Introduction
According
to popular Christian belief, everyone who could be considered a believer during
the period of time covered by the book of Acts (i.e., the “apostolic era”) was
a member of that company of saints that the apostle Paul referred to as “the church
which is [Christ’s] body” (Ephesians 1:22-23). Even among those who hold to
some form of “dispensationalism,” this seems to be the most commonly-held
position. What I’m going to be arguing in this study is that this popular
position is mistaken, and that, from the very beginning of the apostolic era, the majority of believing Jews (including
the twelve apostles) belonged to a different company of believers than that to
which those in the body of Christ belong.
Among
those who hold to the position I’m going to be defending, some would say that
the question of how many
“evangels” (or “gospels”) there are is the key to determining whether or not this
position is correct. Now, it is my conviction that there were, in fact, two evangels being heralded during the apostolic era
(which is a position I’ve defended in greater depth elsewhere; see http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-study-on-two-evangels-part-1.html). I also believe that
the question of how many evangels were being heralded during this time is an
important one, and relevant to this subject. However, I also believe that, when seeking to determine whether or not every
believer during the apostolic era was a member of the body of Christ, the
question of how many evangels there are is secondary in importance to what I would consider to be a more fundamental issue.
As
a way of introducing what I believe to be the more fundamental issue, let’s
consider Galatians 2:7 (for, in addition to supporting the “two evangels”
position, I believe this verse points us in the direction of the more
fundamental issue that I have in mind): “But, on the
contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the
Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision…” Despite the
attempts by some to reconcile this verse with the position that there was only
one evangel being heralded during the apostolic era, I’ve argued elsewhere that
this verse really does contradict the more popular view. When
Paul wrote of the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” and the evangel “of the
Circumcision,” he did not have in view one evangel that was being heralded to
two different categories of people. Rather, Paul clearly had in mind two
distinct evangels which pertained to two different categories of human beings – i.e., those described as
“the Circumcision” and those described as “the Uncircumcision.” The grammar itself
bears this out; the same Greek construction found in Gal. 2:7 is also found in
the expression, “evangel of the kingdom” (which, of course, does not refer to an
evangel that was being heralded to the kingdom, but rather to an
evangel that distinctly pertained to the kingdom). Thus, those who are
inclined to deny that Paul had in mind two distinct evangels when he wrote this
verse will have to wrestle with this fact.
Moreover, when we take into consideration the
simple fact that the evangel entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations
involves the truth that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), logic dictates that any
message we find recorded in scripture in which this truth is absent cannot be the evangel that Christ
entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations (or at the very least, it can’t
be understood as a complete articulation or expression of this evangel).
Consider the following logical
argument:
1. The evangel which was entrusted
to Paul to herald among the nations essentially involves the truth that Christ
died for our sins.
2. The evangel that was heralded by
Peter and Paul among the Jews (of which we have three separate examples in the
book of Acts) did not contain the
truth that Christ died for our sins.
3. The evangel that Peter and Paul
heralded among the Jews was not the
same evangel entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations.
We could make a similar argument
concerning the evangel heralded by Peter to Cornelius and his household:
1. The evangel which was entrusted
to Paul to herald among the nations essentially involves the truth that Christ
died for our sins.
2. The evangel that was heralded by
Peter to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:34-43) did not contain the truth that Christ died for our sins.
3. The evangel that Peter heralded
to Cornelius and his household was not
the same evangel entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations.
Despite the tendency of some on both
sides of the debate to make the matter more complicated than it is (something
of which I may very well have been guilty at times), I believe it really is as
simple and straightforward as the arguments above. One has to ignore the truth
that Christ died for our sins in order to maintain the position that only one
evangel was heralded during the apostolic era. For as soon as one puts the focus
on this particular truth, the “one evangel” position quickly begins to fall
apart.
It may be objected that, if the
truth that Christ died for our sins is essential to the evangel entrusted to
Paul to herald among the nations, this would mean that there is not a single explicit presentation of Paul’s evangel recorded
in the entire book of Acts (which is what I do, in fact, believe). But rather than being inconsistent with the
“two evangels” position, this is precisely what we’d expect to be the case if
this position were true. The book of Acts is a continuation of Luke’s “gospel
account,” and was never intended to reveal truth that pertains distinctly to
“the administration of the secret” which was given to Paul for the sake of the
nations (Eph. 3:2, 9). Consider
the remarkable fact that the longest message we find recorded in Acts that
involves Paul and the nations (Acts
17:18-33) doesn’t even include the fact that Christ died for our sins. However,
rather than understanding this message as a complete presentation of Paul’s
evangel, what we read in Acts 17:18-33 is actually the introduction to an evangelistic message which - due to the negative
response Paul received from the philosophers when he introduced the subject of
Christ’s resurrection - Paul was unable (or unwilling) to finish. This means
that the longest message we find recorded in Acts involving Paul and the
nations is not even a complete message.
