Specific objections to "Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?"

     Since I wrote my critique of trinitarianism, “Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?“, I’ve received a number of objections from Christians who do believe in the Trinity. In this article, I’d like to go through eight of the major trinitarian “prooftexts” used to argue against my position as a unitarian, including John 1:1, John 8:58, and Colossians 1:16, and explain why they don’t really hold up under examination. If you haven’t read my previous article, I suggest you go read that first.

    The Word of God

One passage that is always brought up in debates about trinitarianism is the prologue of John 1, which is often considered the best “prooftext” of the Trinity: 

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was what God was; this one was in the beginning with God. All things through it came into being... And the word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2, 14)

Trinitarian interpreters believe that, because Jesus is elsewhere called the word of God by John (Rev. 19:13), and it is said that the word became flesh within Him, the fact that the word was in the beginning with God and was God implies at least a duality within God (and implies that Jesus is God).

    However, to interpret the prologue of John 1 in this way is to ignore all of the cultural context surrounding the imagery of the “word of God”. In intertestamental Judaism, the word (or Logos, or Memra) of God was considered to be His impersonal, yet personified, spoken word. This was not a personal or conscious being, but instead the literal words of God. This idea of the “word of God” has precedent in the Old Testament as well; for example, see the following passages:

So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it. (Isa. 55:11 NASB)

By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their lights. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He puts the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood firm. (Ps. 33:6-9 NASB)

In this passage, the literal spoken word of God is presented as something that created the heavens and earth, and can be considered to have been alongside Him in the beginning, and yet it is not a personal being. Similar to this conception of “the word” is Wisdom, in the book of Proverbs:

Yahweh founded the earth by wisdom, He established the heavens by understanding. By His knowledge the ocean depths were burst open, and the clouds drip with dew. (Prov. 3:19-20 NASB)

“The Lord created me [wisdom] at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From eternity I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no ocean depths, I was born, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was born; while He had not yet made the earth and the fields, nor the first dust of the world.

“When He established the heavens, I was there; when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, when He made firm the skies above, when the springs of the deep became fixed, when He set a boundary for the sea so that the water would not violate His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth; then I was beside Him, as a master workman; and I was His delight daily, rejoicing always before Him.” (Prov. 8:22-30 NASB)

From these passages, it can be said that “in the beginning was the wisdom, and the wisdom was with God, and the wisdom was what God was”, and that “through her [wisdom] came into being everything that came into being” (exactly what is said of “the word” in John 1:1-3). And yet, this ‘wisdom’ is not a personal, conscious being, but a personified aspect of God Himself, namely His understanding and knowledge.

    Therefore, it is improper to believe that when John writes, “in the beginning was the word”, he really meant “in the beginning was the Son”; the word, or Logos, or Memra of God was considered in Jewish thought to be the impersonal aspect of God’s literal utterance. John was poetically referring to the divine word and wisdom (the “word”, “wisdom”, and “Torah” were used interchangeably in intertestamental Jewish literature; see Sirach 24) by which the heavens and earth were created in the beginning, not a personal, pre-incarnate Christ.

    But what did John mean by “the word became flesh”? Well, again, in ancient Jewish literature we find precedent for this statement. According to the book of Sirach, a piece of intertestamental literature, the high priest Simon of Cyrene was the embodiment of the wisdom of God, and shared all of the attributes of Wisdom (Sirach 50:5-10 cf. 24:13-17). Likewise, throughout the works of Philo, Moses is considered to be the Torah incarnate [1]. Even in the canonical book of Proverbs, it is said that an ideal wife will have the same characteristics as Lady Wisdom (31:10-31 cf. 8:1-21), thereby being the embodiment of wisdom in Jewish thought.

    Should John’s statement, “the word became flesh”, be understood in the same way? Well, we are told elsewhere in scripture that Jesus has become the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30) and that He is the fulfillment of the Torah (Matt. 5:7), and so He would have also been considered the embodiment of the  (impersonal) word of God (since, as noted already, the “word”, “wisdom”, and “Torah” were considered interchangeable in intertestamental Jewish literature).

