Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-introduction.html
Two audiences
Another distinction to be made between the two gospels (perhaps one of the most important) is the audience to which they were heralded. Most of the non-Pauline writings and teachings are explicitly addressed to the Israelites, often to the point of complete exclusion of Gentiles, which is inconceivable if they were sharing a universal message to all people (both Jew and Gentile).
First of all, the gospel accounts (which deal with Jesus’ earthly ministry) are full of messages to Israel only and not to the Gentiles. As Jesus said, He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). The one time which He did go to the Gentiles, He did so only reluctantly, and dealt with them in a terse manner (Matt. 15:21-28; Mk. 7:24-30). When He sent out His disciples to evangelize, He explicitly commanded them to only go to the Jews, and not to Gentiles or Samaritans (Matt. 10:5-6). “Salvation,” He said, was only “of the Jews” (John 4:22), and any non-Jew who received salvation was merely benefiting off of the Jews’ success (cf. Zech. 8:23). As Paul said, Jesus Christ during His ministry was “a ministrant of circumcision... to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom. 15:8).
Even during the Acts period, the twelve apostles only preached to Jewish people, and only one group of Gentiles is recorded as having been converted by them, Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:23-48). Apart from him, the apostles and their disciples went only to the Jews, even after being dispersed into Asia where they preached only to the Hellenic Jews of the dispersion (Acts 11:19-21). The first time a large number of Gentiles was preached to was by Paul, only after he was separated to his unique calling (Acts 13:2, 46-48).
The next non-Pauline writing of the New Testament, following the four gospel accounts and Acts, is the epistle to the Hebrews. As should be obvious from the title (which is likely original, as it was attested in the very early church), this epistle was also written to Jewish believers.
Likewise, the salutations of the epistles of James and Peter make clear that they were written to Jewish believers:
James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ a servant, to the Twelve Tribes who are in the dispersion (Jas. 1:1)
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1)
This, now, beloved, a second letter to you [i.e., to the Jewish dispersion in Asia Minor] I write (2 Pet. 3:1)
The significance of this is that even if Jesus, the apostles, and Paul all preached the same gospel (and from what I wrote in the first post of this series, it should be obvious that they didn’t), the teachings of Jesus (during His earthly ministry) and the apostles cannot be generalized to all Gentiles, since they were meant only for Israel and a few select Gentile individuals. In contrast, the teachings of Paul are meant for the Gentiles to whom he was called (Acts 26:17; Eph. 3:1-9).
Two congregations/churches
for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation; and as many as by this rule do walk, peace upon them, and kindness, and on the Israel of God! (Gal. 6:15-16)
At the conclusion of his epistle to the Galatians, Paul blesses the body of Christ, those who walk by “this rule” - namely, the rule that circumcision and the Law do not avail anything to those in Christ - as well as another group which he calls “the Israel of God”. This necessarily means that the believers whom Paul called “the Israel of God” are not part of the body of Christ, because they are not included in those who are walking by “this rule”. So what was this mysterious, other group of believers that was not part of the body of Christ?
As Paul writes in Romans 9:6, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel”. As he goes on to say, God is righteous to harden the majority of Israel and show mercy to only a remnant of Israel, because He has done so in the past (Rom. 9:7-18, 25-30; 11:1-5). This shows that, when Paul spoke of the Israel of God, he meant the remnant of believing Israelites, who, apparently, were not walking according to “this rule” (i.e., they were still following the Law) and therefore not part of the body of Christ.
The Israel of God is elsewhere figuratively called “the bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:2, 9; 22:17), “sons of the bride-chamber” (Matt. 9:15; Mk. 2:19; Lk. 5:34), or simply “the bride” (John 3:29). Jesus called the Judaism of His day “an adulterous generation” (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38), and yet no one can be adulterous without first having been married, meaning that the Jews had been in some way married to God.
Jewish believers would have been well aware that, in the Old Testament, Israel and Judah were figuratively considered the wives of YHWH (Jer. 2:2; 3:1-14; Ezek. 16:8-21; Hos. 2:2-7). For this reason, it is only natural that the remnant of believing Israelites, the “Israel of God”, should be considered “the bride”. These are the Jews who were saved under the gospel of the circumcision, through the evangelism of James and the twelve apostles. However, the Gentiles cannot be part of the “bride”, because they were never married to God in the first place; only Israel and Judah were.
It should be apparent that the “body of Christ”, the congregation who were saved under Paul’s gospel (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:4, 12; 5:29-30; Col. 2:17), is separate and distinct from the “bride of Christ”, since one’s body and one’s spouse are, quite obviously, separate things. Even apart from the clear statement of Paul that the congregation called “the Israel of God” is separate from the body of Christ (Gal. 6:16), we could still easily determine that they are distinct based on this very different language used for the two congregations. For how can the body of Christ, metaphorically represented as a virgin (2 Cor. 11:2), be the same as the bride of God which was adulterous and now reconciled?
