Who are Jesus' teachings for?

    According to most Christians, Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the four gospel accounts are useful for all believers. However, hyper-dispensationalists claim that Jesus’ teachings are meant only for ethnic Jews, “the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8), and aren’t applicable to gentiles. I once held strongly to this view, as you can see from earlier posts on my blog. [1] Although I still think a distinction should be drawn between the teachings of Paul and the other apostles — see my recent posts on “Challenges to Dispensationalism” — I don’t think this distinction is as severe as hyper-dispensationalists claim. What does this mean for Jesus’ teachings? Are they for us, or just for ethnic Jews?

    Jesus and Jesus’ teachings

    First, let’s look at Jesus’ own claims about his teachings. In Matthew’s gospel, when he sends out his disciples, he tells them not to go on the road that leads to gentiles, nor to go into Samaritan cities, but “go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5-6). When speaking to a Phoenician woman, he says, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). This draws upon the imagery, from the Hebrew Bible, of Israelites as lost sheep without a shepherd (Isa. 53:6; Jer. 23:1-2; 50:6; Ezek. 34:5-6); the Messiah, Jesus, was promised to be a shepherd for these lost sheep (Ezek. 34:23-24). Furthermore, the Johannine Jesus says that salvation is “from the Jews” (Gk: ek tōn ioudaiōn; John 4:22).

    These handful of verses, which are often prooftexted by hyper-dispensationalists, should be read more carefully in their context. Just because Jesus sent his disciples out to Israel doesn’t mean that his teachings aren’t applicable to gentiles; that’s a non sequitur. Later on, he did explicitly dispatch his disciples to “all the gentiles” (Gk: panta ta ethnē; Matt. 28:19), using the same word ethnoi (“nations”) used in 10:5. If his sending of his disciples to Israel alone proves that his teachings are for Israel alone, then his sending of his disciples to all the gentiles proves that his teachings are for gentiles (but really, neither argument is valid).

    In the second instance, the context shows that Jesus was testing the gentile woman’s faith. He refers to the Israelites as “children,” teknoi, while referring to gentiles as “dogs,” kunaria (15:26). The woman answers that even dogs eat crumbs from the table of their master, where the children also eat (15:27). Jesus responds, “O woman, your faith is great!” (15:28) In context, Jesus’ mission to the lost sheep refers not specifically to his teachings, but to his miracles, and in fact he does perform a miracle to heal the gentile woman’s daughter (15:28). This proves that Jesus’ miracles, during his earthly ministry, were primarily for Israel (cf. Matt. 15:29-31), though he was also willing to heal faithful gentiles; it tells us nothing about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of his teachings for gentiles.

    In fact, throughout Matthew’s gospel, Jesus anticipates an expansion of scope for his ministry that will include gentiles. When a faithful gentile comes to him for help, he predicts that many “sons of the kingdom” — that is, Israelites — will be cast out, while “many from east and west” will take their place in the kingdom (Matt. 8:10-12; cf. 22:1-14). Jesus “will announce justice to the gentiles... and in his name gentiles will hope” (12:15-21). Though sent to Israel, he performs a miracle for a gentile woman (15:21-28). The kingdom of God is taken from the Jewish religious leaders and given to “another nation” (Gk: ethnei; 21:33-45). This culminates in Jesus sending his disciples to “all the gentiles” (28:19).

    The same thing is found in the other gospel accounts. Mark records the same incident where Jesus saved a gentile woman’s daughter (7:24-30), and in the disputed long ending, Jesus tells his disciples to go out to “the whole world” (Gk: ton kosmon hapanta) and preach the good news to “every creation” (Gk: pasē tē ktisei; 16:15). In the Luke-Acts corpus, Jesus is said to be both “a light for revelation to gentiles and glory to your people Israel” (Lk. 2:32); he tells his disciples to go first to Jerusalem, then both Judea and Samaria, and finally “to the extreme parts of the earth” (Ac. 1:8), to preach to “all the gentiles, having begun from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47). They first preach to diaspora Jews of all nations in Jerusalem (Ac. 2), then to Judeans and Hellenists across the land (11:19-20), and it’s divinely revealed that God will accept gentiles who “work righteousness” without requiring them to become ethnic Jews (10:9-11:18).

