A Refutation of “The Unity of the Spirit – 2 Evangels?” Part Five

THE WORDS OF JESUS

After quoting Jesus’ words in John 17:17-23, Anonymous asks, ”Does not this prayer of Jesus include all of us, Jew and Gentile?”  

No, it doesn’t. And Anonymous provides no scriptural evidence at all in support of his or her view that it does. Jesus was, at this time, praying for the unity of a company of believers that predated his death and resurrection, and which shared in Israel’s calling and expectation (and who will thus be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom of God on earth). Even the future believers that Christ included in his prayer in v. 20 (i.e., those who would come to believe on Christ through the heralded word of the twelve apostles) were those who were to become part of the company of believers for whom he was praying at this time. And as even Anonymous would have to admit, the body of Christ didn’t even exist until sometime after Christ’s death and resurrection. Those for whom Christ was praying (and who constituted part of that company of believers that Christ prayed would be “one”) didn’t even believe that Jesus was going to die and be resurrected yet (let alone believe that Christ “died for our sins”)! Thus, Christ was praying for a company of believers that was distinct from the company of believers that would later constitute the body of Christ. The calling and expectation in which this company of believers shared is that which belongs to Israel. 

Does this “one” contradict the “one” of Ephesians?

I’m not exactly sure what it would mean for the “one” referred to by Jesus in John 17:21-23 to “contradict” the “one” referred to by Paul in Ephesians 2:14-16. If Anonymous is simply asking whether those constituting the “one” of John 17 are distinct from those constituting the “one” of Eph. 2, then yes, I think we have scripturally-informed reasons to think that they are.

Is the one that the apostles are with Jesus less than our one in the body of Christ?

I’m also not sure what it would mean for the “one” referred to by Jesus in John 17:17-23 to be “less than our one in the body of Christ” (as Anonymous says). It is, however, a “one” that was constituted by a company of believers whose calling and expectation is distinct from the calling and expectation belonging to those in the body of Christ.

Why cannot these spiritual revelations from John be joined with Paul's Ephesians?

Once again, we find Anonymous using vague, ambiguous language. What does Anonymous mean by “joining” two “spiritual revelations?” Obviously, we can learn from Jesus’ words to his disciples, and there are truths which Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry which transcend time periods and administrations, and which apply just as much to us as they did to the people to whom he spoke. But if by “joining revelations” Anonymous means understanding Jesus to have been addressing and praying for believers in the body of Christ in John 17, then no, we shouldn’t “join these spiritual revelations.”

Jesus Himself said that His words are spirit and life and that the flesh profits nothing! Nothing!

Anonymous is referring to Christ’s words in John 6:63. In the immediate context, Christ’s reference to “the flesh” seems to refer to his own flesh (see John 6:51-56). What Christ was denying in John 6:63 was that the flesh of which he’d been speaking in verses 51-56 was literally a source of eonian life (for what he’d previously said about “eating his flesh” was really about believing on him and receiving/keeping his words). It was those who believed and kept the words that Christ declared during his earthly ministry who would receive eonian life in the kingdom of God. Thus, it was Christ’s words and not the “flesh” of which he’d been speaking which would result in the vivification of those to whom he spoke.

Now, it should be emphasized that there are a number of truths which Jesus affirmed during the time of his earthly ministry which transcend time periods and administrations, and which apply just as much to us as they did to the people to whom he spoke. However, much of what Christ declared during this time – despite being “spirit and life” for those to whom he spoke - does not directly pertain to those in the body of Christ. Christ himself declared that he had not been commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15:24). Christ also made it clear that keeping the precepts of the law was essential to entering into life (see Matthew 5:17-20; 19:16-17; 23:1-3; etc.). Thus, however one understands Christ’s words in John 6:63, they can’t contradict the fact that there was, in fact, great advantage to being “of the house of Israel” during Christ’s earthly ministry. Although being an Israelite was far from sufficient for salvation, it was still the case that salvation was “of the Jews” (John 4:22).[1] Thus, Anonymous cannot appeal to Christ’s words in John 6:63 in support of the position that the doctrinal truth taught by Christ during his earthly ministry and that found in Paul’s thirteen letters is 100% compatible.