Finally, there is incontrovertible evidence that many (in fact, tens of thousands) Jews were saved while not being in the body of Christ. According to Acts 21:17-20, when Paul went to visit James in Jerusalem, there were tens of thousands of Jews there who were in the church of the apostles and were “zealous of the Law”, and were confused about Paul’s teaching to the Gentiles. And yet, Paul wrote to the church in Galatia - members of the body of Christ - that anyone who did the works of the Law was under a curse, and not righteous before God (Gal. 3:9-12). This leads to the following logical argument:
Premise 1. In circa 57 AD, the church of the apostles in Judea was comprised of tens of thousands of Jewish believers all “zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20).
Premise 2. As early as circa 48 AD, Paul already wrote that those in the body of Christ who do the works of the Law are “under a curse” (Gal. 3:9).
Premise 2a. Paul later wrote in circa 56 AD that even Jewish members of the body of Christ (Jews saved under Paul’s gospel) are dead to the Law (Rom. 7:1-6).
Conclusion. Either the entire church of the apostles in Judea was “under a curse”, or they were part of a believing congregation outside of the body of Christ.
Unless we are to presume that the tens of thousands of believing Jews were all under a curse, including James and the apostles themselves, it is necessary to recognize the existence of a believing congregation not included in the body of Christ - namely, the “Israel of God” or “the bride”. And the existence of two equally legitimate congregations, following two different sets of teachings, implies the existence of two gospels during the Acts period.
Two destinies
The final fundamental difference between the gospels of circumcision and uncircumcision is the destiny or expectation of those saved under the different gospels. A major question that has been discussed in theological circles is where believers will spend the ages to come: on the earth, or in the heavens? This has sparked a lot of debate between premillennialists, who believe that all believers will be on the earth during Christ’s kingdom, and amillennialists, who believe that all believers will be in the heavens in the age to come (and so, they believe, there will be no Messianic kingdom on earth). Both sides of the debate adduce scriptural support for their position.
Rather than assuming that all believers will live either on the earth or in the heavens, the way to reconcile these apparently contradictory scriptures is by recognizing that the Jewish believers under the gospel of the circumcision will inherit the earth, thus fulfilling God’s many, many promises to Israel that they would rule a kingdom on the earth (Gen. 12:2-3; 22:18; Isa. 2:2-4; 11:6-9; 24:23; 27:2-13, 35; 65:8-16; 66:12-24; Jer. 23:5-8; 31; 33:14-26; Ezek. 40-48; Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14, 27; Hos. 14; Joel 3:17-21; Amos 9:11-15; Obad. 21; Mic. 4:1-8; 5:5-15; 7:11-20; Hab. 2:14; Zeph. 3:9-20; Zech. 8; 14:8-9, 16-21), whereas the believers under Paul’s gospel of the uncircumcision will reign in the heavens. This distinction is extremely apparent throughout the New Testament.
See the following passages from non-Pauline writings of the New Testament, which show that Jewish believers will be living on the earth in the oncoming ages:
“Happy the meek — because they shall inherit the land [of Israel].” (Matt. 5:5)
And Jesus said to them, “Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit — ye also — upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and every one who left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my name’s sake, an hundredfold shall receive, and life age-during shall inherit” (Matt. 19:28-29)
They [the twelve apostles], therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And he said unto them, “It is not yours to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority” (Acts 1:6-7)
and he who is overcoming, and who is keeping unto the end my works [also notice, this is a salvation of works], I will give to him authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron — as the vessels of the potter they shall be broken — as I also have received from my Father (Rev. 2:26-27)
“and [thou] didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.” (Rev. 5:10)
and I, John, saw the holy city — new Jerusalem — coming down from God out of the heaven, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband... and he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and did shew to me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God (Rev. 21:2, 9)
Notice in the final example, the New Jerusalem is descending out of the heavens onto earth, which means that even during the final age of the Ages of the Ages, John’s audience will still be reigning on the earth. Although Jesus did say that the reward which His Jewish disciples would receive was in the heavens (Matt. 5:12; 6:19-21; 16:19; 18:18), as did Peter (1 Pet. 1:4), both of them also made clear that Christ would be bringing their reward from the heavens to the earth at His second coming (Matt. 16:27; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 22:12), and so ultimately their reward would be experienced on earth.
