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
No comments:
Post a Comment