    In the gospel of John, although Jesus says that salvation is “from the Jews” because the temple for worship was in Jerusalem (4:20-22), he anticipates a soon-coming time when true worship will no longer be only in Jerusalem — by extension, salvation will no longer be only “from the Jews” (4:21, 23-24). The Johannine Jesus anticipates the extension of his ministry to “other sheep which aren’t from this fold,” which will become “one flock” (10:16). At the end of his public ministry, “some [God-fearing] Greeks” seek Jesus and aren’t turned away (12:20-22). John’s gospel never says anything about the gentiles, ethnoi, explicitly, but it does talk about an expansion of Jesus’ ministry beyond the Jews.

    Paul and Jesus’ teachings

    Jesus anticipated that his ministry would expand beyond ethnic Jews, and even hyper-dispensationalists can’t deny that gentiles who “work righteousness” can be saved under his teachings without becoming ethnic Jews (Ac. 10:34-35). However, they claim that Paul’s audience isn’t under Jesus’ teachings; after all, in his gospel, salvation isn’t dependent upon works at all (e.g., Eph. 2:8-10), which is a legitimate difference between him and the other apostles. But what did Paul have to say about the usefulness of the teachings of Jesus while he was on earth?

    The clearest teaching about this is in the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus). There, Paul says that those who don’t listen to “these things” and “the sound words our Lord Jesus Christ” are “conceited, knowing nothing, having an unhealthy attitude about controversy and disputes over words,” from which come all manner of sins (1 Tim. 6:3-4). The preceding context suggests that Paul is referring to Jesus’ words as recorded in the gospel accounts, because he quotes the exact words of Jesus as recorded in Luke 10:7 (Gk: axios ho ergatēs tou misthou autou), referring to them as “the Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). Elsewhere, he says that “every Scripture” is useful for teaching and moral instruction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), which must therefore include Jesus’ teachings in his ministry.

    The best case for strict hyper-dispensationalism could be made if the Pastoral Epistles aren’t actually written by Paul, which is ironic, since hyper-dispensationalists are mostly absolute Biblical inerrantists who must regard the Pastorals as authentic. However, even in Paul’s undisputed epistles, he assumes the usefulness of Jesus’ teachings for his audience.

    In one place, he cites a command of “the Lord” that a husband and wife shouldn’t be divorced, and that the wife should stay unmarried if she is divorced, which Paul considers to be binding on his audience (1 Cor. 7:10-11). This command is found in all three synoptic gospel accounts (Mk. 10:2-12; Matt. 19:3-12; Lk. 16:18). While it’s technically possible that Paul has a different command in mind, one that was revealed only to him, Ockham’s Razor militates against such a possibility. We shouldn’t postulate a second commandment when we know of an identical one from the gospel accounts.

    But didn’t Paul say that Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8)? Yes, but prooftexting this in favor of hyper-dispensationalism ignores the context. Paul says that “Christ received you... for [Gk: gar] Christ has become a servant of the circumcision, on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles might glorify God” (15:7-9). He then goes on to cite many Scriptures that prove the gentiles would come to worship God through the Messiah (15:10-12). Paul’s point, therefore, is to show that Christ’s ministry did indeed have the secondary purpose of bringing in the gentiles, though he was primarily a servant of Israel.

    Two different ‘good news’?

    Any unbiased reader of the Scriptures should agree that there are differences between Paul and the other writers of the New Testament. For Jesus and the other apostles, works are a prerequisite of salvation along with faith (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3; John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4; Jas. 2:10-24), but for Paul, salvation is by grace through faith alone (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-5), and works are a result of this (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 2:10; Php. 1:6; 2:12-13; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:8). For John, the message through which one is saved is simply that Jesus is the Messiah (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5), but for Paul, the message through which one is saved is that the Messiah died for our sins and was raised on the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-5; cf. Rom. 10:9).

    Despite these differences, I’m no longer convinced that this requires two entirely separate “good news” or gospels (Gk: euangelion) for Paul and the other apostles. Yes, Paul spoke of “my good news” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25-26; 2 Tim. 2:8), but he also spoke of “our good news” (2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:14), “the good news of God” (Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8-9), and most often “the good news of Christ” (Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 4:4; 9:13; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8). “The good news of Jesus Christ” is what was also proclaimed by the gospel accounts (Mk. 1:1). Paul says that the same good news was proclaimed by him and the other apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-11). “The good news” is for “every believing-one, Jewish first and also Greek,” not just for some believing-ones (Rom. 1:16).

