Going
back to Ephesians 4, we are entreated to be endeavoring to keep the unity of
the spirit with the tie or literally together-bond of peace. What else could
this together-bond be besides just not arguing or separating? Well, Paul tells
us already in Ephesians 2 what that together-bond is:
“For
He is our Peace, Who makes both one...that He should be creating the two in
Himself, into one new humanity, making peace...And coming He brings the evangel
of peace to you, those afar, and peace to those near, for through Him we both
have had the access, in one spirit, to the Father.”
There
is a lot of peace and oneness now, because of Christ Jesus, Who is our peace.
And notice the evangel of peace that He brings to both Jew and Gentile.
Since the time that the evangel of the Uncircumcision first
began to be believed by people from among the nations, the body of Christ has
included both Jews and Gentiles. And the peace and oneness of which Paul wrote
in the above passage from Ephesians 4 is clearly a reference to the oneness of
those in the body of Christ. However, this passage in no way supports the idea
that every believer in Paul’s day was a member of the body of Christ, or
disproves the position that most believing Jews in Paul’s day weren’t in the
body of Christ.
ALL
ONE BODY
Those
who teach two evangels do claim to believe what Paul wrote in Ephesians about
the one body but still teach that the apostles, Peter, James and John, are not
part of this together-bond body of Christ. On what authority can that be
stated? Where is that written? Do the apostles not have the holy spirit, the
same spirit the Gentiles receive upon believing on the Lord Jesus Christ?
“For
in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks,
whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit.”1 Cor.12:13
To echo Anonymous’
questions above, I ask in turn: On what authority can it be stated that the
calling and expectation of Peter, James and John – which was in accord with
Israel’s covenant-based promises - ever changed? Where is it written that they
became members of that company of saints that began to be formed after Paul was entrusted with an evangel
that Peter did not herald (and which essentially involves the truth that Christ
died for our sins)? It is not enough to say that Peter, James and John all had
the holy spirit, for this fact alone doesn’t make one a member of the body of Christ.
The real question is, “Were Peter, James and John spiritually baptized into the
same body as Paul and those to whom he wrote?” And in response to this question, I can find no affirmative
answer in scripture.
Anonymous then
asks, ”How is it that the apostles are not part of
this body?” Because Peter, James and John belonged to the believing
remnant among God’s covenant people, Israel, and – insofar as this is the case
- have a different calling and expectation than the saints in the body of
Christ (Paul included). Their status as believing members of God’s covenant
people, Israel, means that they are not part of that company of saints which is
(and always has been) distinct from
God’s covenant people, and which has a calling and expectation that is distinct from Israel’s covenant-based
promises.
Ironically, in
forcing Peter, James and John into the body of Christ, it is actually the
author of the article I’m refuting who ends up creating a divide between
members of the body. According to the logical implication of Anonymous’
position, some members of the body of Christ will be enjoying their eonian life
in the kingdom of God on the earth (e.g., Peter, James and John), while others
will be enjoying their eonian life in “in the heavens” and “among the
celestials” (e.g., Paul and the saints to whom he wrote).
What
does Paul go on to say in v.27-28? “Now you are the body of Christ, and members
of a part, whom also God, indeed, placed in the ecclesia, first, apostles,
second, prophets, third teachers...”
Why
would the twelve, especially, Peter, James and John be outside of this body, when
God placed in the ecclesia, first, apostles but then leave out the earliest
apostles? Wouldn't it be stated somewhere clearly? It is confusing and contradictory
to teach that.
Anonymous
seems to be implying that, without a verse in scripture that “clearly” and
explicitly denies that the twelve
apostles are in the body of Christ, it’s unreasonable for anyone to believe
that they aren’t. But that itself is an entirely unreasonable position to take.