FLESH DESIRES PREEMINENCE

Paul not only suffered inordinately because of the evangel entrusted to him, he also spent much time and energy convincing the Jews that Gentiles are now  on par with the Jews in God's economy; that all barriers separating them are now removed through the cross of Christ. The Gentiles now share the same blessings and promises that were given to Abraham, the father of all who believe. Yet now, the same opposition to the truth of the evangel has appeared but, as the other side of the same coin, so to speak. The Gentile is now said to have the higher position in Christ, a celestial allotment, with a future glorified spiritual body like His. Whereas, the Jew is given a lower position, an earthly allotment with a terrestrial body. It's said that we will reign in the celestials and they will reign on earth. And ironically, this is taught by those who believe they are followers of Paul.

Anonymous doesn’t seem to understand the position that he or she is attempting to refute. Of course it’s true that in the body of Christ there is no distinction between those who are circumcised and those who aren’t (and to my knowledge, no one who holds to the position Anonymous is attempting to refute denies this). But Anonymous has not even come close to proving that every circumcised believer during the apostolic era was, in fact, in the body of Christ, and that every believer during this time shared the same expectation.

Whereas, Paul writes in 1Cor.6:2-3, “Or are not aware that the saints shall judge the world?...Are you not aware that we shall be judging messengers, not to mention life's affairs?”

Anonymous’ “whereas” makes it appear as if he or she is going to prove that every believer in Paul’s day shared the same expectation. But is that what 1 Cor. 6:2-3 proves? No. These verses simply provide some insight into what the expectation of those in the body of Christ will involve.

Most likely the majority of Corinthians were Gentiles. Also, it's interesting that in Hebrews celestial is mentioned at least 5 times. Here are three clear references to a celestial expectation mentioned for the Jewish believers:

“In faith died all these, not being requited with the promises, but perceiving them ahead and saluting them, and avowing that they are strangers and expatriates on the earth. For those who are saying such things are disclosing that they are seeking for a country of their own. And, if, indeed, they remembered that from which they came out, they might have had occasion to go back. Yet now they are craving a better, that is, a celestial; wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be invoked as their God, for He makes ready for them a city.” Heb.11:13-16

The celestial city referred to in Hebrews will not be in heaven when it’s inhabited by the saints who are in view. Rather, we’re told that, after the creation of the new heaven and new earth, the new Jerusalem will descend “out of heaven from God.” Thus, the city is only celestial in regard to its source or origin, and not in regard to its location when it will be inhabited by the saints for whom it is being made ready by God. This expectation is, therefore, perfectly consistent with the position that the expectation and calling of the saints to whom the author of Hebrews wrote is distinct from that of the body of Christ.

“Whence, holy brethren, partners of a celestial calling...” Heb.3:1

I think A.E. Knoch’s remarks on this verse will suffice as a response to Anonymous’ appeal to it. Concerning the “celestial calling” referred to in this verse, Knoch remarked as follows in his commentary (emphasis mine):

“It is not easy, in English, to distinguish between the celestial calling, here referred to, and the “calling above” (Phil. 3:14) of Paul’s latest revelation. That which is celestial as to location is often spoken of in Ephesians as our blessing among the celestials (1:3), His seat (1:20), our seat (2:6), the sovereignties and authorities (3:16), our conflict (6:12). This is in the dative case, which gives us the place in which anything is found. It occurs once in Hebrews (12:22). The genitive denotes source or character…the celestial calling [of Hebrews 3:1] is from the ascended Christ, not to heaven, but from heaven. We [those in the body of Christ] are called to heaven, the Hebrews are addressed from heaven.”