In contrast, Paul repeatedly wrote that the place where the body of Christ would be experiencing life in the oncoming ages, in Christ’s kingdom, was in the heavens:
For we have known that if our earthly house of the tabernacle may be thrown down, a building from God we have, an house not made with hands — age-during -- in the heavens, for also in this we groan, with our dwelling that is from heaven earnestly desiring to clothe ourselves (2 Cor. 5:1-2)
Blessed [is] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did bless us in every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3)
[God] did raise [us] up together, and did seat [us] together in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, that He might show, in the ages that are coming, the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6-7)
that there might be made known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly [places], through the assembly [the body of Christ], the manifold wisdom of God, according to a purpose of the ages, which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph. 3:10-11)
because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12)
For our citizenship is in the heavens, whence also a Saviour we await — the Lord Jesus Christ — who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things. (Php. 3:19-20)
We know from elsewhere in scripture that, following His second coming, Christ’s kingdom will exist both on earth (Rev. 5:10) and in the heavens (Rev. 12:10-12). Therefore, it seems that during the oncoming Ages of the Ages for which Christ will be reigning (Rev. 11:15), the Israel of God will be reigning together with Christ in His kingdom on earth, subjugating the nations (Rev. 2:26-27), at the same time that the body of Christ will be in His kingdom in the heavens, subjugating the spiritual forces there (Eph. 3:10; 6:12).
This solution is the only way to reconcile the apparent contradictions between these two sets of passages (after all, it is impossible that believers could be simultaneously living in the heavens and on the earth in the oncoming ages). And the existence of two distinct destinies or expectations in the New Testament requires the existence of two different congregations, and therefore two different gospels.
Two perspectives on baptism
This is a more minor difference, but still important, especially for Christianity today. Between Paul’s writings and the rest of the New Testament, we see two very different perspectives on baptism. When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the Jewish Pharisee, He said that there were two different types of baptism, both necessary to be “born again”: the baptism of water and the baptism of Spirit (John 3:5). Likewise, Peter and Philip present water baptism as absolutely necessary to be saved (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38; 1 Pet. 3:21). The twelve apostles are repeatedly seen baptizing Jewish believers in water throughout the book of Acts.
In stark contrast, Paul writes that there is only one baptism necessary to become a “new creation”: the baptism of Spirit into the body of Christ (Eph. 4:5 cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). In fact, Paul explicitly says that he was not sent to baptize in water, but solely to proclaim his gospel to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:17).
As strange as it may seem today, especially to Christians who have been taught otherwise, being “born again” of both water and Spirit is actually not a custom that was ever meant for Gentiles, nor can Gentiles enter into the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 via being “born again”. Water baptism into the New Covenant was explicitly said to be for Israel alone, and it would be the method by which God would make the Israelites able to keep the Mosaic Law in all points (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27).
Since the Mosaic Law has been absolutely abrogated for the Gentiles under Paul’s gospel (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:3-4), and Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant anyway (Rom. 2:14-15), the New Covenant is definitely not meant for us. Rather than being simply “born again” as those in the Israel of God, those in the body of Christ are a completely “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) and a “new man” (Eph. 2:15; 4:24).
Ironically, Gentile Christians who would baptize themselves in water and call themselves “born again” (which, unfortunately, includes the majority of conservative Christians) are actually erroneously co-opting customs meant for Israel, and are rejecting the gift of God’s grace in favor of works of law and a New Covenant that was never meant for us.
Two perspectives on racial distinctions
Another important difference between the gospel of the circumcision, evangelized by the twelve apostles, and the gospel of the uncircumcision evangelized by Paul is their differing perspectives on racial distinctions.
Under the gospel of the circumcision, the Israelites were still God’s chosen people, and salvation was “of the Jews” (that is, salvation came only through the Jews; John 4:22 cf. Zech. 8:23). This can be seen in Peter’s message to the Jewish crowds at the temple, in which he states that they are the descendants of Abraham through which the nations will be blessed (Acts 3:25). Repentance is only to be given to Israel (Acts 5:31), and Gentiles can only be rewarded with salvation through pious acts (Acts 10:2-4).
Under Paul’s gospel, racial distinctions are irrelevant. As he says in Galatians 3:28, in the body of Christ, there is “neither Jew nor Gentile” (cf. Rom. 10:12). If any Jew were to be saved under Paul’s gospel (and we know that some were, per Acts 14:1; Acts 21:21; Rom. 7:1; and several other passages), they would lose their privileged status above the nations. This is in stark contrast to what Peter preached, which is that Jews who were saved under the gospel of circumcision would gain an even more privileged status as the believing remnant of Israel.
Conclusion
Between Paul’s writings and the rest of the New Testament, there are many major differences, including the existence of two distinct gospel messages, two different methods of salvation, two audiences, two congregations/churches (the body of Christ vs. the Israel of God), two destinies, two very different perspectives on baptism and the New Covenant, and two perspectives on racial distinctions. All of these contradictions are irreconcilable unless we recognize that Paul preached his own, unique gospel to the nations (in accordance with Galatians 2:7), while the rest of the New Testament (including Jesus’ earthly ministry) was written to the Israelites.
Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/pauline-dispensationalism-dealing-with.html
No comments:
Post a Comment