Just because something’s not clearly and explicitly denied to be true in scripture doesn’t mean we ought to therefore affirm it. For example, nowhere in
scripture is there a verse or passage that clearly and explicitly denies that
God is a “triune being,” but that doesn’t mean God is a triune being. In the same way, there’s no good reason to
expect any inspired author to have “stated somewhere clearly” that Peter, James
and John weren’t in the body of Christ. However, this doesn’t mean that anyone
today is justified in believing that they were
in the body of Christ, especially when we know (for example) that the twelve
apostles belonged to a company of believers that existed before the body of Christ came into existence, and which had (and
has) a calling and expectation that is completely distinct from that which
belongs to those in the body of Christ.
Moreover (and as noted earlier),
Paul’s words in Eph. 4:7-14 indicate that the apostles which Paul had in view
as being members of “the ecclesia which is Christ’s body” were given by Christ after he had already ascended to heaven
(and would include men such as Paul himself, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Timothy,
etc.). It was those who were given by the ascended
Christ who were given “for the up-building of the body of Christ.” This would
necessarily exclude the twelve apostles from being the apostles that God
“placed in the ecclesia, first.” For again, the twelve were made apostles before Christ’s ascension into heaven
(see Matt. 10:1-5; Mark 3:14; 6:7, 30; cf. Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:44-49; Acts
1:1-5). Insofar as this is the case, the twelve apostles cannot be among the
apostles referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:27-28.
As far as what Anonymous considers
“confusing and contradictory,” there’s nothing confusing or contradictory about
believing that the body of Christ has had apostles as members since it first
came into existence, while also denying
that these apostles included the
twelve apostles.
And
is there an ecclesia that is separate from the body? That teaching has to be
read into the scriptures to support it.
There
absolutely is “an ecclesia that is
separate from” what Paul referred to as “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s]
body.“ For example, we read of the “ecclesia in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38),
which was “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2). And we also read of the ecclesia
that Christ referred to in Matthew 16:18, which was being built on the
foundational truth that Jesus “is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v.
16). As I’ve argued, this is the truth which constitutes the evangel of the
Circumcision. The calling and expectation of this ecclesia (to which Peter and
the rest of the twelve apostles belonged) is in accord with Israel’s
covenant-based promises, and those constituting this ecclesia will be enjoying
their allotment in the kingdom of God on the earth (i.e., the kingdom that is
going to be restored to Israel, in accord with the expectation of the apostles
in Acts 1:6; cf. Acts 1:2-3). It was to Peter – who was entrusted with the
evangel of the Circumcision - that Christ gave the “keys” of this kingdom.
God's
family is being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus Himself being the cap corner stone, in Whom the entire building, being
connected together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord. The only people
excluded from this building, ecclesia or body, are those who rejected Christ
and unbelievers.
Paul did not write that the “family” of God was
“the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.”
Anonymous:
In fact, Paul wrote earlier in 1Cor.10:1-4: “For I do not want you to be ignorant,
brethren, that our fathers all were under
the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into
Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all
drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which
followed. Now the Rock was Christ.”
How
much more can we now say, all are now partaking of the same spiritual food and
drink, which is the spiritual body and blood of Christ? All means all, not
some, and not just those who followed Paul, or as is taught, those who chose to
follow his evangel of grace as opposed to those who chose to stay in the
Circumcision evangel entrusted to Peter. That can nowhere be found. Further
more, it is God, Who is choosing, and placing every member in the body of
Christ, is it not?
Yes, it is God
who is choosing and placing people in the body of Christ. But Anonymous is
simply begging the question if he or she thinks that this fact proves that
every believer in Paul’s day had been chosen by God to be in the body of
Christ.
PAUL
ONLY?
Concerning
Paul versus Peter lets go to 1Cor.1:10-13:
“Now
I am entreating you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
all may be saying the same thing, and there may be no schisms among you, but
you may be attuned to the same mind and to the same opinion. For ...there are
strifes among you. Now I am saying this, that each of you is saying, 'I,
indeed, am of Paul,' yet 'I of Apollos,' yet 'I of Cephas,' yet 'I of Christ.'