I strongly suspect that Anonymous was not ignorant of the above remarks by Knoch (at the very least, the author likely had access to the commentary in which they’re found). And yet, there is no attempt made by Anonymous to refute what Knoch wrote concerning the “celestial calling” referred to in Heb. 3:1.

Paul also says in Galatians 4:26, “Yet the Jerusalem above is free, who is mother of us all.” Wouldn't these scriptures cause concern to those who would separate what so clearly is joined together in Christ? 

In Galatians 4:26, Paul introduced the “Jerusalem above” as a contrast to the then-present Jerusalem of which the Judaizers were, figuratively, “children” (because of their being in slavery to the law). Paul need not be understood as suggesting that the eonian expectation of the body of Christ was, at the time he wrote, tied to the new Jerusalem (which would make the expectation of the body of Christ inseparable from Israel’s covenant-based expectation).  The imagery Paul used in v. 26 is simply a natural extension of his allegorical argument against the Judaizers, which begins in v. 21. And it must be emphasized that the reason Paul used an allegorical argument from the law in the first place is because it was under the law that, due to a Judaizing influence, some of saints in Galatia wanted to be under. Paul would’ve had no reason to even make mention of the “Jerusalem above” in this letter were it not for the fact that it was a fitting contrast to the present Jerusalem, which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar.

In Paul’s allegorical argument, Hagar (the “slave woman”) represents the old covenant and Mount Sinai, and corresponds to the “present Jerusalem,” who was “in slavery [to the law] with her children” (vv. 24-25). In contrast, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, corresponds to “the Jerusalem above,” who, we’re told, “is free.” Notice that, in verses 26 and 31, both the “Jerusalem above” and Sarah (the “free woman”) are spoken of as if they are the mother of the believers to whom Paul wrote. Obviously, Paul was using figurative, metaphorical language in both instances; neither Sarah nor the “Jerusalem above” are literally the mothers of those to whom Paul wrote. So what is this metaphorical language intended to convey?

In the case of Sarah, believers are (figuratively) her “children” in the sense that we are like her son, Isaac. Isaac represents those who are “children of promise,” and, being free rather than slaves, are consequently “enjoyers of an allotment” (see Gal.  3:29; 4:7; cf. Rom. 8:17). Just as Sarah is figuratively described as our mother (and we her children) because we are like her son Isaac (we resemble him in some important sense), so the “Jerusalem above” is metaphorically said to be “mother of us all” because we are like her future citizens (we resemble them in some important sense). Notice that Paul said the “children” of the earthly Jerusalem were “in slavery.” That is, the earthly Jerusalem that was then present was, figuratively speaking, the “mother” of those who were in slavery (i.e., her law-enslaved citizens).

Since the “Jerusalem above is free,” it follows that her “children” are also free. Just as we are said to be “children” of Sarah because of what we have in common with Isaac (we are like Isaac in that we’re “children of promise”), so the Jerusalem above is metaphorically said to be our “mother” because of the distinguishing characteristic that we share with her future citizens (i.e., we’re free from the law of Moses, as will be the case for the future citizens of the new Jerusalem). But we have no reason to believe that Paul understood those to whom he wrote to actually be citizens of the “Jerusalem above.” Abiding in the new Jerusalem during the final eon is a blessing specifically for Abraham (as the circumcised father of the “Israel of God”) and his faithful, Israelite descendents among the twelve tribes (Heb. 11:8-10; Rev. 21:9-14; 22:3-5). Again, the only reason that Paul even made mention of the “Jerusalem above” in chapter four of Galatians is because it was a fitting contrast to the present Jerusalem, which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar.