    Furthermore, hyper-dispensationalists claim that the other apostles must have never truly understood Paul’s gospel — otherwise they would’ve been part of “the body of Christ” and not “the Israel of God.” But Paul himself, though he emphasizes that his good news comes from Christ alone and no other human (Gal. 1:6-12), also says that he “laid before [the other apostles] the good news that I proclaim among the gentiles” to make sure that it wasn’t “for nothing” (2:2). This implies that the other apostles, even if they didn’t preach Paul’s gospel, certainly knew about it. In the same passage, he says that he preached the same faith that he used to persecute (1:22-24), and nowhere indicates that he ever changed what he preached. [2]

    Paul’s gospel is said to have been “a secret” in times past (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which hyper-dispensationalists appeal to as proof that it can’t have been taught before him. Yet this “secret” is said to have been contained in the Old Testament prophets (Rom. 16:25-26; cf. Gal. 3:8); his “good news” is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The good news that Paul proclaims was made manifest not by Paul himself, but by “the appearance of our Savior, Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:9-10; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20).

    How then can we explain the clear differences between Paul and the other apostles? One way is simply to reject absolute Biblical inerrancy; every Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and moral instruction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but never claims to be absolutely without error or human influence. Maybe the apostles simply disagreed on comparatively minor issues, like whether works come logically before or after salvation, while agreeing on the larger “good news.” [3] The other possible solution, which I favor, is the one I set forth in my recent post about dispensationalism: perhaps the writings of the other apostles are to God’s people as a whole, while Paul’s writings are to the subset of God’s people who understand the true meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection, who are therefore charged with “the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

    Conclusion

    Hyper-dispensationalists draw a severe distinction between Paul’s teachings and the teachings of Jesus (while he was on earth) and his disciples. This distinction, although supported by some clear differences between Paul and the other apostles, is contradicted in several places by Jesus and Paul themselves. Jesus’ teachings aren’t only for ethnic Jews, but were considered by Paul to be useful for his audience, as well. A sharp distinction between the “good news” preached by Paul and the other apostles can’t be drawn, and the evident differences between Paul and the other apostles can be explained in other ways. For these reasons, even though I used to strongly argue for hyper-dispensationalism, I don’t think it’s a sustainable view in light of the whole testimony of the Scriptures.

______________________________

[1] See my series of posts on the topic of “Pauline Dispensationalism.”

[2] This context suggests that the apparent distinction between a “good news of the uncircumcised” and “of the circumcised” at Gal. 2:7 should be understood as what Wallace calls the “Genitive of Direction” (for which he gives the example of Rom. 8:36, “sheep for slaughter”). Paul was given to preach the good news to the gentiles, while Peter was given to preach it to ethnic Jews. This is supported by the context: he goes on to say (2:8) that the same one (God) was working in Peter “for a commission to the circumcised” (Gk: eis apostolēn tēs peritomēs) and in himself “to the gentiles” (Gk: eis ta ethnē). In the next verse (2:9), he says that he and the other apostles agreed that he should go “to the gentiles” (Gk: eis ta ethnē) and them “to the circumcised” (Gk: eis tēn peritomēn). The emphasis is on the difference in direction, not in type, of the commission.

[3] It’s also possible that — in the case of works — there’s no contradiction at all. Paul may simply be emphasizing the divine point of view, by which our works are the result of God working in us, while the other apostles emphasize the human point of view. The other apostles do also say, in some places, that our works are the result of God and Christ in us (Heb. 8:10-11; 10:14-17; 1 John 4:10-12, 17-19; cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 24:7; 31:33-34; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-28).

Challenges to Dispensationalism (part 2 of 2)

    In the last post, we saw a number of passages that seem to pose an issue for Pauline dispensationalism, the belief that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (while he was on earth) and the other apostles. The differences between Paul’s gospel and the gospel to Israel aren’t as large as some dispensationalists make them out to be — for example, although Paul never claimed that works are necessary for salvation (in fact he argued the opposite), he did claim that good works come from salvation. Furthermore, in many places throughout his epistles, Paul indicated that the body of Christ is included in true Israel (2 Cor. 3:6ff; 6:16; Gal. 3; Eph. 2:11-21; Phil. 3:3; Tit. 2:14), and only in one place did he possibly distinguish between the two (Gal. 6:16). [1] Yet there are differences between Paul’s gospel and the gospel to Israel. How can this be explained?

    Torah in the Israelite Writings

To understand this, we need to go on a little tangent. Jesus preached to Israel that in order to enter God’s kingdom, they needed to follow the entire Torah and Prophets (Matt. 5:17-20), and his disciples also taught that one must follow God’s commandments to be saved (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; Jas. 2:10-24; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). But what did it mean for Israelite believers in Jesus to follow Torah? When asked by a Jewish lawyer which commandment is the greatest, Jesus responded,

“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ [Deut. 6:4-5] This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [Lev. 19:18] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:37-40)

In the Markan account, the lawyer responds that following these two commandments “is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Jesus “saw that he answered wisely” and said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:33-34). In his sermon on the mount, Jesus told the people of Israel that anyone who taught others to break the least of Torah’s commandments would be “called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19). Even though the lawyer was denying the need for sacrifices and temple rituals, it seems that Jesus didn’t consider this to be disobeying Torah.

