision; but this objection is mistaken. No one doubts that both the Gentiles and Jews are saved by their faith, through grace (this is one of the few points of similarity between the two gospels). The difference between the two is that, whereas to the Circumcision “faith apart from the works is dead” (Jas. 2:20, 26), under Paul’s gospel works are counted as debt (Rom. 4:4-5). The fact that the salvation of both groups involves grace and faith does not mean that their method of salvation is exactly the same.

    A yoke too heavy to bear?

“now, therefore, why do ye tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10)

Most interpreters believe that Peter was referring to the Mosaic Law here as an “unbearable yoke”. Although this is not of central importance to the issue of Pauline dispensationalism, it is still a weighty matter, because (if this is what Peter meant) God would be putting an unbearable yoke on the shoulders of His covenant people, who were still required to follow the Law (see above).

    In fact, although Jesus commanded His disciples to follow the Law (Matt. 5:17-20; 19:16-19; 23:1-3), He also said that “my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 18:30). Unless either Jesus or Peter was being misleading as to the ‘weight’ of the yoke - something I find highly unlikely - Peter could not have been referring to the Mosaic Law by itself when speaking of an “unbearable yoke”.

    Likewise, though Peter said that this “yoke” was something that “neither our fathers not we were able to bear”, at least one of the fathers - namely, David - had a remarkably positive view of the Mosaic Law. As he said in Psalm 19:7-11:

The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward. (NKJV)

So, if Peter was not referring to the Mosaic Law by itself, what was he referring to as an “unbearable yoke”? It is important to remember what the dispute that led to the council was about in the first place. This dispute was between a Pharisaic faction of believers on the one hand, and Paul and Barnabas on the other. This recalls what Jesus said in Matthew 23:4, about how the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law (which added many more commands according to tradition) was a burden too heavy to bear. Therefore, it is not the Mosaic Law by itself that was an “unbearable yoke”, but the Pharisees’ added commands and traditions which they were trying to force upon the Gentiles.

    James’ commands to the Gentiles

“Known from the ages to God are all His works; wherefore I judge: not to trouble those who from the nations do turn back to God, but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood; for Moses from former generations in every city hath those preaching him — in the synagogues every sabbath being read.” (Acts 15:18-21)

James finally ends the Jerusalem council by making a proclamation that the Gentiles should not be troubled by being circumcised, which would make them debtors to the entire Mosaic Law (Gal. 5:3) [3], but should still keep four commandments: to abstain from “the pollutions of idols”, “the whoredom”, “the strangled thing”, and “the blood”. These commands apparently had the approval of Paul, since they also appeared in the letter which he delivered to the Gentile churches (v. 29), so they must not have been arbitrarily chosen (which Paul would have opposed, per Colossians 2:20-23). So what exactly was James commanding in this passage?

    The first hint as to what James may have meant is the fact that the definite article is used before each of the things that the Gentiles are to abstain from; that is, he says “the pollutions” and “the whoredom” rather than simply “pollutions” and “whoredom”. This is highly atypical, as the words used here rarely have the definite article, and so it shows that James had a specific type of each of these sins in mind.

    The first three of these condemnations relate to the pagan temple feasts of the Gentiles. The first condemnation prohibits eating any meat that has been sacrificed to idols, which is something that Paul also condemned in his first epistle to the Corinthians (albeit only in cases where another brother may be offended by it; 1 Cor. 8:7-13; 10:19-30). The second and third commandments prohibit drinking blood and eating strangled things, which some have interpreted as referring to the Levitical prohibitions, but which also relate to aspects of the pagan temple rituals (see the end of this article).

    Finally, the fourth commandment prohibits Gentiles from committing “the whoredom”. The Greek word that is used here, πορνεια, is almost always used in scripture to refer to temple prostitution [4], and so this can also be related to aspects of pagan temple rituals. In fact, Paul explicitly links the temple feasts with “whoredom” in 1 Corinthians 10:7-8:

Neither become ye idolaters, as certain of them, as it hath been written, “The people sat down to eat and to drink, and stood up to play”; neither may we commit whoredom, as certain of them did commit whoredom, and there fell in one day twenty-three thousand

Therefore, these four commands from James all relate to certain aspects of pagan temple rituals, which would have been good for Gentile members of the body of Christ to avoid (considering that they were no longer pagans, after all).

    However, it is still important to note that even these basic commands were not considered necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles. Paul merely said that they would “do well” to avoid these things (Acts 15:29), which is similar to his statement to the Corinthians that “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). This is in line with Paul’s understanding of justification, based on which one’s age-during salvation is not dependent on keeping any commands or doing good works.