In addition to the above remarks, Anonymous would do well to ponder the interesting fact that, in Rev. 21:14, we’re told that the foundations of the new Jerusalem are twelve in number, and that “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lambkin” are engraved on them. The conspicuous absence of Paul’s name from the foundation of the new Jerusalem is, I believe, inexplicable if he’s to be understood as part of the same company of saints to which the twelve apostles belonged, and as having the same calling and expectation as they have. But of course, the new Jerusalem – which is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based expectation – has no need or room for a “thirteenth apostle.” Paul does not belong there, and we should not try to force him into this expectation. Nor should we try to force Peter, James and John into the expectation that belongs to those in the body of Christ. 

Concerning Paul's and Peter's epistles, there are slight differences in terminology with information added or omitted, but no contradictions. There are also many similar words and phrases that are found in each of their writings. Nevertheless, Peter does not teach salvation through works, nor do the other apostles.

The view being articulated by Anonymous - i.e., that there are only “slight differences in terminology” (rather than actual doctrinal contradictions) between the letters of Paul and Peter (and the rest of the letters comprising the Greek scriptures) - is commonly-held among Christians. However, I think it’s also contrary to the facts. Consider the following points:

 1. According to Peter, water baptism was essential to salvation (1 Pet. 3:20-21; cf. Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, 41). What Peter wrote concerning the saving nature of baptism in his letter is perfectly consistent with what he declared to Israelites in Acts 2:38-40, when he made known to them the evangel of the circumcision. In these verses, it is clear that Peter understood water baptism to be essential to (although certainly not sufficient for) having one’s sins pardoned: “Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit” (v. 38). In contrast with what Peter declared and wrote, Paul learned early on in his ministry as “the apostle of the nations” that water baptism was in no way necessary for the salvation of those called to be in the body of Christ, and that Christ had therefore not commissioned him “to be baptizing but to be bringing the evangel” (1 Cor. 1:17). With regards to Paul’s ministry and administration, the only baptism that mattered for those to whom he wrote was the baptism “in one spirit,” by which they had become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-13; cf. Gal. 3:27-28; Rom. 6:3-6ff.; Eph. 4:1-5; Col. 2:12). However, it’s clear from the immediate context that the baptism “in one spirit” through which one becomes a member of the body of Christ was not the baptism to which Peter was referring.

2. In 2 Peter 1:8-9, the “cleansing from the penalties of sins” which the believing Israelites to whom Peter wrote received (and which would’ve taken place when they repented and were baptized, in accord with the words of Peter in Acts 2:38) is only said to be for their “sins of old” (or “past sins”). If the pardon they received when they repented and were baptized involved past sins only, then the pardon of their future sins was not guaranteed or secured by their original pardon or “cleansing.” Instead (and in the words of the apostle John, with whom Peter was undoubtedly in agreement on this point), to remain cleansed from sins required “walking in the light” (1 John 1:7), and having one’s future sins pardoned required “avowing [one’s] sins” (1 John 1:8-10). Similarly, James (with whom we can also conclude Peter would’ve been in agreement) affirmed that the justification and salvation of those to whom he wrote was conditional, and required both faith and works (James 2:14-26). In contrast with the conditional nature of the pardon of the sins of those to whom Peter, James and John wrote, every member of the body of Christ can be fully assured that his or her eonian salvation is secure (Rom. 8:28-39; Titus 3:4-7), and that he or she will be among those who are to be “snatched away to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:14-18; 5:4-11).

3. The believers to whom Peter wrote are described as having come “to the recognition of our Lord, Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:8), and as having fled “from the corruption which is in the world by lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). However, in 2 Peter 2:20-21, we find Peter warning those who have “fled from the defilements of the world by the recognition of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” as follows: If they became yet again “involved” in these “defilements,” their “last state” would be “worse than the first.” These words of exhortation and warning are strikingly similar to what we read in Heb. 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 (see also Christ’s words in Matt. 5:13 and John 15:2, 6). Peter went on to warn, “For it were better for them not to have recognized the way of righteousness, than, recognizing it, to go back to what was behind, from the holy precept given to them” (v. 21). Again, Peter is referring to those who could be characterized as believers in the evangel he heralded, for they had come to “a recognition of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (cf. Matt. 16:15-17; John 20:31). In contrast with what Peter wrote here, it could never be the case that the “last state” of those who have believed the truth of Paul’s evangel (and who have thus been justified through the faith of Christ) could be worse than the state we were in before we came into a realization of the truth.