    As the Messiah who spoke the very words of God (John 3:34; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10), the ‘second Moses’ to whom Israel was commanded to listen (Deut. 18:15-19; cf. John 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:20-23), Jesus has the power to authoritatively re-interpret the Mosaic Law for Israel. If he says that those who love God and their neighbor fulfill Torah, and this is much more important than temple rituals (as indeed he did), then this is the interpretation Israel is expected to follow. This is supported by Jesus’ sermon to his disciples in the gospel of John, in which he said,

“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you... I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.” (John 15:10-14, 17)

Jesus establishes here that for his Israelite disciples to abide in the love of him and his Father, they must follow his commandments; he also establishes that the commandment they must follow is to love one another.

    John says the same thing many times in his other writings: “Whoever loves a brother or sister abides in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling” (1 John 2:10); “We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brothers and sisters. Whoever does not love abides in death” (3:14); “this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he commanded us” (3:23); “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (4:7); “The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also” (4:21; cf. Matt. 22:35-40); as well as other examples.

    James, too, said to the dispersed tribes of Israel, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (Jas. 1:1; 2:8). Therefore, Jesus’ disciples understood his teaching to mean that those who love others fulfill Torah, become part of the Israel of God, and God and Christ abide in them.

    But what about the temple rituals? The epistle to the Hebrews, which is regarded as an Israelite writing by Pauline dispensationalists, was written as a polemic against those who saw earthly temple rituals as still necessary. It’s bookended by statements about the purification of Israel’s sins through Christ’s blood (Heb. 1:3; 13:20-21). Jesus is the heavenly high priest (2:14-3:6; 4:14-5:10; 6:19-20), who has no need to offer sacrifices daily like the earthly priests, because his sacrifice was offered once for all (7:26-28; 8:1-7; 9:6-14, 25-28; 10:1-18). The temple rituals and purity regulations have been replaced by new types of ‘sacrifices,’ namely praises to God and doing good for others (13:9-16).

    There are, however, two texts that have been put forth as evidence that Jesus and his disciples did believe the temple rituals were necessary for Israel. The first is from Jesus’ polemic against the leaders of the Pharisees:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.” (Matt. 23:1-3)

This passage is used by some to argue that Jesus endorsed the Pharisees’ interpretation of Torah, and only disagreed with their hypocrisy. But this raises more questions than it answers. If this is true, how can it be squared with Jesus’ disciples’ belief that those who love God and others fulfill Torah, and Jesus’ own statements elsewhere to the same effect? Why does the epistle to the Hebrews so strongly deny the need for temple rituals if Jesus himself affirmed it? And what about the Israelites who lived after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, such as John the disciple — were they forced to disobey God because the temple had been destroyed?

    Based on these considerations, it’s very unlikely that Jesus was endorsing the Pharisaical interpretation of Torah as something that Israel would always have to follow. Instead, he was saying that because they were the Jews’ religious leaders, they should be respected and followed (“[they] sit on Moses’ seat, therefore [Gk: oun] do whatever they teach you”). Later on in the history of the church, there were “believers of the sect of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5), but the apostles considered them to be misguided, and their ‘yoke’ unable to bear (15:10), in contrast to Jesus whose “yoke is easy and burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

    Another text that has been interpreted to mean that Israel is still required to keep the temple rituals is from the book of Acts:

The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present... Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.” (Acts 21:18-24)

In this passage, James and the elders tell Paul about the “many thousands of [Jewish] believers” who were all “zealous for Torah.” The crux of the issue is v. 21, where they say that the Jewish believers “have been told” that Paul teaches other Jews to forsake Moses and “the customs” (i.e., temple rituals), and so they urge Paul go through a purification rite.

    Does this mean that James thought the temple rituals and purity rites were necessary, despite what he said in his epistle (Jas. 2:8)? No, because James and the elders say that some of the Jewish believers “have been told” this about Paul, not that they told them this. Perhaps it was the unbelieving Jewish leaders who told them this, in an attempt to sow division between the body of Christ and the Jewish believers, or perhaps it was the misguided “believers of the sect of the Pharisees” mentioned in Acts 15:5.

