In this article I’m going to be responding to some critical remarks made by the late L. Ray Smith concerning a doctrinal position associated with the Concordant Publishing Concern (and which Mr. Smith referred to as “foolish,” “deceitful” and a “damnable doctrine of demons”). Although I don’t agree with every distinctive teaching associated with the Concordant ministry (and this includes certain views that could be considered “dispensational” or “administrational” in nature), I am in general agreement with the doctrinal position against which Mr. Smith has written, and therefore view his criticism of it as being criticism of what I believe as well. Thus, after Mr. Smith’s critical remarks were shared in a Facebook post earlier this month by another believer, I felt compelled to write a response to them.
Mr. Smith began his critical remarks as follows:
“I came to understand a doctrine held by most people connected with the Concordant Publishing Concern (which includes Jeff and many of his Biblical teacher friends), with which I absolutely could not disagree more. It is the teaching that there are TWO administrations, and almost two of everything:
• Two ADMINISTRATIONS
• Two CALLINGS
• Two GOSPELS [Peter vs. Paul]
• Two RACIAL distinctions [the circumcision Jews and the uncircumcision Gentiles]
• Two RETURNS of Christ for His TWO sets of saints
• Two RESURRECTIONS [one at a co-called Rapture, and the other for the National lineage of Israel]
• Two REWARDS [again, one for Paul's group and one for Peter's]
• Two area of RULERSHIP [one for Israel on this earth, the other in the Heavens for the believers following Paul's gospel]
• Two DIFFERENT BODIES [one physical, terrestrial for earth-bound saints and one spiritual for those ruling in outer space--yes, they believe heaven is outer space], etc.
Among the doctrinal subjects listed above, the one referred to by Mr. Smith as “two racial distinctions” is, arguably, the most fundamental, and can be understood as supporting (and being presupposed by) each of the other truths mentioned. For this reason, I’ll be addressing this point first (after which I’ll address the remainder of the points in the order in which they’re listed, and in a more cursory manner).
Although Mr. Smith referred to “Two RACIAL distinctions,” I prefer to refer to the distinction that God makes between Israel and the nations as being both racial/ethnic and covenantal in nature (since Israel’s covenantal identity is just as much a distinguishing factor as their racial/ethnic identity). But regardless of the exact terminology one wants to use or emphasize, I believe that the distinction God makes between his people Israel and the rest of the nations is one of the clearest truths we find affirmed in Scripture. For example, shortly after the birth of Christ, Simeon referred to Jesus in his prayer to God as “a Light for the revelation of nations, and the Glory of Thy people Israel” (Luke 2:32; cf. Zechariah’s prophecy in 1:67-79).
Christ himself affirmed this divinely-created distinction between Israel and the nations when he instructed his disciples as follows: “Into a road of the nations you may not pass forth, and into a city of the Samaritans you may not be entering. Yet be going rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). In accord with these instructions (where it’s clear that Christ understood God’s covenant people to have precedence over the nations), Christ later declared, “I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24; cf. Mark 7:27). Hence, we’re told by Paul that Christ – during his earthly ministry – was “the Servant of the Circumcision, for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the patriarchal promises” (Rom. 15:8).
Given that Peter’s apostolic ministry to Israel was simply a continuation of our Lord’s when he was confirming the patriarchal promises, it should come as no surprise that Peter would conclude his second recorded evangelistic message to Israel as follows:
“You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted with your fathers, saying to Abraham: And in your seed all the kindreds of the earth shall be blessed. To you first, God, raising His Boy, commissions Him to bless you by turning away each of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:25-26).
In the words of God to Abraham quoted by Peter, “your seed” refers to the ethnic descendants of Abraham with whom God established a covenant relationship when he gave Abraham “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8). Conversely, the words “all the kindreds of the earth” refer to the nations (who do not share the covenant relationship with God that Israel enjoys). Moreover, Peter’s words “to you first” (which clearly refer to the members of God’s covenant people to whom he was speaking) are in accord with the words of Christ as quoted above (where “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” are given precedence over the nations).
Many examples from unfulfilled Hebrew prophecy could also be provided in which a distinction between Israel and the nations is clearly made by God. For example, in Joel 2:27 and 3:1-3 we read that God declared the following concerning Israel’s future:
“You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God and there is none else. And my people shall never again be put to shame…For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them there, on behalf of my people and my heritage Israel, because they have scattered them among the nations and have divided up my land, and have cast lots for my people…”
The importance of these and other prophetic passages with regard to the present subject cannot be overstated, for they prove that the divinely-created distinction between Israel and the nations is not just a past state of affairs. Rather, it’s a state of affairs that will continue to exist in the future. For as Paul made clear in Romans 11:1-2, God has not “thrust away His people.” “His people” refers, of course, to Israel – i.e., the ethnically distinct people whose very identity is based on the covenants that God has made with them (Rom. 9:3-4). That is, Israel – as an ethnically distinct people in covenant with God – still has a future and expectation that is in accord with what we find prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. According to Romans 11:25-27, the “callousness, in part” that is presently on Israel will be removed after “the complement of the nations” has entered in, and “all Israel” will thus be saved. For, despite the fact that the majority of God’s covenant people are, “as to the evangel…enemies because of [us],” they remain, “as to choice…beloved because of the fathers” (v. 28). The “fathers” to whom Paul referred are, of course, the patriarchs with whom Peter said God “covenanted” in Acts 3:25.