Christ is parted! (Christ is divided!) Not Paul was crucified for your sakes!
Or into the name of Paul are you baptized?”
How
can we say that we are of Paul and not of Peter when Paul tells us not to say
that? How can we say we are following Paul and then turn around and contradict
the very words he spoke? If we are just of Paul then we are saying that Christ
can be divided.
What, exactly, does Anonymous think would make believers today guilty
of that of which some of the saints in Corinth were guilty in Paul’s day? Would
one be guilty of “dividing” Christ by claiming that Christ – and not Paul,
Apollos or Peter – was crucified for our sakes? Of course not. Affirming a
doctrinal truth about Christ that does not apply to Paul, Apollos or Peter (or
any other man) does not make one guilty of the divisive, schism-creating
attitude that was being manifested by those who were saying they were “of” this
or that person. Rather, to affirm that something is true of Christ that isn’t
true of Paul, Apollos or Peter is simply
to affirm the truth.
Now, let’s apply this same principle to the apostle Paul. Is one
necessarily guilty of the same divisive, faction-creating attitude and actions
that some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of by affirming that Paul – and
not Peter – was “the apostle of the
nations” (and thus the apostle commissioned by Christ to bring the evangel
entrusted to him to pagan, idol-worshipping Gentiles)? No. Paul himself
declared that he was the apostle of the nations (Rom. 11:13), and that he - and
not Peter - had been entrusted with “the evangel of the Uncircumcision” (Gal.
2:7). So it’s simply not the case that Christ is being “divided” by those who
affirm this truth.
In the same way, Christ is not being “divided” by those who read and
study Paul’s thirteen letters as letters which, in contrast with the letters of
Peter and James (for example), were written to and for believers who are “of
the nations.” If this is what
Anonymous thinks some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of (and for which
Paul had to rebuke them), then Anonymous is simply mistaken. One is not guilty
of “dividing Christ” by affirming that Paul made known certain truths in his
letters to the saints in the body of Christ that weren’t made known in the letters of Peter, James or John
(including the truth that there even is
a company of saints called “the body of Christ”). Nor is one guilty of “dividing
Christ” by believing that Paul was given an administration that was not given
to Peter, James or John. Nor is one guilty of “dividing Christ” by believing
that Paul – but not Peter, James or John – revealed truths that pertain to
those in the body of Christ, but not to those who belong to the “all Israel”
which will be saved when Christ returns to the earth.
We could further add that Christ is not being “divided” by those who
believe that Paul – but not Peter, James and John – revealed the truth that our
justification is “through the faith of Christ,” that those in the body of
Christ are going to be snatched away to meet the Lord in the air before the
indignation of God begins coming upon the earth, and that our eonian life is
going to be enjoyed “in the heavens” and “among the celestials.” If those who
agree with everything stated above are guilty of “dividing Christ,” then Paul
himself was guilty of “dividing Christ!” But that, of course, is absurd. The
fact is that believing in “administrational” (or “dispensational”) differences
between Paul and the twelve apostles (or between Paul and James) has nothing at
all to do with what Paul was rebuking the saints in Corinth for doing.
In
the Corinthian ecclesia there were four different groups each saying we are
“of” someone, excluding the others. It's even wrong to say that we are of
Christ because that attitude divides. In fact, if we are attuned to the same
mind and opinion, the mind of Christ, then we will all be saying the same thing
and there will be no schisms in our midst. This is exactly what Paul has said!
Based on what is said above, it would seem that Anonymous and I are in
agreement that the problem to which Paul was responding was a divisive attitude among the saints in
Corinth. What some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of doing was claiming
allegiance to a certain individual as their leader, and forming rival cliques/factions
around this leader. The key to understanding the problem to which Paul was
responding is, I believe, found in the words, “I am of Christ.” How could it be
wrong to affirm that one is “of Christ” unless,
in doing so, one was attempting to distance oneself from other members of the
same ecclesia, and create separations between those in the body of Christ?