    Therefore, it is not the case that the “word of God” has always been numerically identical to Jesus Himself, nor that His being the embodiment of the word means that He pre-existed His birth (any more than Simon and Moses being the embodiment of the wisdom and Torah means that they pre-existed their creation). Rather, it is that Jesus, by being the perfect fulfillment of God’s will, is the true embodiment of the word (or Logos, or Memra) of God. His being the “word of God” has not always been true, but became true only when “the word became flesh” at Jesus’ conception.

    Whereas modern readers, with their preconceptions based on the second-century idea about Jesus being the eternal Logos of God (a theory based in Greek metaphysics rather than the proper Jewish context of the New Testament), read “the word became flesh” and think “the pre-existent God the Son took on flesh and became incarnate in the person of Jesus”, the original readers of the Bible would have understood this to mean that “the divine yet impersonal word of God became embodied in the person of Jesus”. I challenge any trinitarian reading this article to think outside of the box and try to see the Bible from the perspective of its original, first century readers, and see if they interpret this passage in the same way.

    The Image of God

Another title of Jesus Christ, which appears twice in Paul’s writings, is the “image of God”:

the Christ... is the image of God (1 Cor. 4:4)

the Son of His love... who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation (Col. 1:13, 15)

This same idea is reflected in John 1:18 and Hebrews 1:3, expressed somewhat differently:

God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father — he did declare Him.

[Christ is] the brightness of the glory [of God], and the impress of His subsistence

Surprisingly, I have seen these verses used as proof for the Trinity and supreme Deity of Christ! However, the fact that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” and the “impress of His subsistence” precludes His being numerically identical with Yahweh.

    As an analogy, imagine that I showed you a picture of my sister. I could accurately say that “this is my sister”. I could also say, truthfully, that “he who has seen this picture has seen my sister” (cf. John 12:45; 14:9-10). But is the picture literally, numerically identical to my sister? Obviously it is not. In the same way, Jesus, being the perfect expression of God’s will and desire, such that it can even be said that the Father is the one speaking through Him (John 12:49; Heb. 1:2), is the “image of the invisible God”; but He cannot be numerically identical with Yahweh, just as a picture of my sister can never be the same as my sister herself.

    The fact that no one has ever seen, or will ever see, God should be a major tip-off to the fact that Jesus is not God, because obviously, many people saw Jesus Christ both before and after His ascension (1 John 1:1-3). And yet, this is a fact that is repeatedly expressed throughout scripture, even by the disciple John who was closest to Jesus; for example, see Exod. 33:20; John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1 Tim. 6:16; and 1 John 4:12. So, although those who see Jesus are able to perceive the Father through Him due to His being the “image of the invisible God”, He cannot be God Himself because no human has ever seen God.

    Answering some trinitarian prooftexts

    John 8:58

“Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.” The Jews, therefore, said unto him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and Abraham hast thou seen?” Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham’s coming [or before Abraham was] — I am” (John 8:56-58)

This passage, along with John 1:1, is one of the most common trinitarian prooftexts. Trinitarians believe that Jesus, by saying εγω ειμι (“I am”), is declaring Himself to be Yahweh per Exodus. 3:14. However, this argument fails to stand up to the original Greek, because God’s title in Exodus 3:14 (in the LXX) is not εγω ειμι but Ο ΩΝ (“the Being”); if Jesus were declaring Himself to be Yahweh, John would have written “εγω ειμι Ο ΩΝ” here to accurately represent what Jesus meant. For more on the meaning of εγω ειμι, go read my previous article that touches on this point.

    It’s impossible that Jesus in v. 58 could have been identifying Himself with the God of the Old Testament by saying, “εγω ειμι”, because just four verses earlier He identified His Father alone with the God of the Old Testament (v. 54). Instead, we should recognize that the vast majority of instances where Jesus says εγω ειμι, He is saying “I am the Messiah” (see Mk. 13:6 cf. Matt. 24:5; John 4:25-26; 8:28; 13:18-19; 18:4-5). Thus, Jesus was not claiming to be the God of Israel in this passage; instead, this statement can at most be made to describe Christ’s “pre-incarnate existence”, not His deity [2].