    Conclusion

The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-29 provides interesting insight into how the salvation of Gentiles was viewed differently by the apostles to the Circumcision in contrast to Paul. However, no aspect of this council disproves Pauline dispensationalism, contrary to what some detractors of this doctrine believe. The commandments which James and Paul gave to the Gentile churches all relate to aspects of pagan rituals, both temple feasts and cultic prostitution. These do not demonstrate that the body of Christ was required to keep any part of the Mosaic Law, but simply show that abstaining from pagan rituals was considered “profitable,” as Paul also later said (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23).

______________________________

[1] Whether the account in Galatians 2:1-5 describes Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30-12:25 or the council of Acts 15 has been debated in scholarly circles. However, if Pauline dispensationalism is accepted, this visit can only refer to Acts 15, because Paul would only have needed to explain his gospel to the apostles after he was separated to his unique calling in Acts 13:2. Furthermore, the visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 1:18 better fits the Acts 11:30-12:25 visit, rather than the Acts 9:26-27 visit. See here and here for more information.

[2] Similarly, during His earthly ministry, Jesus only granted a miracle to a Gentile centurion because he loved Israel and helped build a synagogue (Lk. 7:1-5). Another time, He refused to help a Syrophoenician woman until she adopted a subservient position to Israel (Matt. 15:21-28).

[3] The question of why being circumcised would make the Gentiles debtors to the entire Law is never discussed. However, I believe that the answer may be found in Genesis 17:10-11, which states that circumcision is the sign of the covenant between God and His people. Therefore, to be circumcised causes one to become part of God’s covenant people Israel, which, as I have argued before, would place them under the purview of the Mosaic Law in order to receive the covenant promises (Exod. 19:4-8, Deut. 30:8-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Matt. 5:17-20). Obviously, this only applies to those who circumcise themselves for the purpose of becoming part of Israel, because there were circumcised Jewish members of the body of Christ who were not debtors to the Law, including Paul himself (Php. 3:4-5).

[4] Although πορνεια is often translated more generally as “fornication” or even simply “sexual immorality”, a close examination of its usage in Pauline writings makes clear that it refers specifically to temple prostitution in almost all cases. It certainly does not refer to all kinds of extramarital sex, but typically only prostitution, considering that it is the verb form of the word πορνη (“prostitute”). For example, in 1 Cor. 6:12-20 and 10:7-8, it explicitly refers to temple prostitution, as it likely does in 1 Cor. 7:2 as well; the only case where it explicitly does not refer to prostitution is 1 Cor. 5:1, where it seems to refer to incestuous relations. See this article about 1 Cor. 6:12-20, this article about 1 Cor. 7:2, and this article about the meaning of πορνεια in general.

Pauline Dispensationalism: Justification (part 5 of 6)

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

     In the last four posts of this series, it was shown that the only way to reconcile the many contradictions between Paul and the other apostles and writers of the New Testament is to recognize the fact that Paul preached his own, unique gospel to the uncircumcised Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. The existence of this unique gospel is explicitly recognized in several places in the New Testament, including Romans 2:16, 16:25; 1 Corinthians 3:10; Galatians 1:11-12; 2:7; Ephesians 3:1-3; Colossians 1:25-26; and 2 Timothy 2:8, among other passages. A proper understanding of the distinction between the gospel of the Israelites and Paul’s gospel is necessary for a correct soteriology.

    However, the issue of whether Paul preached a unique gospel is actually only secondary to a much more important issue, which is the difference between salvation under the two gospels. Essentially, the question is, did Paul believe that works were a necessary part of keeping oneself ‘right’ with God after salvation, as the other apostles seem to have believed? And what is the difference between “justification” under Paul’s gospel and under the gospel of the Circumcision [1]?

    The Righteousness of God

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul spent three entire chapters on describing how not a single person is righteous before God. He concludes with these words:

What, then? Are we [Jews] better? Not at all! For we did before charge both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin, according as it hath been written — “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who is understanding, there is none who is seeking after God”...

And we have known that as many things as the law saith, to those in the law it doth speak, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may come under judgment to God; wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be justified before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin. And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, — for there is no difference, for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:9-11, 20-23)

In this passage, Paul is comparing human ‘righteousness’ to the absolute righteousness and sinlessness of God Himself. Based on this standard, no human being - apart from Jesus Himself - can be considered righteous. As I discussed in my earlier article on Christ’s atonement, anything less than full obedience to God demands the penalty of death (Rom. 1:32), or non-existence, because God is the sustaining force that provides life and existence to everything in the universe (Acts 17:25-28).