    To summarize, the Israelite believers in Jesus are required to love God and love others, but not needed to complete temple rituals or rites of purification, which according to the letter to the Hebrews have been performed once for all by Jesus in the ‘heavenly temple.’ They also must believe that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” in order to have eonian life (John 20:31; 1 John 5:1-5). Of course, this doesn’t only apply to ethnic Jews, but also to gentiles who “fear God and practice righteousness” (Acts 10:34-35). As the vast majority of those who follow Abrahamic religions — Christians, Messianic Jews, and Muslims (with the sole exception of non-Messianic Jews) — believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they are all potential members of the Israel of God, so long as they love God and others.

    The Body of Christ and Israel in Paul’s Writings

According to Paul, in order to be saved under his gospel and become part of the body of Christ, one must believe that “Christ died for our sins... and that he was raised on the third day” (1 Cor. 12:27; 15:1-4). This gospel isn’t difficult to believe, but certain teachings have obscured its message, such as the immortality of the soul and the deity of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3-4). [2] Unlike Jesus’ message to Israel, according to which one must continue to follow God’s commandments in order to abide in him and see his kingdom (Matt. 5:17-20; John 14:21-24; 15:9-10; cf. 2 Pet. 1:10-11; 1 John 3:18-24; 4:12), according to Paul, one is not required to do good works to be in the body of Christ (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-5).

    Yet Paul also said that good works were the result of a saving faith in his gospel, the effect of God and Christ’s work within us (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 2:10; Php. 1:6; 2:12-13; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:8). Those in the body of Christ, therefore, are led by God to love him and others, though this certainly isn’t a prerequisite of our salvation. Furthermore, those in the body of Christ necessarily believe that Jesus is the Messiah, as it’s part of Paul’s gospel that the Messiah died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:3).

    In fact, Paul explicitly says, “the ‘right’ declaration of Torah is fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit,” because Jesus condemned Sin (Rom. 8:3-4; cf. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). Torah is not annulled, but established by faith in Jesus the Messiah (Rom. 3:30-31), which also fulfills the Deuteronomic promises about Torah being written on the hearts of God’s people (Deut. 30:1-14; Rom. 2:25-29; 10:6-10). This new fulfillment frees God’s people from needing to follow all the commandments of Torah, thus circumventing the problem of “the ‘Torah’ of sin and death” that happens when we actively try to avoid sin (Rom. 7:13-8:2), and establishes instead a “righteousness according to faith” (Rom. 3:20-26; 9:30-10:13; Gal. 2:5-21; 3:10-14; Phil. 3:7-11).

    Based on this, it seems that everyone in the body of Christ would actually also qualify for membership in the true Israel! This explains why Paul identifies the members of the body of Christ as part of Israel, even though he also clearly distinguishes his gospel from the gospel to Israel. To be sure, the means by which we are saved is very different from the rest of the Israel of God, which is blinded to the truth of Paul’s gospel and relies on good works to continue abiding in God. The body of Christ acts as the vanguard of true Israel, with the added benefit of being “the first fruits of salvation through... belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13), and the extra task of being “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17-20).

    The existence of the rest of the Israel of God, who have eonian life despite not believing in Paul’s gospel, appears to be recognized by Paul in his letter to the Romans:

...in the day of wrath and revelation of God’s righteous judgment, who will render to each according to his works. To those who are seeking glory, honor, and immortality by endurance in good works, he gives eonian life. Yet to those who are self-seeking, disobey the truth, and have confidence in unrighteousness, he gives wrath and anger. Tribulation and distress on every man’s life who works evil, the Jew first and also the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. (Romans 2:5-10)

This passage establishes that those who endure in good works receive eonian life (defined as “glory, honor and peace” in v. 10), while those who selfishly pursue unrighteousness (Gk: adikia) and disobey the truth (Gk: alētheia) receive wrath and anger, tribulation and distress.

    Although I previously thought that this passage spoke of a future judgment (the same one described in Revelation 20:10-15), now I think this interpretation is unsustainable, in light of what Paul said previously: “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness [Gk: adikia] of men, who suppress the truth [Gk: alētheia] in unrighteousness [Gk: adikia]” (Rom. 1:18). Paul refers back to this statement, which speaks of the present wrath of God against evil people, using many of the same Greek terms in Rom. 2:8. The “day of wrath” refers not to a literal day, but to the entire present age — consider that the entire period of the Messiah’s reign over the gentiles is also referred to as a “day” (Isa. 11:10-12; 42:1-4; Zech. 2:11; 14:9; 2 Cor. 6:2; cf. Acts 17:30, 31).