With regard to the “two administrations” doctrine with which Mr. Smith disagreed, the first point that can be made (and with which I’m sure Mr. Smith would’ve agreed) is simply that Paul was, in fact, entrusted with an administration (1 Cor. 9:17). But was this administration with which Paul was entrusted the same administration as that which was in existence before Paul’s ministry among the nations began? No. In Ephesians 3:1-9, Paul referred to the administration given to him as “the administration of the grace of God” and “the administration of the secret.” It’s evident that this administration is inseparably connected with and based on the truths referred to in Eph. 3:6. Notice, also, that every element of the “secret” referred to by Paul in v. 6 is said to have been be “through the evangel of which [Paul] became the dispenser.” Since the truths that Paul referred to as “the secret of the Christ” were not made known to “the sons of humanity” prior to their being made known to Paul (and prior to the time when the evangel of which Paul “became the dispenser” was entrusted to him), it follows that the administration that is based on these truths was not in existence before Paul’s apostolic ministry among the nations began.
It’s further evident that the truths associated with the administration of the grace of God do not belong to Israel’s prophesied program (according to which Peter and the other eleven apostles were ministering prior to Paul’s calling and ministry among the nations began). Although ethnic/covenant-based distinctions are irrelevant within the body of Christ (as Paul makes clear), the same cannot be said for humanity outside of the body of Christ. For, as has been demonstrated above, God himself makes (and will make, in the future) a distinction between the nations and his covenant people, Israel. And this means that the administration of the grace of God that was given to Paul is necessarily distinct from Israel’s prophetic program (of which the divinely-created distinction between Israel and the nations is an essential element).
Moreover, since the administration of Peter and the other eleven apostles was in accord with Israel’s prophetic program, it follows that their administration (which involved heralding the evangel of the kingdom to both Israelites/proselytes and to righteous-acting, God-fearing Gentiles like Cornelius and his house) was distinct from the administration of the grace of God that was entrusted to Paul. The former administration of the twelve apostles pertained to the calling and covenant-based expectation of Israel (which we find prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures), while the administration given to Paul – the apostle of the nations – pertains to the calling and expectation of the body of Christ (which was not made known to “the sons of humanity” until after Paul’s apostolic ministry to the nations began).
With regard to the second and third doctrinal subjects referred to by Mr. Smith, the existence of two gospels presupposes the existence of two callings (for it is through a certain gospel that one is called by God to a certain expectation). Thus, any scriptural evidence that there were two gospels being heralded in Paul’s day will support the related position that there were also two callings. And since (as I’ve argued elsewhere) there is scriptural evidence that there were two gospels being heralded in Paul’s day, we can conclude that there were/are two callings as well (for a defense of the truth that there were, in fact, two evangels being heralded in Paul’s day – and a response to some other objections by Mr. Smith – click the following link: revisiting-two-evangels-controversy). Concerning the positions that Mr. Smith referred to as “two returns of Christ for His two sets of saints” and “two resurrections,” the reader can find a defense of this position in my five-part study on 1 Thess. 4:13-18 (a-commentary-on-1-thessalonians-413-18). As far as the truth of the position referred to by Mr. Smith as “two rewards,” this truth is implied by the fact that there are “two areas of rulership” (for a defense of the truth that the kingdom of God will be present in two realms during the eons to come, see the following two-part study: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/03/clearing-up-some-confusion-concerning.html).
With regard to the last point mentioned by Mr. Smith (“two bodies”), I think it’s reasonable to believe that, during the eons to come, the bodies of the saints will be perfectly suited for whatever realm in which they’ll be enjoying their eonian life. Those saints who are destined to enjoy eonian life in the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel – and who, we’re told, “shall be reigning on the earth” (Rev. 5:10; 20:4-9) – will have bodies that are suited for this location. On the other hand, those saints whose realm is said to be “inherent in the heavens” (Phil. 3:20) and who will be enjoying their eonian allotment “among the celestials” (Eph. 1:14; 2:6-7) will have bodies suited for this realm (and, I should add, I have never believed – and am unaware of any “Concordant” teacher who has ever claimed – that the realm referred to by Paul in Phil. 3:10 as “the heavens” is merely “outer space,” or is limited to this region).