    This is the undeniable fact that no human has, or will, ever live up to perfect obedience (apart from Christ who “did not know sin”, 2 Cor. 5:21), and therefore every human being is mortal. It is this absolute sense of ‘righteousness’ that led Solomon to write that “there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and sins not” (Ecc. 7:20).

    Paul’s solution to the problem of human sinfulness is Christ’s own death “for our sins”, an integral part of his gospel, by which the absolute righteousness of God will be imputed through Jesus Christ’s faith to everyone who believes this gospel message (Rom. 1:17; 3:22; 2 Cor. 5:21; Php. 3:9). Because everyone owes a debt of obedience to God, and it is impossible to repay this debt with more obedience (works of Law), this absolute sense of “justification” cannot be achieved via the Law. This is why Paul wrote that

a man is not justified by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore justified by works of law shall be no flesh... I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness [be] through law — then Christ died in vain. (Gal. 2:16, 21)

Using the absolute sense of “righteousness”, if righteousness on the level of God’s own sinlessness can be achieved through works of Law, then Christ died in vain because His sacrificial “blotting out” of our sins was not necessary for us to be justified.

    With this understanding of “justification”, it is easy to see why Paul believed that attempting to do good works to remain in God’s favor was a bad idea. To him, there was and remains only one way to achieve absolute righteousness, and that is through Jesus Christ’s faith [2]; but once one achieves absolute righteousness by having one’s sins entirely blotted out, it is impossible to get more righteous than that by doing works of Law. In fact, to attempt to do works of Law only puts one further behind, because that denies the freedom into which we have been placed, as Paul explained to the judaizing Galatians (3:1-4, 10-13, 5:1-4, 13-18).

    Furthermore, because once someone has been imputed absolute righteousness, no sin can be counted against them anymore, it is impossible that anyone (having been saved under Paul’s gospel) could lose their salvation. This is something that is reflected repeatedly throughout Paul’s epistles, for example, in Romans 8:28-30, the same number of individuals who were “called” under Paul’s gospel will also be “justified” and “glorified”. See also 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30; and Philippians 1:6. 

    The righteousness of man

But if this is true, how could James have said that “out of works is man justified” (Jas. 2:24)? To properly understand this, it is necessary to recognize that (apart from the absolute sense of “righteousness” that is only inherent to God Himself) there is a relative sense of righteousness by which even sinful human beings can be considered “righteous”. For example, see the following passages:

“And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.” (Deut. 6:25 NKJV)

YHWH rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of YHWH, And have not wickedly departed from my God. For all His judgments were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me. I was also blameless before Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity. Therefore YHWH has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His sight. (Ps. 18:20-24 NKJV)

“But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right; If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity; If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully — He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord YHWH. (Ezek. 18:5-9 NKJV)

“Then you shall again discern Between the righteous and the wicked, Between one who serves God And one who does not serve Him. For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up,” Says the LORD of hosts, “That will leave them neither root nor branch. But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves. You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, With the statutes and judgments.” (Mal. 3:18-4:4 NKJV)

According to these passages and several others, it is possible for a human to be righteous (relative to other men), but only if they repent of sins and keep the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic Law.

    Based on these criteria, many people throughout the Old and New Testaments were considered “righteous”, including (but not limited to) the following: Abel (Matt. 23:35; Heb. 11:4; 1 Jn. 3:12), Noah and his family (Gen 6:9; 7:1), Abraham (Gen. 15:6), Lot (2 Pet. 2:7-8), David (Ps. 18:20-24), Daniel and Job (Ezek. 14:14, 20), Zacharias and Elizabeth (Lk. 1:5-6), Joseph (Matt. 1:19), Simeon (Lk. 2:25), John the Baptist (Mk. 6:20), Joseph of Arimathea (Lk. 23:50), and Cornelius (Acts 10:22, 35). Obviously, many more Israelites and Gentile proselytes could have been considered “righteous” in this relative sense, but these are the only people specifically said to be righteous throughout scripture.

    None of the people listed above were righteous according to the absolute standard set by God, since as Paul said, “by works of law no flesh shall be justified before Him” and “all... are come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:20, 23). However, they (and anyone else who repented from sin and kept the commandments of the Law) could have been righteous relative to other humans, and thereby were considered more highly by God. This is the sense of “righteousness” by which the believing remnant of Israel (the Israel of God) is justified, and because of which they will receive the covenant promises in the Day of the Lord (Isa. 60:21; Mal. 3:18-4:6; Matt. 13:49).