    The men who do good and receive eonian life in Rom. 2:7 are most likely the other members of true Israel, who believe in Jesus as Messiah and persist in loving God and others. These aren’t members of the body of Christ, because their salvation is based on works, but they nonetheless receive eonian life, meaning that they must be members of the Israel of God.

    Conclusion

The view of Pauline dispensationalists, that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (while on earth) and his disciples, is challenged by a number of facts from the New Testament. However, the basic content of the dispensationalist idea must be true due to the differences between Paul’s message and that of the other apostles.

    In these two posts, I presented an alternative view of dispensationalism which accounts for the facts that challenge Pauline dispensationalism while retaining its basic idea. According to this view, the body of Christ is a part of true Israel, representing the vanguard of God’s people, but (unlike the rest of the Israel of God) is saved simply by believing in Paul’s gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) rather than by good works and following Torah. I’m not 100% wedded to this idea, and I could certainly be convinced that it’s wrong, but I think it’s at least more biblical than the conventional hyper-dispensationalist view that the body of Christ and Israel are completely separate.

______________________________

[1] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the body of Christ, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. For an exegetical defense of the latter position, see Christopher W. Cowan, “Context Is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16,” SBJT 14, no. 3 (2010): 78-85.

[2] See my post about “Paul’s Gospel and Christianity.”

Challenges to Dispensationalism (part 1 of 2)

    Back when I started this blog, I was convinced of a view called “hyper-dispensationalism” or “Pauline dispensationalism.” This is the belief that there are two gospels taught in the New Testament, the gospel of Paul and the gospel to Israel, and that those who believe Paul’s gospel are in the body of Christ whereas those who believe and follow Israel’s gospel are in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). I argued for this view in a series of six posts. Although I still believe that Paul preached a unique gospel about Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-5), there are difficult challenges to hyperdispensationalism that I think we haven’t done a good enough job of answering. In this post, I will outline the challenges, and in the next post I’ll provide a modified view of dispensationalism that I believe is able to overcome these issues.

    The Method of Salvation

According to Pauline dispensationalists, one of the main distinctions between Paul’s gospel and the gospel preached by Jesus and the Twelve to Israel is the method of salvation. Jesus and his disciples both strongly emphasized the importance of works to one’s salvation. Jesus preached that each person would be rewarded according to their works and that one must follow the law in its entirety (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3). His disciples Peter and John taught that one must remain steadfast and keep Christ’s commands in order to remain in his kingdom (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). His brother James, when writing to the Israelite diaspora, said that faith is useless without works, that is, keeping the law (Jas. 2:10-24).

    In contrast, Paul was clear that works play no part in one’s salvation (Rom. 3:27f; 4:5; 11:5f; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8f; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4f). He was especially insistent that “works of law” weren’t necessary for salvation, despite what other Jewish believers had been claiming (Rom. 9:32; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:2, 5, 9-12). Pauline dispensationalists rightly view this as an apparent contradiction between the method of salvation described by Paul vs. the other apostles. After all, James said that “a man is declared righteous by works of law” (Jas. 2:24), while Paul said “a man is not declared righteous by works of law” (Gal. 2:16).

    However, because of their emphasis on the contradictions between Paul and the other apostles, Pauline dispensationalists tend to downplay the importance of works in Paul’s soteriology. Consider the following passages:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them. (Eph. 2:8-10)

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone. (Tit. 3:4-5, 8)

While Paul is careful to highlight that we were not saved from our works, in the very same passages, he tells us that we were saved for good works. The same point is made elsewhere throughout his letters, and in each instance, he’s clear that our salvation involves God working in us to produce good works (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Php. 1:6; 2:12f; Tit. 2:11-14). Again, not to belabor the point, but “it is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us]... to work for his good pleasure” (Php. 2:12f), not a result of our own works, but God at work in us.

    In light of this, the difference between Paul and the other apostles is not so great as it first seems. Both processes of salvation involve works. The difference isn’t whether works are involved at all, but whether works are a basis of salvation (Jesus and his disciples) or a result of salvation (Paul). From a certain perspective, they could even be the same thing, if Paul is emphasizing God’s sovereignty over our works while the other apostles are emphasizing the human point of view. Although I disagree with this, as I still think there’s an important distinction, this difference is far less than what some Pauline dispensationalists claim.

    Two ‘Expectations’?