Mr. Smith went on to write:
Here is just enough to acquaint you with this teaching from a 56-page paper sent to me by the author entitled: 'APPREHENDING THE EONS TO ADJUST TO A DECLARATION OF GOD.' (Don't let that title throw you, as I also prove this very title to be UNSCRIPTURAL). In it we read:
"...there was/is/will always be, a difference in the teaching of Paul and the teaching of not only Peter, but our Lord, as well."
And this absurd statement:
"Without keeping the administration of grace clearly separate in our understanding, when we attempt to incorporate the Lord's teaching and that of Cephas, Peter, we can and do contradict proper reasoning."
This statement COMPLETELY OVERWHELMS ME! Notice that the "administration of GRACE" must be kept "SEPARATE" from the "Lord's teaching"!
As argued earlier, I think we have good reason to believe that the administration of the grace of God did not begin until Paul’s ministry among the nations began (Mr. Smith’s apparent astonishment at this teaching notwithstanding). And in accord with this fact, I think we also have good reason to believe that the Lord’s teaching during his earthly ministry did not involve revealing the grace of God that Paul had in mind when he referred to the administration given to him as “the administration of the grace of God.”
As I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (link), the salvation of those to whom Christ ministered prior to his ascension to heaven was not a salvation that depended on “faith only.” Rather, the faith of those to whom Christ was commissioned had to find expression in righteous conduct in order for them to be saved. In fact, the Israelites of Jesus’ day still had just as much of a covenant-based obligation to keep the precepts of the law as did those to whom the following exhortation was originally given: “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel” (Mal. 4:4; cf. Luke 1:5-6, where we read that Zechariah and Elizabeth were “both just in front of God, going in all the precepts and just statutes of the Lord, blameless”). Only in doing these precepts as an expression of their faith in God and Christ would a member of God’s covenant people possess a righteousness that was “super-abounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees,” and thereby qualify for entrance into the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel (Matt. 5:17-20; cf. Matt. 19:16-19; 23:1-3; Rev. 14:12). Otherwise, an Israelite risked finding himself (or herself) among those “workers of lawlessness” to whom Christ will be declaring, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:22-23), and who will be deserving of the judgment associated with Gehenna (Matt. 5:27-30; Mark 9:42-48).
Does this mean that grace was completely absent from the Lord’s teaching during his earthly ministry? No. However, it is worth noting that we don’t have a single example of Christ having actually used the word “grace” at any time during his earthly ministry. This, of course, doesn’t mean that God’s grace wasn’t an implied element in Christ’s teaching. But any expression of God’s grace that was implied in Christ’s teaching was, I submit, consistent with the expression of God’s grace that James referred to in his letter as follows: “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 in this verse (significantly, Peter quotes the same exact verse in 1 Pet. 5:5). And based on the fact that it is “the humble” (rather than “the proud”) to whom we’re told God is “giving grace,” we can conclude that the divine grace on which those to whom James wrote depended is conditionally received. Moreover, this particular manifestation of the grace of God is perfectly consistent with the fact that the salvation of those among “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” to whom James wrote required both faith and works (James 2:14-26).
So what, exactly, distinguishes the divine grace manifested in accord with Israel’s prophetic program from the divine grace manifested in accord with the administration with which Paul was entrusted? Simply put, the differences involve (1) the kind of people to whom God’s grace is being given and (2) the measure of the grace that is being given. These two differences that characterize the administration of the grace of God are actually inseparably related (with the former depending on and presupposing the latter).
With regard to the change in the recipients of God’s grace, we know that those to whom God was giving grace before the start of Paul’s ministry among the nations were either members of God’s covenant people, Israel, or God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles (such as Cornelius and his household, who comprised “the nations” to whom Peter and James referred in Acts 15:7, 14). After Paul’s administration began, however, God’s grace began to be given to those among the nations who, when the evangel of the grace of God was heralded to them, were stumbling about in the darkness of paganism, and had no prior understanding of, or regard for, the one true God (Acts 14:6-18). In Eph. 4:17-19, Paul described the former condition of those among the nations to whom he wrote as follows:
“This, then, I am saying and attesting in the Lord: By no means are you still to be walking according as those of the nations also are walking, in the vanity of their mind, their comprehension being darkened, being estranged from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the callousness of their hearts, who, being past feeling, in greed give themselves up with wantonness to all uncleanness as a vocation.”
In other words, those among the nations to whom God had opened “a door of faith” through the apostolic ministry of Paul and his co-laborers (Acts 14:27) were not the sort of Gentiles that Peter had in mind when, in Acts 10:34-35, he shared his new understanding of what kind of Gentiles were eligible to obtain a pardon of sins and thereby qualify for eonian life in the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel (for a more in-depth defense of the view that “the nations” for whom Paul labored belonged to a different category of Gentiles than the God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles evangelized by Peter in Acts 10:34-48, see the following article: Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited).