    Under this relative sense of righteousness, although faith is certainly necessary to be righteous, it is impossible to be declared righteous (or “justified”) unless one also continues in the works of the Law. This is why James (writing to the Circumcision) said that:

And dost thou wish to know, O vain man, that the faith apart from the works is dead? Abraham our father — was not he declared righteous out of works, having brought up Isaac his son upon the altar? Dost thou see that the faith was working with his works, and out of the works the faith was perfected? And fulfilled was the Writing that is saying, “And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him — to righteousness;” and, “Friend of God” he was called. Ye see, then, that out of works is man justified, and not out of faith only; and in like manner also Rahab the harlot — was she not out of works declared righteous, having received the messengers, and by another way having sent forth? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also the faith apart from the works is dead. (Jas. 2:20-26)

If James were referring to the same sense of “justification” when writing to the Circumcision as Paul did when writing to the body of Christ, we could rightfully say that this is an utter contradiction. However, if Paul was referring to the absolute justification which only God can impute to us through faith (and which works of Law actually hinder, as I explained above), which the body of Christ is currently experiencing [3], whereas James was referring to the relative justification which is experienced by a combination of faith and obeying the Law, then the contradiction disappears.

    Works necessary for Israel’s justification

But does the rest of scripture support the idea that works of Law are necessary for the (relative) justification and salvation of Israel, in stark contrast to the (absolute) justification of the body of Christ? As a matter of fact, it does. Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry to Israel (Matt. 15:24; Rom. 15:8), repeatedly emphasized the necessity of keeping all the commandments of the Law for entering into the Messianic kingdom. See the following examples:

“Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands — 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. For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matt. 5:17-20)

And lo, one having come near, said to him, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?” And he said to him, “Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One — God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands.” He saith to him, “What kind?” And Jesus said, “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and mother, and, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matt. 19:16-19)

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)

It is clear that Jesus did not consider keeping the commandments of the Law as something peripheral to salvation. Instead, He considered it essential that Israel keep the Mosaic Law if they wanted to enter into the age-during life in the Messianic kingdom. This is in accordance with the relative sense of justification described above, for which keeping the statutes of the Law is necessary.

    Likewise, in stark contrast to Paul’s expectation of eternal security for the salvation of the members of the body of Christ who had been (absolutely) justified, Jesus repeatedly warned His audience against backsliding and transgressing against God’s law. Transgressing against the Law would mean going up against the sentence of Gehenna (Matt. 5:27-30; Mk. 9:43-48), which would entail missing out on the benefits of the Messianic kingdom. Jesus also told His disciples that, to be saved, they needed to “endure to the end” and avoid lawlessness (Matt. 24:12-13).

    In accordance with these teachings, Christ’s disciples continued to preach that keeping the Law (specifically, the royal law “love your neighbor as yourself”, see Jas. 2:8) and doing good works were necessary for salvation, and that it is possible to lose one’s entrance into the Messianic kingdom by transgressing. For example, Peter wrote in his epistles to the Jewish dispersion that

when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah — an ark being preparing — in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; also to which an antitype doth now save us — baptism (1 Pet. 3:20-21)

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 reign of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:10-11)

for, if having escaped from the pollutions of the world, in the acknowledging of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by these again being entangled, they have been overcome, become to them hath the last things worse than the first, for it were better to them not to have acknowledged the way of the righteousness, than having acknowledged [it], to turn back from the holy command delivered to them, and happened to them hath that of the true similitude; “A dog did turn back upon his own vomit,” and, “A sow having bathed herself — to rolling in mire.” (2 Pet. 2:20-22)

These passages are clear that Peter believed that salvation and entrance into the Messianic kingdom, for the audience he was writing to, required both water baptism and the avoidance of transgression (“stumbling”). Likewise, he recognized that it was possible to lose one’s privileged status in the Israel of God by turning away from the commandments delivered to them. This is entirely compatible with the relative sense of “righteousness” and “justification”, which requires one to keep the Law and could be lost (Ezek. 18:24).