The fact that Paul’s message in Acts
17 was “cut short” on this occasion (which is in striking contrast with
the lengthy message by Paul we find recorded in Acts 13:16-41) is, I believe,
providential. This enabled Luke to include as much of Paul’s message as
possible (thus giving his readers a glimpse into how Paul introduced the
proclamation of his evangel on at least one occasion) without having to include
those elements of Paul’s evangel that distinguished it from the evangel of the Circumcision,
and which belonged to that body of truth which had been delivered to Paul to
dispense among the nations. [1]
Now, the mere
fact that there were two evangels
being heralded during the apostolic era does not really explain or help us
understand why there were two
evangels being heralded. Nor does it really help us better understand why it
would be the case that the majority of believing Jews weren’t in the body of
Christ (as opposed to the body of Christ being comprised of every Jewish and
Gentile believer on the earth). One could come to believe that there were, in
fact, two evangels being heralded, and yet still be confused as to why the
twelve apostles (for example) shouldn’t be understood as having been members of
the body of Christ.
I think
we begin to approach the more fundamental issue when we consider why Paul referred to one evangel as
being “of the Uncircumcision” and to the other as being “of the Circumcision.” Circumcision
is, of course, the sign of God’s covenant with Israel. Thus, in referring to the
evangel entrusted to Peter as the evangel “of the Circumcision,” Paul was
emphasizing the fact that this evangel was distinctly for God’s covenant
people, and was the evangel through which God’s covenant people were being
called to their covenant-based expectation (and, I believe, will be called in the future, after the
body of Christ has been removed from the earth). Conversely, by referring to
the evangel entrusted to him as “the evangel of the Uncircumcision,”
Paul was emphasizing the fact that this evangel was distinctly for the nations,
without any relation to Israel as a
covenant people or to Israel’s covenant-based expectation. Those called
through this distinct evangel did not need to be in a relationship with God
based on God’s covenant with Israel (or in any positive relationship with God’s
covenant people) in order to receive salvation.
Since the time that God began
forming the nation of Israel, it has been possible to divide all of humanity up
into two basic categories of people: (1) those who are in covenant with God and
(2) those who aren’t. Both of these broad divisions could then, of course, be
further divided into other important categories (i.e., believer and unbeliever,
faithful and unfaithful, etc.). However, the fact that Israel is, and always has
been, God’s covenant people is a truth with which every student of scripture
should be familiar. A failure to realize or appreciate the covenant-based
distinction that God has made between human beings will, I believe, inevitably
lead to muddled, inconsistent doctrinal positions.
In
Romans 11:1, Paul referred to Israel as “[God’s] people.” And in Romans 9:4 we
read that the “covenants” belong to Israel (making Israel – and no other nation
on earth - God’s covenant people). In Genesis 17:1-14, we
discover how the formation of God’s covenant people began: God appeared to
Abram and made a covenant - i.e., a contractual agreement - with him and his
physical descendants. So important was this covenant with Abram that God
changed Abram’s name to Abraham (“father of a multitude”). This so-called
“Abrahamic covenant” - which can be understood as several related covenants -
promised Abraham’s descendents a special and unique relationship with God. It
also promised his descendents a land (Gen. 15:18), the boundaries of which
would be specified in greater detail later (e.g., Numbers 34:1-15). After
receiving the sign of the covenant – i.e., circumcision - Abraham became the
first “father” or “patriarch” of the nation of Israel. The Abrahamic covenant
was confirmed to his son Isaac and grandson Jacob (Genesis 17:19, 28:13-15),
and the covenant sign of circumcision was later incorporated into the law given
to Moses (Leviticus 12:3).
Other
covenants between God and Israel followed the Abrahamic covenant, with each
covenant building upon the one(s) preceding it (which means that an
understanding and appreciation of each subsequent covenant with Israel requires
an understanding of the covenant(s) that preceded it). However, for the purpose
of this study, it need only be emphasized that each of Israel’s covenants can
be said to deal with one (or both) of the following: Israel’s obligation and Israel’s expectation. As I hope to demonstrate,
an understanding and appreciation of Israel’s covenant-based expectation and
obligation will lead one to the logical conclusion that most believing
Jews in Paul’s day were not in the body of Christ. In the next installment of this study, I’ll be
focusing on Israel’s covenant-based expectation; and in part three, I’ll shift the focus to Israel’s covenant-based obligation. And in
part four, I’ll argue that those in the body of Christ (whether they happen to
be circumcised or uncircumcised) share in neither Israel’s covenant-based
expectation nor Israel’s covenant-based obligation.
[1] The conspicuous absence of a complete presentation of Paul’s
evangel in the book of Acts (and the cutting short of Paul’s message in Acts 17)
can thus be understood as confirming the following position articulated by A.E.
Knoch on page 200 of his commentary:
“…it is of the utmost importance for us to note that the
account in Acts never attains to the truth taught in [Paul’s] epistles. It
leads us up to some of it, but never makes actual contact with it. It prepares
for it but does not proclaim it. Not one single doctrine for the present secret
economy is found in the book of Acts, though all was made known and committed
to writing during this period. We are continually led up to, but never enter
into the grace which is ours in Christ Jesus. Acts is not a record of the
beginning of the present, but a treatise on the end of the previous
dispensation. Most of the ecclesiastical confusion which prevails would vanish
if this record of the kingdom apostasy were left where it belongs, and all
truth for the present based on Paul's written revelation, which deals with the
same period of time, but deals with it from an entirely distinct standpoint.”
No comments:
Post a Comment