With this change in the recipients of God’s grace, we find a corresponding change in the measure of the grace that’s being given as well. Paul referred to this greater manifestation and operation of the grace of God several times in Romans 5:15-17:
But not as the offense, thus also the grace. For if, by the offense of the one, the many died, much rather the grace of God and the gratuity in grace, which is of the One Man, Jesus Christ, to the many super-abounds.
And not as through one act of sinning is the gratuity. For, indeed, the judgment is out of one into condemnation, yet the grace is out of many offenses into a just award. For if, by the offense of the one, death reigns through the one, much rather, those obtaining the superabundance of grace and the gratuity of righteousness shall be reigning in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
It must be emphasized that the bestowing of the superabundant measure of divine grace referred to in these verses is inseparably connected with, and the result of, Christ’s death (which Paul referred to in v. 19 as “the obedience of the One”; cf. Rom. 5:6-11). Not only was this measure of grace not revealed by Christ during his earthly ministry, but it couldn’t even begin to be bestowed by God until after Christ died for our sins. Thus, Paul was not just using terminology that differed from what Christ used during his earthly ministry; rather, he was referring to a manifestation and operation of divine grace that had previously not been made known.
According to Paul, the measure of grace procured by Christ’s death is ultimately going to superabound to all mankind (and thus result in all mankind being “constituted just”). At this present time, however, this superabundant measure of grace is only being enjoyed by those whom God has called through the evangel of the grace of God to become members of the body of Christ. Concerning this super-abounding grace and how it relates to the sins of the believer, Paul went on to write the following in Rom. 5:20-21:
“Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds, that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.”
The “righteousness” to which Paul was referring in v. 21 was previously referred to as the “gratuity of righteousness” in v. 17. This righteousness is the “righteousness of God” that is “through Jesus Christ’s faith,” and which is “for all, and on all who are believing” (Rom. 3:22). It is this righteousness that has been reckoned to every member of the body of Christ, and it is through this righteousness that grace is “reigning…for life eonian, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.” Thus, God’s grace “reigns” over every believer. The believer cannot “out-sin” God’s grace; the more that we sin, the more God’s grace “superexceeds” for us. For – as we’re told in Romans 6:23 – the life eonian that every member of the body of Christ is destined to enjoy is “the gracious gift of God…in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” In accord with this truth, we’re told in 2 Thess. 2:16 that “God, our Father, Who loves us” is “giving us an eonian consolation and a good expectation in grace.”
The measure of divine grace that’s being given to those called to be members of the body of Christ is referred to in Eph. 1:7 as “the riches of [God’s] grace, which He lavishes on us,” and is such that works/acts have no part whatsoever in our salvation. For example, in 2 Tim. 1:8-11 we read that the salvation and calling of those to whom Paul heralded the evangel of the grace of God is ”…not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian...”
Similarly, in Titus 3:3-7 we read the following:
”For, we also were once foolish, stubborn, deceived, slaves of various desires and gratifications, leading a life in malice and envy, detestable, hating one another. Yet when the kindness and fondness for humanity of our Saviour, God, made its advent, not for works which are wrought in righteousness which we do, but according to His mercy, He saves us, through the bath of renascence and renewal of holy spirit, which He pours out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our Saviour, that, being justified in that One's grace, we may be becoming enjoyers, in expectation, of the allotment of life eonian.”
And in Romans 3:22 and 4:4 we read that the justification of those to whom Paul wrote is “by faith apart from works of law” (cf. Rom. 4:4-5). By “works of the law” Paul did not have in mind only those works that we would classify as “ceremonial.” He would’ve understood the works of the law to include, for example, the “Ten Commandments” as well. It should also be kept in mind that the precept in which Paul said the “entire law” is fulfilled – i.e., “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14; cf. Rom. 13:8-10) – is also among the precepts of the law given to Israel (Lev. 19:18; cf. Matt. 22:39-40). Thus, Paul would’ve included this precept as being among the “works of the law” apart from which we in the body of Christ have been justified.
Since it is our “being justified in that One’s grace” that makes it possible for us to be “enjoyers, in expectation, of the allotment of life eonian” – and since we cannot undo our justification by anything we do or fail to do – it follows that that our being saved before the rest of humanity has nothing to do with anything we do or fail to do before our life eonian begins. In accord with this fact, we read the following in Eph. 2:4-9:
“…God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) and rouses us together and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting.”
According to what Paul wrote in these verses, the salvation that every believer in the body of Christ will be enjoying (and which will involve God’s “displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus”) is not “out of” us. It is in no way dependent on or conditioned upon our will or effort. Rather, this salvation is “in grace.” It is “God’s approach present” (or “gift”), and is thus “not of works, lest anyone should be boasting.”
Part two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/01/a-response-to-l-ray-smiths-criticism-of_20.html
No comments:
Post a Comment