    The usual trinitarian objection to this interpretation is, if Jesus was simply claiming to be the promised Messiah, then why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him? Doesn’t this show that He was blaspheming by claiming to be God? No, because in fact, claiming to be the Messiah was also a capital offense, if they did not back up their claim with miracles in front of a rabbinic tribunal [3]. The Pharisees saw Jesus as a false and demonic teacher (Matt. 12:24), so of course they would have viewed His Messianic claim as false, explaining why they attempted to stone Him.

     John 10:30

“I and the Father are one.”

This verse is interpreted by trinitarians as stating the “Shema unity” (Deut. 6:4) of Jesus and the Father, therefore proving that they are together the one God. However, this is very clearly refuted by John 17:20-22, in which Jesus repeatedly prays to the Father that “they [believers] may be one in us as we are one“. If Jesus and the Father are one in that they are together Yahweh, then we would have to conclude that believers, also, will eventually become part of Yahweh in a sort of extended ‘Trinity’.

    So then, if Jesus and the Father are not literally “one”, in what way can they be considered “one”? Well, if we look forward to 1 Corinthians 3:6-8, we read that “I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered... and he who is planting and he who is watering are one“. Paul and Apollos are not literally “one”, but agree as one; a modern idiom that matches this Greek phrase would be “of one mind”. As the context of John 10:30 shows, what Jesus meant by saying “I and the Father are one” is that Jesus and the Father are of one mind on the issue of giving age-during life to believers who follow Christ (vv. 25-30).

    At this point, the trinitarian usually objects that, because the Jews immediately picked up stones to stone Jesus for blasphemy (vv. 31-33), He must have been declaring Himself to be God, not merely that He was of one mind with God. However, the Jews were misunderstanding what Jesus meant by “I and the Father are one”, as His response to them shows: “’Is it not having been written in your Law: “I say, ye are gods?”’” (v. 34). Jesus corrected their misunderstanding by showing that He was not God in the same sense that Yahweh is God, but in the sense that humans can be called gods (as in Ps. 82:6).

    John 17:5

And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee

This is another common trinitarian prooftext, as it is interpreted to say that Jesus both pre-existed the creation of the world, and that because Yahweh does not give His glory to another (Isa. 42:8), Jesus must be Yahweh. This second argument is easily refuted, because Jesus goes on to say in v. 22 that believers have been given the same glory that He was given, so unless believers are also part of God - which, again, is obviously untrue - Yahweh must give His glory to at least some others. The context of Isaiah 42:8 shows that it is merely talking about false gods and idols, not that God never gives glory to anyone else.

    Furthermore, this passage does not even show that Christ pre-existed the creation of the world (although, it is important to remember, some unitarians do believe that Christ pre-existed, so this point is not fundamental to the argument against trinitarianism). This verse is merely referring proleptically to the post-resurrection glory of Christ, because Jesus goes on to say that believers already have the same glory (v. 22), and yet we will not have this glory until the second coming of Christ (Col. 3:4). Just as those in the body of Christ were given grace before times of ages, even while we did not yet exist (2 Tim. 1:9), in the same way Jesus Himself was proleptically glorified before the foundation of the world even before He existed.

    We are told elsewhere that Jesus was glorified because He was obedient to God unto His death (John 12:23; Lk. 24:26; Php. 2:8-9; Col. 1:18; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:11, 21), and that He had not yet been glorified during His earthly ministry (John 7:39), which necessarily means that He did not have glory before the foundation of the world or at any time prior to His resurrection. Any reference to Christ’s glory prior to the resurrection - including John 17:5 - must therefore be understood proleptically.

    Philippians 2:6-9

[Christ Jesus], being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death — death even of a cross, wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name

Trinitarians believe that this passage provides a contrast between the “pre-incarnate”, “incarnate”, and “post-incarnate” states of Jesus. However, if this passage is read without any trinitarian presuppositions, it actually becomes one of the strongest arguments against the position that Jesus is Yahweh. For example:

• If Jesus is God, then why did Paul write that Jesus was “in the form [μορφη, ‘outward appearance’] of God” rather than just that Jesus was God?

• If Jesus is God, then why would He have “thought it not robbery [alt. transl. ‘something to be grasped’] to be equal to God”? Wouldn’t He already be equal to God by virtue of His very being?