Thus, we can conclude that the problem involved a divisive attitude among the
saints, and not simply differences concerning doctrine (including the doctrinal
question of whether the apostle Peter shared in the calling and expectation of
the body of Christ or that of Israel).
THE
SPIRIT TEACHES
“So
that, let no one be boasting in men, for
all is yours , whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or
death, or the present, or that which is
impending---all is yours, yet you are Christ's, yet Christ is God's” (1Cor.3:21-23).
What?
All is for us? All things belong to us? Whether Paul or Cephas or...? Have we
not heard it taught that we must be careful to not take what doesn't belong to
us, what was given to Israel by God in covenant? So why is Paul saying it all
belongs to us? Well the scriptures tell us why and the topic of Israel and covenant
can be examined later. This whole topic has many aspects to it and it is
difficult to isolate each one from the other because they all connect in
spiritual understanding.
Everything
Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:21-23 is perfectly consistent with the view that the
apostle Peter belonged to a company of believers distinct from the body of
Christ (i.e., the chosen remnant within Israel). We can learn and benefit from
what Peter wrote in his two letters just as we can learn and benefit from what
John wrote in Revelation, or from what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch, or from
what the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote in their respective works. But that
doesn’t mean that what Peter wrote (or any other inspired author) is just as
relevant and applicable to the saints in the body of Christ as what Paul wrote
in his thirteen letters.
And lest Anonymous object that Paul specified Peter
(Cephas) as being “ours” right after referring to himself and Apollos, Paul went
on to include “the world,” “life,” “death,” “the present,” and “that which is
impending” as part of the same “all” that is ours! Clearly, it wasn’t Paul’s
intent to convey the idea that each of the people or things that are said to be
“ours” in 1 Cor. 3:23 benefit us in the
same way and in the exact sense
(or does Anonymous believe that we benefit from “life” in the same sense that we benefit from “death,”
the “last enemy”?). And given that this is obviously the case, this passage is completely useless as a “proof-text” for Anonymous’ position that Peter is an apostle in
the body of Christ, or that his letters are just as equally to and for those in
the body of Christ as are Paul’s thirteen letters.
ALL
SCRIPTURE
If
we think that the gospels and the so-called circumcision epistles are not
written to us and that we should avoid them lest we begin mixing what belongs
in another administration for another people we will suffer loss in our
spiritual service and maturity. Paul tells us:
“.... the sacred scriptures are able to make you
wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All the scriptures testify of Christ.
“All
scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching, for exposure, for
correction, for discipline in righteousness, that the man of God may be
equipped, fitted out for every good act.” 2Tim.3:15-17
Anonymous is
attacking a straw-man here. Anyone who believes that we should “avoid” all
scripture outside of Paul’s letters (and I’m not aware of anyone who does believe this) is clearly mistaken
on this point, irrespective of whatever else they may or may not believe. But
let’s consider just how consistent Anonymous’ argument is. Anonymous is
appealing to Paul’s words that “all scripture” is beneficial to teachers in the
body of Christ in order to support the position that “the so-called
circumcision epistles” (i.e., Hebrews through Revelation) are just as
applicable and relevant to the saints in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen
epistles (and, by implication, that the original recipients of the
“circumcision epistles” were members of the body of Christ). But would
Anonymous say the same thing about everything
written in the Scriptures? Is everything that we read in Genesis through Malachi
(for example) just as relevant and
applicable to those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters? Obviously
not. And given that this is the case, Anonymous can’t appeal to Paul’s words in
the verses quoted above as evidence that the “circumcision epistles” must also be considered just as relevant and
applicable to those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters. It simply
doesn’t follow.
Thus,
Anonymous’ “all scripture” argument fails.
No comments:
Post a Comment