    John, another disciple of Christ and apostle to the Circumcision (Gal. 2:9), also repeatedly wrote that keeping the commandments (specifically, to love one another) was just as necessary as having faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and age-during life. See the following passages:

if we may say — “we have fellowship with Him,” and in the darkness may walk — we lie, and do not the truth; and if in the light we may walk, as He is in the light — we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son doth cleanse us from every sin; if we may say --”`we have not sin,” ourselves we lead astray, and the truth is not in us; if we may confess our sins, stedfast He is and righteous that He may forgive us the sins, and may cleanse us from every unrighteousness (1 John 1:6-9)

in this we know that we have known him, 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 him 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)

Love not ye the world, nor the things in the world; if any one doth love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because all that [is] in the world — the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the ostentation of the life — is not of the Father, but of the world, and the world doth pass away, and the desire of it, and he who is doing the will of God, he doth remain — to the age. (1 John 2:15-17)

Ye, then, that which ye heard from the beginning, in you let it remain; if in you may remain that which from the beginning ye did hear, ye also in the Son and in the Father shall remain, and this is the promise that He did promise us — the life the age-during. (1 John 2:24-25)

Every one who is hating his brother — a man-killer he is, and ye have known that no man-killer hath life age-during in him remaining (1 John 3:15)

These passages, and many others from John’s other writings, demonstrate that he understood the salvation of the Circumcision to be dependent on whether they kept the commands of God and loved their brother. Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly, he saw the forgiveness of sins as something that required one to confess one’s sins first, which is incompatible with the absolute sense of “justification” (by which the absolute righteousness of God is imputed to anyone who believes in the gospel).

    In total accordance with this relative sense of “justification”, Jesus’ exhortations to the seven assemblies in Revelation 2 - 3 indicate that their eventual inheritance of the kingdom hinged upon their “overcoming” (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). Based on the larger context of all of John’s writings, to “overcome” means “to keep the commands of God” (1 John 5:1-5), which shows that the salvation being considered here was one that depended on both faith and works; again, this is entirely compatible with the relative sense of “righteousness” and “justification”, but is entirely separate from the absolute “justification” that Paul preached.

    Finally, the anonymous author of the epistle to the Hebrews is perhaps the most clear about the place of works in the salvation of Israel:

[Christ] did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during (Heb. 5:9)

for [it is] impossible for those once enlightened, having tasted also of the heavenly gift, and partakers having became of the Holy Spirit, and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age, and having fallen away, again to renew [them] to reformation, having crucified again to themselves the Son of God, and exposed to public shame... for God is not unrighteous to forget your work, and the labour of the love, that ye shewed to His name, having ministered to the saints and ministering; and we desire each one of you the same diligence to shew, unto the full assurance of the hope unto the end, that ye may not become slothful, but followers of those who through faith and patient endurance are inheriting the promises. (Heb. 6:4-6, 10-12)

The implication of this is that those who do “become slothful” will no longer be “inheriting the promises”, and will no longer receive the New Covenant nor enter the Messianic kingdom at Christ’s second coming.

For we — willfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth — no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery zeal, about to devour the opposers; any one who did set at nought a law of Moses, apart from mercies, by two or three witnesses, doth die, of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing, in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the grace did despite? (Heb. 10:26-29)

This passage not only demonstrates that the Mosaic Law is still in effect for the Hebrews to whom this epistle was written, but also that it is possible to turn away from the Law after having been saved, therefore losing one’s age-during salvation. I don’t think it would be possible for this to be any clearer that the Circumcision is still under the Law and that works are necessary for their salvation. 

    Conclusion

Although both Paul and the other New Testament writers used the terms of “righteousness” and “justification”, a close examination of the way that these terms are used makes clear that they did weren’t using them in the same way. Paul, by comparing humanity to the absolute righteousness of God, comes to the conclusion that no person can achieve (absolute) righteousness by their own merit and works, and that only Christ’s death can blot out our sins and thereby impute to us the absolute righteousness of God. Because of this, for the body of Christ, attempting to remain in God’s favor by works of Law is impossible (because we are already imputed righteousness) and actually denies the freedom into which we have been placed.

    In contrast, for the Circumcision, the term “righteousness” is used in the same way as it was in the Old Testament, to describe human beings who (by repenting of sins and continuing in the statutes of the Law) are righteous relative to other humans. This (relative) righteousness requires both faith and works of Law to maintain, and can be lost, in contrast to absolute righteousness (which, once imputed, is impossible to lose). The non-Pauline writings of the New Testament support this relative sense of “righteousness” and “justification”, as Jesus, Peter, and John all preached that keeping the commandments of the Law were necessary for age-during salvation, and that it is possible to lose one’s place in the Israel of God (as did the anonymous author of Hebrews).

    Therefore, although the Circumcision will also eventually receive absolute justification at the consummation along with the rest of humanity [2], their place in the believing remnant of Israel is still dependent on their keeping of the Mosaic Law along with faith that Jesus is the Christ, whereas the Gentiles in the body of Christ are already justified absolutely and actually should not be attempting to keep the Law.