• If Jesus is God, then how was He exalted and given a “name above every name” by God?

• According to trinitarians, Jesus’ “name above every name” is Yahweh; but if that is true, then how could Jesus have been given the name “Yahweh” by Yahweh?

This passage does not prove trinitarianism, by any means; being in the “form” or “outward appearance” of God is simply related to Christ’s being “the image of God” (see above), not His equivalence with God. At most, it can be made to prove that Christ pre-existed His conception as a human being, a statement which Arian unitarians would agree with.

    However, even the pre-existence of Christ is not definitely alluded to in this passage, if we examine it without any preconceptions about such a notion. According to the “Second Adam” reading of Php. 2:6-11 - an interpretation which many trinitarian scholars hold to as well - this passage is only describing the earthly ministry of Christ, and the fact that He never abused His power as the Son of God, but remained obedient to God throughout His life (“having taken the form of a servant”). This is because “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Matt. 20:28). Rather than using His power as “the form/image of God” for His own benefit, He took the form of a servant instead, and humbled Himself to the point of death; an example for the church at Philippi to follow (Php. 2:5). Therefore, this passage definitely does not prove trinitarianism, nor does it necessarily indicate that Christ pre-existed His conception as a human being.

    Colossians 1:16

[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. (Col. 1:15-17)

First of all, it’s important to note that this passage, even according to the trinitarian interpretation (in which Christ is the personal creator of all things), does not prove that Christ is Yahweh. All that it proves is that Christ pre-existed His birth as a human being, and was the conduit through which Yahweh created all things (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). Arian unitarians will have no problem with the traditional reading of Colossians 1:16.

    However, I don’t believe that this passage actually demonstrates that the “pre-existent Christ” was the conduit through which all things were created. In Isaiah 44:24, Yahweh clearly says that nobody was beside Him at the creation of the world, and Jesus agreed with this fact, distinguishing Himself from the Creator of the world in three separate places (Matt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6; 13:19). Likewise, Paul distinguished between God the Creator and Jesus, the man whom He ordained (Acts 17:24, 31), as did the author of Hebrews (Heb. 2:10). Therefore, if this passage were saying that Jesus was the personal creator of the universe, it would create a contradiction.

    So what is Colossians 1:16 saying, if not that Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe? Well, just a few verses earlier, Paul wrote that “in Him we have the redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of the sins” (v. 14), so by saying that “all things were created in Him“, Paul is simply referring to the fact that all things have now been made anew and redeemed in Christ (something that he says again just a few verses later in v. 20). This need not refer to the original Genesis creation, since Paul uses the exact same language elsewhere of all things being a creation in Christ, and through Christ, when referring to the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17-18).

    Therefore, this passage doesn’t show that Christ was the personal creator, or even conduit of creation, of the universe; instead, the context clearly shows that it refers to the fact that all things have now been created anew in Christ.

    Colossians 2:9

in [Christ] doth tabernacle all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:8-9)

Along with John 1:1, this passage is often considered one of the definite “prooftexts” of trinitarianism, that proves beyond a doubt that Jesus is the supreme Deity (Yahweh, the living God). However, if we look just a few verses earlier, we read that “it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell” (1:19) - that is, the fullness of the Deity living in Christ is something that was granted to Him by the Father, not inherent to His being. This is actually evidence against the position that Christ is Yahweh. It would be meaningless to say, “it pleased God that all the fullness of Himself should dwell in Himself”, because, being Yahweh, He is already inherently the fullness of the Deity.

    Furthermore, according to Ephesians 3:19, it is also possible for believers to have “all the fullness of God” within themselves (cf. 2 Pet. 1:4). If “the fullness of the Deity” were something that could dwell only in God Himself, then that would mean that believers also can become God, which is obviously false. So what does it mean to have the “fullness of the Deity” within oneself? The answer can likely be found in John 3:34, which says that “the One whom God has sent [i.e., Christ] speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without measure”. Anyone whom the Holy Spirit indwells, both Christ and believers, can be said to have “the fullness of the Deity” within themselves.