Another distinction between Paul and the other apostles that’s often made by Pauline dispensationalists is the difference between the “expectation” or destiny of believers according to these authors. (For example, see this argument for dispensationalism by Aaron Welch.) In the parts of the New Testament not written by Paul, the destiny of believers is said to be “on the earth” (Matt. 5:5; 19:28; Rev. 2:26f; 5:9f). The “heavenly Jerusalem” described in the epistle to the Hebrews is also on the earth (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2, 10). In contrast, Paul says that our reward is “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3), that we are seated “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f; 3:10f; cf. Php. 3:19f), and that our struggle is with the demonic forces “in heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

    However, this distinction is also not as strong as it may first appear. Our reward being “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3) is exactly the same thing that Jesus and Peter said, even though for them the destiny of believers is on earth (Matt. 5:12; 6:19-21; 16:19; 18:18; 19:21; 1 Pet. 1:4). In Jewish thought, anything promised by God could be said to exist “with God” or “in heaven” (Job 23:14; Isa. 49:4; Col. 1:5; 2 Baruch 4.2-6; Gen. Rabbah 1.13). [1] This doesn’t show that Jesus, Peter, or Paul believed that the destiny of believers is in heaven, it’s just an affirmation that our reward has been promised by God and will be delivered to us.

    Furthermore, when Paul says that we reign with Christ “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f), he uses the present tense, suggesting that this is a spiritual truth, along with our other “spiritual blessing[s] in heaven” that he mentioned at the beginning of the same epistle (Eph. 1:3). Likewise, he says that the wisdom of God is being made known through us in heavenly places “now” (Eph. 3:10f). Although the present tense in Eph. 2:6 could be interpreted proleptically (i.e., describing a future time as though it already exists), the adverb “now” (Gk: nun) is never used proleptically. Paul most likely uses the word epouranios (“heavenly [places]”) because it was a title used by the Roman emperor; he’s saying that, rather than the emperor being epouranios (from the divine realm), it’s the body of Christ which is empowered by heaven. [2]

    Finally, the statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Php. 3:20) must be understood in the context of the original readers of this epistle. The people living in Philippi were citizens of Rome, the city from which their emperor reigned, regardless of whether they ever lived in the city of Rome. Citizenship wasn’t a matter of where you lived, but where your king ruled. Paul’s statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” was an affirmation that Jesus is our king who rules from heaven. [3] The immediate context confirms this by establishing heaven as the place “from which” we await Jesus, not to which we are going (Php. 3:20f).

    In summary, there’s very little evidence to suggest that Paul had a different destiny in mind for believers than Jesus and his disciples. In fact, both Paul and the other authors of the New Testament give us very little information about the location of our eventual destiny, though a couple of verses from non-Pauline writings say that it’s on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:9f). Once again, this is not evidence against Pauline dispensationalism, but it does remove a major pillar of support from that doctrine.

    Body of Christ = True Israel?

The greatest challenge to hyperdispensationalism are the passages that suggest the body of Christ, i.e. those saved according to Paul’s gospel, are part of true Israel. Pauline dispensationalism makes a hard-and-fast distinction between the body of Christ and the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which, in my opinion, doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. [4] Let’s take a look at several passages from Paul’s epistles that pose a problem for this view.

    First, in his letter to the Romans, Paul tells us,

...a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans but from God. (Rom. 2:28-29)

This passage is used by some as evidence that Paul viewed his audience as “inward Jews” who were circumcised in the heart. I see this as a plausible interpretation, especially in light of other passages like Philippians 3:3 where Paul refers to his gentile audience as “the [true] circumcision” (see below). However, this passage has recently been addressed by Aaron Welch, a Pauline dispensationalist, whose interpretation is also plausible, so I won’t rest my case on these verses.

    Consider also Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. To show that the Galatians are justified by faith, Paul points out that Abraham was declared righteous for his faith, and so “those who believe are the descendants of Abraham” (3:5-9). Abraham was not justified by law, indeed “all who rely on works of law are under a curse,” but rather through Christ “the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles” (3:10-14). The promises were made to Abraham and his offspring (Christ) before the law, so “the inheritance” comes not from the law (3:15-18). Not that the law was useless, but it has been superseded by the promise through faith (3:19-26). Those who have faith are in Christ, who is the offspring of the promise; therefore, those who are in Christ are also “Abraham’s offspring, heirs of the promise” (3:27-29). Although there are dispensationalist interpretations of individual verses like Gal. 3:7 and 29, they do not take into account the full context of the argument. Paul is saying that we are recipients of the promise to Abraham’s heirs (Gen. 12:1-3), not because we are literal descendants of Abraham, but because we are in Christ who is the descendant of Abraham.