Part 6: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/04/pauline-dispensationalism-council-of.html

______________________________

[1] In this post, the terms “body of Christ” and “Uncircumcision” will be used interchangeably, as will the terms “Israel of God” and “Circumcision”, per the way that each gospel is described in Galatians 2:7.

[2] Another fundamental part of Paul’s gospel is that every human being will eventually experience absolute justification through Christ’s sacrifice (Rom. 5:12-19; 2 Cor. 5:14-19). This is because Christ was offered as a ransom for all mankind (1 Tim. 2:6), so it is impossible that anyone could ultimately have sins that are not blotted out in God’s sight.

[3] Although currently the only recipients of absolute justification through Jesus Christ’s faith are members of the body of Christ who have believed Paul’s gospel (Rom. 3:22, 28-30; 5:1; 8:28-33; Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 24; Titus 3:7), this will be experienced by the rest of mankind at the consummation (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Pauline Dispensationalism: Dispensing with Objections (part 4 of 6)

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

     Paul says that the body of Christ is ‘spiritual Israel’

Throughout Paul’s epistles, there are several passages which say that those in the body of Christ are “the seed of Abraham”, or that Abraham is our “father”, or that we are “children of the promise”. See the following examples:

and a sign he [Abraham] did receive of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith in the uncircumcision, for his being father of all those believing through uncircumcision, for the righteousness also being reckoned to them, and father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith, that [is] in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. (Rom. 4:11-12)

Because of this [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace, for the promise being sure to all the seed, not to that which [is] of the law only, but also to that which [is] of the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4:16)

there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus; and if ye [are] of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise — heirs. (Gal. 3:28-29)

And we, brethren, as Isaac, are children of the promise (Gal. 4:28)

This has led some people to believe in “replacement” or “covenant theology”, which is the non-dispensationalist view that the body of Christ (comprising all believers since Christ) is the continuation of God’s promises and covenant with Israel. They argue that because those in the body of Christ are called the descendants of Abraham, we are now ‘spiritual Israel’ and partakers of the New Covenant.

    First of all, it’s important to remember that Paul did use the term “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 to describe the remnant of believing Jews (Rom. 9:6) apart from those in the body of Christ. As I showed in the previous post of this series, there were tens of thousands of Jewish believers at the time of Paul’s ministry who were not in the body of Christ. This alone is enough to show that Israel and the body of Christ are separate.

    Likewise, God’s new covenant with Israel cannot be applied to the body of Christ, because Israel, under the New Covenant, will be reigning on the earth and be empowered to follow the Mosaic Law (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:24-27; Matt. 19:28-29), whereas the body of Christ will be reigning in the heavens (Eph. 2:6-7; 3:10-11; 6:12) and the Law has been abrogated for us (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:10; 5:3-4). Furthermore, the body of Christ was a secret first revealed to Paul (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), so it cannot be the New Covenant that was so often prophesied hundreds of years before Christ.

    So what did Paul mean when he said that the body of Christ was “the seed of Abraham”? He actually explains what he means by this in Galatians 3:29, which is quoted above; we are the “seed of Abraham” in that we are “heirs according to promise” (perhaps better translated, “enjoyers of an allotment according to promise”). In the same way that James and John were figuratively “sons of thunder” (Mk. 3:17) and Judas was a “son of destruction” (John 17:12), not because they were ‘spiritually’ thunder and destruction, but because they shared characteristics with thunder and destruction, we are “the seed of Abraham” in that we share with Abraham the characteristic of receiving an allotment of salvation from God (but not by literally being the same as Israel).

    In fact, in Romans 4, Paul explicitly acknowledges that the body of Christ is not the only group receiving an allotment according to promise. He says that Abraham is the

father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but also who walk in the steps of the faith, that [is] in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. (Rom. 4:12)

And again:

Because of this [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace, for the promise being sure to all the seed, not to that which [is] of the law only, but also to that which [is] of the faith of Abraham (Rom. 4:16)

In these passages, Paul says that there are actually two groups that are the “seed of Abraham”: those that are “of circumcision” and “of the law”, as well as those who are “in the uncircumcision” and “of the faith of Abraham”. So, far from proving that the body of Christ is ‘spiritual Israel’, this passage actually helps prove the case for Pauline dispensationalism by showing that there are two separate congregations which are “the seed of Abraham”.