    Hebrews 1:10

And, “Thou, at the beginning, Lord, the earth didst found, and a work of thy hands are the heavens; these shall perish, and Thou dost remain, and all, as a garment, shall become old, and as a mantle Thou shall roll them together, and they shall be changed, and Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.” But unto which of the messengers [angels] said He ever, “Sit at My right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?” (Heb. 1:10-13)

This is considered to be a prooftext for trinitarianism because the quoted passage, Psalm 102:25-27, refers to Yahweh, but appears to be applied to Jesus by the author of Hebrews. However, according to the previous verses, Jesus was anointed to His current position at the time of His resurrection (Heb. 1:5, 9 cf. Acts 13:33). This passage cannot be saying that Jesus is Yahweh (since Yahweh’s power is underived). Likewise, as described earlier in the section about Colossians 1:16, several passages distinguish Jesus from God the Creator (especially Acts 17:24, 31 and Heb. 2:10), and so Jesus cannot have been the one who personally created the heavens and earth. Therefore, the trinitarian reading of this passage, which makes Jesus out to be both Yahweh and creator, cannot be correct.

    In contrast to the trinitarian reading, the context makes clear that vv. 10 - 12 is referring to the Father, not Jesus. This is because, each time the author of Hebrews begins a new section of his argument, he starts the section with the Greek conjunction και (“and”), and finishes the section with the conjunction δε (“but”); since verse 10 begins with και, the author is starting a new section of the argument, and changing the subject from Jesus to Yahweh (who was also the subject of the original passage in Ps. 102:25-27). By combining Ps. 102:25-27 with Ps. 110:1 (“Yahweh said to my Lord, sit at my right hand...”), the author is making the point that Jesus, by sitting at the right hand of Yahweh, now has control over the entire creation which Yahweh created.

    To maintain that the subject remains the same between vv. 8 - 9 and vv. 10 - 12, as the trinitarian must do, is entirely arbitrary and not at all clear in the text. Because the author is starting a new section of his argument in verse 10, there is no reason to believe that he is keeping the subject as Jesus. The most natural reading is that, just as in the original passage in the book of Psalms (which the original readers of Hebrews should have been most familiar with), this is describing Yahweh the Father, as part of an argument that Jesus is now preeminent over all things [4].

    In the preceding sections, I obviously haven’t grappled with every single prooftext used by trinitarians. However, all of the rest of the prooftexts for the Trinity either (1) have better manuscript evidence for an alternate, unitarian reading, for example: Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 10:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7-8; and Jude 4; or else (2) the Greek is ambiguous as to whether the trinitarian reading is correct, for example: Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 1 Timothy 5:21; 6:14-16; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; and 1 John 5:20.

    The seven passages that I discussed above, as well as the few passages discussed in my previous article, are the only prooftexts of the Trinity for which the Greek is unambiguous. As I hope I have made clear, each of these texts, when examined in their contexts, do not support the idea that Jesus is Yahweh; in fact, many of them provide evidence against the trinitarian position when they are properly understood. Essentially, the doctrine of the Trinity does not have a biblical leg to stand on.

    Am I “denying the deity of Christ”?

The most common non-scriptural objection to my unitarian beliefs, by far, is the argument that I “deny the deity of Christ”. Apparently, to “deny the deity of Christ” is one of the greatest sins that one can accomplish, even though the “deity of Christ” is not something that is ever fleshed out in scripture, and (if the “deity of Christ” is the position that Jesus Christ = Yahweh) there is actually much scriptural evidence against it.

    My answer to this objection is this: Yes, if by “deity of Christ”, you mean the belief that the man Jesus Christ is one and the same as Yahweh, the supreme Deity, I do deny the “deity of Christ”. But by that definition, even Christ denied the “deity of Christ”! As shown in Mark 12:28-34, Jesus believed that Yahweh, the true and living God, was one (not three) and affirmed the traditional Jewish understanding of the Shema (which is that Yahweh is one God in one Person, the Father). He also called His Father “the only true God” and distinguished Himself from that title (John 17:3).

    However, if by “deity of Christ” it is meant that Christ is the Word and the Image of God, who fully reveals the Father in His actions, and is the Son of God, then of course I do not deny this - this is one of the most clearly revealed facts in scripture, that Jesus is the greatest man who ever lived, and was made Lord over all after His resurrection, as He now sits at the right hand of God in the heavens. But, for all His greatness, He is not the one true and living God; that is a title that goes only to His Father, Yahweh.