    Paul also twice relates the “new covenant,” which was made to the house of Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31), to the members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:25f; 2 Cor 3:6). The latter passage is especially clear, as it tells us that we are “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:5-11). The dispensationalist answer to this is that Paul was speaking metaphorically (see here). But where is any indication that this is a metaphor? On the contrary, Paul uses the exact same language (Gk: kainēs diathēkēs) used in Jeremiah 31:31 (LXX: diathēkēn kainēn) and Hebrews 8:8-13. And like Jeremiah, Paul contrasts the “new covenant” with the covenant given through Moses (2 Cor. 3:7-11; cf. Jer. 31:32). It’s eisegetical to read a third covenant into this passage and suppose that Paul is only metaphorically alluding to Jeremiah. Paul also applies the promise to Israel in Ezekiel 37:26f to the body of Christ (2 Cor. 6:16).

    Also in his letters to the Corinthian church, remarkably, Paul can speak of the time “when you [his audience] were gentiles” (Gk: hote ēte ethnē; 1 Cor. 12:2). Of course, if his audience used to be ethnē, gentiles, it follows that they no longer are counted as part of that group.

    The passage which most strongly seems to teach that the body of Christ to whom Paul wrote is included in true Israel is Ephesians 2:11-21. The key verses in this passage are vv. 12 and 19:

...remember that you were at that time without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world... So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God.

First of all, Paul says that the Gentiles to whom he is writing were formerly “excluded from the citizenship of Israel.” The word translated as “excluded” (Gk: apallotrioō) literally means “from-belonging-to-another,” while the word translated as “citizenship” (Gk: politeia) is derived from “citizen” (Gk: politēs) and refers to one’s status as a citizen of a nation (cp. Acts 22:28). In other words, the Gentiles in the body of Christ were formerly belonging to another country as non-citizens of Israel. However, Paul goes on to say that we are now “fellow-citizens” (Gk: sympolitēs), which in context can only mean that we are now citizens of Israel.

    The next passage which supports this view is Philippians 3:3, in which Paul says that “we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” In the Old Testament, circumcision was a practice first meant to set apart the descendants of Abraham from all other people (Gen. 17:9-14), and later to set apart the people of Israel from all other people (Exod. 12:43-49; Lev. 12:3). In the New Testament, it was determined by Paul, Peter, and James that physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for gentiles to be included in God’s people (Acts 15:5-21; Gal. 5:6). Nonetheless, by saying that we are “the circumcision,” Paul is identifying us with the descendants of Abraham and people of Israel (cf. Gal. 3:7, 29).

    Finally, the last passage in Paul’s epistles which appears to identify us with Israel is Titus 2:14. In this verse, he refers to us as “a peculiar people” or “a people of his own” (Gk: laon periousion). This uses a very rare Greek adjective which is exclusively found in the Septuagint, and only used to refer to the people of Israel (Exod. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18 LXX). Peter uses a similar phrase in a series of Israel-related phrases to refer to his audience: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession [Gk: laos eis peripoiēsin]” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. Exod. 19:5-6). By using a word exclusively associated with Israel to refer to his audience, both Paul and Peter seem to be identifying their audiences as true Israel.

    Legitimate Differences

Despite these challenges to Pauline dispensationalism, there are many legitimate differences between the gospel that Paul preached and the gospel preached by the other apostles. For one, Paul repeatedly refers to “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25f; 2 Tim. 2:8), which would be remarkably arrogant if he weren’t preaching a unique message. This gospel is said to have been a “mystery” that was not revealed until his time (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which was revealed to him directly by Jesus (Gal. 1:11f). According to Paul, one must believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:1-5), but according to John, one must simply believe that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and follow his commands to love God and others (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5; cf. Matt. 22:35-40).

    How can these differences be accommodated within a framework that also takes into account the challenges outlined above? Especially if the body of Christ is included in true Israel, and is the recipient of the promises to Israel, how could Paul’s gospel be distinct from the gospel preached by the other apostles? In the next post, I’ll outline a modified view of dispensationalism which I think takes into account all of the relevant information from Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament.

______________________________

[1] Incidentally, this fact also came up in my refutation of trinitarian proof-texts, as it refutes the trinitarian claim that Jesus’ glory existing “in heaven” before the creation of the world (John 17:24) means that Jesus must have existed before the creation of the world.

[2] Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120.

[3] See this post by Dustin Smith for a longer explanation.

[4] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the believers in Galatia, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. He's most likely identifying them, especially in light of the common second-Temple prayer — almost certainly at the front of Paul’s mind here — which says, “Grant peace... and mercy to us and to all Israel, your people” (from the Eighteen Benedictions).

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).