    Paul says that the body of Christ are the recipients of the New Covenant

[God] also made us sufficient [to be] ministrants of a new covenant, not of letter, but of spirit; for the letter doth kill, and the spirit doth make alive. And if the ministration of the death, in letters, engraved in stones, came in glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to look stedfastly to the face of Moses, because of the glory of his face — which was being made useless, how shall the ministration of the Spirit not be more in glory? (2 Cor. 3:6-8)

Critics of Pauline dispensationalism argue that this passage demonstrates that the body of Christ are currently the recipients of the New Covenant, and therefore are ‘spiritual Israel’. Another passage used to argue this is 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, which says that the Lord’s dinner is a remembrance of our “new covenant” as His body.

    But is this “new covenant”, which Paul says that we are recipients of, the same as the New Covenant described in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-13? As a matter of fact, they cannot be the same. The “new covenant” described by Paul is marked by the rejection of the Law, even rejecting the Ten Commandments that Moses brought on tablets of stone. In contrast, the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is marked by a supernatural empowerment to follow the Law:

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31-34 NKJV)

“For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezek. 36:24-27 NKJV)

This stark contrast shows that the “new covenant” spoken of by Paul is not the same as the New Covenant to Israel. It’s more likely that Paul was simply borrowing language from the Old Testament to describe the new relationship which those in the body of Christ have with God; the fact that Paul elaborated that our “new covenant” is “not of the letter [Law], but of spirit” (cf. Rom. 7:6) makes clear that he was not referring to the New Covenant as it applies to Israel and Judah.

    Another passage used to support this view is Philippians 3:3:

for we are the circumcision, who by the Spirit are serving God, and glorying in Christ Jesus, and in flesh having no trust

Does this mean that the body of Christ has received the “circumcision of the heart” spoken of in Deuteronomy 30:6-8 that will empower Israel to keep the Mosaic Law? No, because the circumcision which the body of Christ receives is neither a physical circumcision, nor a spiritual circumcision of the heart, but a “circumcision of the body of the sins of the flesh” which is a representation of our spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Col. 2:11-13).

    Rather than supernaturally empowering us to keep the ordinances of God, as the circumcision of the heart does, our ‘circumcision’ removes us from being subject to ordinances (Col. 2:14, 20-23). Therefore, it is extremely different from the circumcision of the heart by which “the doers of the Law shall be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13, 29).

    Ephesians 2:11-19 shows that the body of Christ and Israel are one

Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ, for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down (the enmity) in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, and having come, he did proclaim good news — peace to you — the far-off and the nigh, because through him we have the access — we both — in one Spirit unto the Father.

Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner-[stone], in whom all the building fitly framed together doth increase to an holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom also ye are builded together, for a habitation of God in the Spirit. (Eph. 2:11-22)

This is probably the strongest scriptural argument against Pauline dispensationalism. Let’s take a look at what Paul is saying here. He begins by describing the previous state of the Gentile members of the body of Christ, then describes what happened at Christ’s crucifixion to change their state, and finally ends by describing their new state.

1. Gentiles were “apart from Christ” due to being “alienated from the commonwealth [or citizenship] of Israel”, and “strangers to the covenants of the promise”. They were “without God in the world”.

2. Christ Jesus broke down “the middle wall of the enclosure (the enmity)”, doing away with “the Law of the commands in ordinances”, thus creating the two into “one new man” and reconciling “both in one body to God”.

3. Through Him we now have access to the Father in the one Spirit, thereby “becoming nigh”. This makes us “fellow-citizens of the saints”, and we are now able to be built into one holy sanctuary upon Jesus Christ the “chief cornerstone”.

Paul provides direct contrasts between the previous state of the Gentiles, and their current state: though before we were “alienated from the citizenship of Israel” and “strangers to the covenants of the promise”, now we are “no longer strangers” and “fellow-citizens of the saints”.

    Notice, however, how carefully Paul chose his words here. Rather than saying that we are now “citizens of [spiritual] Israel”, instead, we are “fellow-citizens [συμπολιται] of the saints”, meaning that the “saints” spoken of here are not part of the “one body” and “new man” described earlier, but are part of a separate economy (i.e., the Israel of God). Likewise, rather than saying that we are now part of Israel’s covenant promises (which would mean that the body of Christ is on earth in the ages to come, in direct contrast to Ephesians 2:6-7 just a few verses earlier), Paul simply says that we are together with the saints in the “household of God”.

    Another clue that the “one body” and “new man” that Paul refers to in vv. 15 and 16 is not ‘spiritual Israel’, nor the recipients of the New Covenant, is the fact that he explicitly says that Christ’s death abolished “the Law of the commands in ordinances”. As I showed already, when the New Covenant is fully manifested to Israel, it will allow them to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly, and so the “one body” of v. 16 for whom the Law has been abolished cannot be the recipients of the New Covenant.