    The problem with using unbiblical terminology like the “deity of Christ” to define the faith is that it places arbitrary and unscriptural constraints on our doctrine. If the Bible does teach such a thing as “the deity of Christ” (that Christ is God and Yahweh), then let scripture speak for itself; but if it does not teach such a thing, then it is unwise to place such a constraint on the text to force it to teach Christ’s deity (which, unfortunately, many Christians do).

    Conclusion

In this article, I have shown that every “prooftext” used by trinitarians to show that Jesus is the one true and living God, Yahweh, has been misinterpreted to support this doctrine. This includes John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 17:5; Philippians 2:6-9; Colossians 1:15-16; 2:9; and Hebrews 1:10 (along with some of the “prooftexts” covered in the previous article, like Isaiah 9:6 and Hebrews 1:8). None of these passages, when properly understood, actually teaches that Jesus is the supreme God. Instead, the overwhelming testimony of scripture is that Jesus is separate from Yahweh God, being His (human) Son and Messiah.

    Now, some people will accuse me of trying to take away the glory of Jesus Christ for some perverted purpose. This is just completely untrue. I only believe that Jesus is not God because that is what the Bible teaches, based on my best understanding of scripture. But just because Jesus is not God does not mean that He shouldn’t be glorified and praised; He is the greatest human to have ever lived, who lived His entire life in perfect obedience to the will of God, even humbling Himself to the point of dying on the cross in order to save and reconcile all of humanity - after which God raised Him up to be at His right hand and exalted Him to be Lord over all, a position which He still occupies, as we await His return.

    However, to say that Jesus is God is an insult to both God and Christ. To praise them both as one God does not give the proper glory and praise to either one, and, as I showed in the previous post, essentially amounts to idolatry (since they are not worshipping “the living God”). Obviously, trinitarians are not purposely idolaters, because they are simply following the doctrine that they believe to be taught in the Bible; but then again, very few idolaters in biblical times knew that they weren’t worshipping the one true God, either. We must always be careful to search the scriptures to see if our doctrine is coming from the Bible, or if we are imposing our own man-made doctrines onto the text; as I believe I have shown in these last two posts, trinitarianism is (regrettably) an example of the latter.

______________________________

[1] “perhaps, since Moses was also destined to be the lawgiver of his nation, he was himself long previously, through the providence of God, a living and reasonable law“ (Life of Moses I.28.162),
“[Moses] was both a king and a lawgiver, and a high priest and a prophet... the king is at once a living law, and the law is a just king” (Life of Moses II.1.4)

[2] Unitarians are divided on this point between Arians who believe that Christ did indeed pre-exist and was created at the beginning of creation, and Socinians who believe that Christ did not exist before His conception. I am a Socinian, for reasons that are too long to get into in this post, whereas many unitarian denominations (like the Jehovah’s Witness cult) are Arians.

[3] According to one tradition, albeit a likely untrue one, the rabbi Bar Kokhba was killed for claiming to be the Messiah and being unable to back up his claim. See this article for more details.

[4] The argument of the author in Hebrews 1:10-13 can be summarized like so:

Premise 1. Yahweh created, and is pre-eminent over all things (Ps. 102:25-27)

Premise 2. Jesus, the Messiah, has been anointed to the right hand of Yahweh (Ps. 110:1)

Conclusion. Jesus, the Messiah, is now pre-eminent over all things [this conclusion is reached in Heb. 2:7-8].

Is the God of Christianity the God of the Bible?

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

    The Father

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

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

Premise 1. Jesus Christ is Yahweh and God.

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

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

And another logical absurdity:

Premise 1. Jesus Christ is Yahweh and God.

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

Conclusion. Jesus Christ is the son of Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The living God

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 2. Jesus Christ is not the living God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The only true God

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

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

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

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

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

    As Paul also said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

    Some background

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

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

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

    The purpose of the council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Who was the apostle to the Gentiles?

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

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

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

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

2. Repent of sins (Acts 2:38)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A yoke too heavy to bear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    James’ commands to the Gentiles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

______________________________

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

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

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

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