Although I would agree that merely pointing out differences between what Paul and Peter (or James or John) wrote is not the best way to prove that there were two different companies of believers with two different callings and expectations, I don’t think the differences emphasized above can simply be explained away as ”slight differences in terminology with information added or omitted, but no contradictions.”

Anonymous goes on to state that ”grace is mentioned ten times in 1st Peter.” So what? Grace is not exclusive to those in the body of Christ. James - with whom Peter undoubtedly would’ve been in doctrinal agreement - explicitly taught that the salvation of the believers to whom he wrote among “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” required both faith and works (James 2:14-26). And yet James also affirmed the need for God’s grace: “Yet greater is the grace He is giving. Wherefore He is saying, God the proud is resisting, yet to the humble He is giving grace” (James 4:5-6). James was quoting Proverbs 3:34 here. Significantly, Peter quotes the same exact verse in 1 Pet. 5:5. Since James clearly didn’t see God’s grace and salvation by faith and works as mutually exclusive, we have good reason to believe that Peter didn’t, either. What distinguishes those to whom Peter and James wrote from the saints in the body of Christ is not the need for grace, but the fact that the grace on which their salvation depends is conditionally received; as both James and Peter affirm, it is “to the humble” that God “is giving grace.”

What Peter has to say about Paul's epistles should also be considered:

“Wherefore, beloved, hoping for these things, endeavor to be found by Him in peace, unspotted and flawless. And be deeming the patience of the Lord salvation, according as our brother Paul also writes to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to apprehend, which the unlearned and unstable are twisting, as the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction.” 2 Pet.3:14-16

According to the above they are both writing to the same ecclesias and their messages do not contradict each other!

If by, “they are both writing to the same ecclesias,” Anonymous simply means that Paul wrote at least one letter to the same company of believers to whom Peter wrote, then I have no disagreement with the above. However, I think one would be mistaken to infer from this that those to whom Peter wrote were in the body of Christ, or that Peter wrote to the same company of believers to whom Paul wrote his thirteen letters. The most that can be inferred from the above passage is that (1) Peter recognized that the wisdom given to Paul was manifested in all of his epistles, (2) Paul had, at some point, written a letter to the same company of believers to whom Peter wrote, and (3) the subject of this letter involved the apparent “delay” in God's ushering in the day of the Lord, and helped them better appreciate the interval of time in which they were living (which is, of course, the subject being considered in 2 Pet. 3:1-13).

Some have speculated concerning which of Paul’s letters Peter might have been referring to (with some arguing - without any conclusive evidence - that it must’ve been that letter which we know today as the letter to the Hebrews). However, for all we know, it wasn’t God’s will for the letter by Paul to which Peter referred to be included in the “canon of scripture” (which may not be the only case in which a letter referred to in scripture didn’t make it into our Bibles; some believe that, in 1 Cor. 5:9, Paul was referring to an earlier letter he wrote to the saints in Corinth). In any case, it’s illogical to believe that, because Paul wrote at least one letter to the believing Jews to whom Peter wrote, it follows that every letter written by Peter and Paul was written to the same company of saints, and that there are no doctrinal differences between their letters. In fact, the idea that all of Paul’s letters were written to and for those to whom Peter wrote is ruled out by the fact that Peter distinguished between what Paul had written to them and the rest of his letters (notice the words “also in all the epistles” in v. 16).

Part six: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2_73.html

---

[1] Christ’s subsequent words in verses 23-24 do not contradict this; they simply emphasize the fact that, even among God’s covenant people, the sort of worship that pleases God is not merely external. Worship of God must be “in spirit and truth.”