    Furthermore, although there were certainly many Jews in the body of Christ (likely all from the diaspora, if Acts 21:21 is any indication), seeing as the Law has been abolished for the “one body” of v. 16, it cannot include James, Peter, or any of the “many tens of thousands” of Law-zealous Jews of Acts 21:20. Although the enmity between Jew and Gentile has been broken down as Paul says in v. 15, not every single Jew can be in the “one new man” or “one body” for whom the Law has been abolished.

    Therefore, although Ephesians 2:11-22 does describe many of the similarities between the body of Christ and Israel, such as our ability to be near God through His Spirit, our being part of the “household of God”, and our being built together into one “holy sanctuary” for God, Paul is very careful to distinguish between the members of the body of Christ and the saints of Israel in this passage to avoid confusion. We, as Gentiles, are no longer at enmity with Israel, but this does not mean that we are somehow members of ‘spiritual’ Israel.

    Dispensationalism is too new to be true

This might be the most common objection to Pauline dispensationalism, although it is the least scriptural. According to many Christians, both Protestants and more traditional denominations (like Roman Catholicism), because, unlike classical or “Acts 2” dispensationalism, Pauline dispensationalism was only developed as a doctrine as late as the nineteenth century. This was my main problem with hyper-dispensationalism as well, even after I studied the scriptural evidence for it.

    The problem with this objection is that it holds church tradition over what scripture says, something that the Bible repeatedly warns against (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:8; Col. 2:8). We are supposed to “let God become true, yet every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Because, as I hope to have shown in the past four posts, scripture is as clear as can be on the subject of whether Paul preached a unique gospel separate from the other apostles and Jesus’ earthly ministry, we should not let religious tradition be our final authority instead of the Bible. But the question may still be asked, how is it that no major theologian taught Pauline dispensationalism from New Testament times up to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, if it is so clear?

    The answer is that the church fell away from Paul’s teachings very early on. Throughout Paul’s ministry, many destructive heresies came up in the early Gentile churches, surprisingly, mostly about trying to get back under the Law (Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1-3; 5:4; Col. 2:8, 20-23; 1 Tim. 1:6-7). This is in line with Paul’s statement to the Galatians that the flesh naturally desires to be under commandments (Gal. 5:13, 16-18).

    For this reason, Paul expected that after his death, the Gentile churches would fall away from his teachings (Acts 20:28-32; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:12-13; 4:2-4), and become legalistic, placing the body of Christ under arbitrary commandments (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). In fact, while Paul was imprisoned in Rome, the entire province of Asia Minor, with the exception of Ephesus, already fell away from his teachings about grace and became enthralled by the “teachers of Law” (1 Tim. 1:6-7; 2 Tim. 1:15-16).

    Therefore, even as early as the mid-first century AD, the church had already begun to fall away from grace and support a ‘mixed salvation’ of works and grace (despite Paul’s insistence that grace and works are incompatible; Rom. 11:6). Naturally, along with this came a loss of understanding of Paul’s unique gospel as described by scripture. This can be seen in the writings of Polycarp, a late first century ‘apostolic father’ who wrote that “[God] will raise us up also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness” (Ep. Phil. 2). Unfortunately, this idea of a ‘mixed salvation’ of both works and grace was considered orthodox by the church already at this time (see the quotes from early church fathers at the end of this article).

    To be sure, these early church fathers were not intentionally denying the truth of salvation by grace (as transmitted in Paul’s unique gospel), just as non-dispensationalists today are well-intentioned but misguided. Instead, they were simply holding on to the ‘tradition’ that they had received from the false teachers who turned the early church against Paul (2 Tim. 1:15). However, none of the apostles ever expected doctrinal truth to be transmitted and preserved by the ‘Church’, in fact they expected the very opposite (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:1-13; 4:2-4; 1 John 2:18-20; 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; Jude 4). Therefore, it would be extremely unwise to hold any kind of ‘church tradition’ over scripture in authority.

    Although hyper-dispensationalism was only re-discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by a few groups, this is likely by virtue of the fact that it was lost so early in church history -- just as universalism, which was believed by the vast majority of the church up to the fifth century, was only recently recovered as a doctrine in the nineteenth century. Because, as I have shown in the last four posts of this series, Pauline dispensationalism is the only way to resolve many apparent contradictions in scripture, the fact that it was only discovered in the late nineteenth century should not be counted as a valid argument against it.

Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/04/pauline-dispensationalism-justification.html