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

ONE EVANGEL

This is the administration of the grace of God that was given to Paul for the nations and the secret was made known to him by revelation which also is the secret of the Christ, which, in other generations, is not made known to the sons of humanity as it was now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets: in spirit the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body, and joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel of which I became the dispenser...to me...was granted this grace: to bring the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the nations, and to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the secret, which has been concealed from the eons in God..{Eph.3:2-9}

Is this not the same evangel in verse 6 that is also in Romans 1:16,17, the evangel  is God's power for salvation to everyone believing to the Jew first and also to the Greek revealing God's righteousness for faith?

Christ’s death “for our sins” is an essential element of Paul’s evangel. Paul elsewhere made it clear that Christ’s death was so essential to his evangel that he could refer to the message he heralded as “the word of the cross,” and as essentially involving “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:17-18, 21-24; 2:1-2). But not only is there nothing explicitly said about Christ’s death “for our sins” in Romans 1:1-6, but the emphasis in these verses is not even on Christ’s death. Any verse in which Paul leaves out this crucial element of his evangel cannot be understood as a complete articulation or expression of his evangel. Such is the case in Romans 1:16-17, where Paul was focusing on Jesus’ Messianic identity rather than on the fact that he died for our sins (something which isn’t even mentioned in these verses). When we keep in mind the key elements of Paul’s evangel (especially Christ’s death for our sins), we can conclude that, in these introductory verses of Romans, it was not Paul’s intention to provide a complete articulation of the evangel for which he was severed, or make known the distinctions of his evangel.

Is this not the same evangel that Paul brought to the Jews and the nations in Acts 13:32-48?

“And we are bringing you the evangel which comes to be a promise to the fathers, that God has fully fufilled this for our children in raising Jesus...from the dead...  Let it then be known to you, men, brethren, that through this One is being announced to you the pardon of sins, and from all which you could not be justified in the law of Moses, in this One everyone who is believing is being justified.”  (quoted in part)

This is yet another unwarranted assumption by Anonymous. Whenever Christ’s death for our sins is heralded in addition to the fact of Christ’s resurrection, the “evangel of the uncircumcision” (i.e., the “evangel of which [Paul] became the dispenser”) entrusted to Paul should be understood as being heralded. However, insofar as this truth is not being expressed, we cannot understand the message being heralded to be a complete articulation of Paul’s evangel. In Acts 13:16-41 – which is before we read of Paul “turning to the nations” and heralding his evangel to them (Acts 13:46-48) - we’re provided an account of Paul’s heralding a message to certain Israelites and proselytes in a synagogue in Antioch. Although Paul implicitly referred to Christ’s death – and the events immediately surrounding it – as being the fulfillment of prophecy (verses 28-30), there is nothing stated here concerning Christ’s dying for anyone’s sins. In fact, in this implied reference to Christ’s death, Paul presented it as something in which Christ was entirely passive, rather than as a voluntary act that was “for our sins.”

Not only did Paul not herald the truth that Christ had died for the sins of those among the nations (which one would think would be pretty crucial for one heralding the “evangel of the uncircumcision!”), but Paul didn’t even bother to say that Christ died for the sins of the very people he was addressing on this occasion (a group which consisted of both natural-born Israelites and proselytes). The simple fact is that Paul wasn’t heralding the “evangel of the uncircumcision” on this occasion (which shouldn’t be surprising, given the audience to whom he was speaking on this occasion). He was heralding the same “evangel of the circumcision” that Peter had been heralding to Israel (which concerned the Messianic identity of Jesus rather than the fact that Christ “died for our sins”). The truth that Paul was at pains to drive home to the Israelites and “God-fearers” who were present in the synagogue on this particular Sabbath was the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity (i.e., that Jesus was and is Israel’s promised Messiah). Everything Paul said in this message – including his emphasis on Jesus’ resurrection in verses 30-37 - was intended to point to this central truth.

What about 1Cor.15:1-11? Paul speaking of the evangel which is about the death and resurrection of Christ and who all saw Him after His resurrection, mentioning Cephas, James and the twelve, and over 500 brethren as well as himself, he then says in verse 11: “Then, whether I or they, thus we are heralding and thus you believe.”

Anonymous understands Paul’s words here as evidence that Paul and the twelve apostles heralded the same evangel. According to this view, the truth that Paul had in view as having been heralded by both himself and the rest of the apostles was his evangel in its entirety. However, there is absolutely no evidence that Peter (or any of the other twelve apostles) heralded, as part of their evangel, the death of Christ for the sins of all mankind (which is a truth intrinsic to Paul’s evangel). For example, nowhere in the entire book of Acts is Peter recorded as having ever heralded Christ’s death for anyone's sins. The reader can verify this for themselves by reading through Peter’s evangelistic messages, as recorded in Acts 2:14-40, 3:12-26 and 10:34-43. Was this not the evangel with which Peter had been entrusted (making it “the evangel of the Circumcision”)? I don’t see how this can be denied. How then could it possibly be the same evangel as that which essentially involves the fact that “Christ died for our sins,” and which Paul said had been entrusted to him as “the apostle of the nations?” The answer is that it can’t be the same evangel. Consider the following logical (and scripturally-informed) argument:

1. The evangel which was distinctly 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 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 was heralding was not the evangel entrusted to Paul.

Given the logical conclusion of the above argument, what then did Paul mean in 1 Cor. 15:11? It must be kept in mind by the reader that the reason Paul reminded the Corinthian believers of the elements of his evangel in the first place was to defend the truth of Christ’s resurrection (which was part of his overall defense of the truth of the resurrection of mankind, in general). It is for this reason that Paul emphasized Christ’s post-resurrection appearances (vv. 5-8). Given Paul’s objective in writing this part of his letter, it can be reasonably inferred that the truth which Paul was referring to as being heralded by both himself and those who’d seen Christ alive after his resurrection was simply the truth that Christ had been roused from among the dead. That this was, in fact, what Paul had in mind in v. 11 is confirmed by what Paul wrote in the very next verse (which Anonymous doesn’t quote): “Now if Christ is being heralded that He has been roused from among the dead, how are some among you saying that there is no resurrection of the dead?” It was this truth in particular – and not every element constituting Paul’s distinct evangel – which Paul had in view in v. 11. 

How about the evangel that came through Peter in Acts when a believing sect of the Pharisees rose up to say that the nations must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? Peter said to them, “Men! Brethren! You are versed in the fact that from the days at the beginning God chooses among you, that through my mouth the nations are to hear the word of the evangel and believe. And God, the Knower of hearts, testifies to them, giving the holy spirit according as to us also, and in nothing discriminates between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Why, then, are you now trying God, by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we are strong enough to bear? But through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are believing, to be saved in a manner even as they.”  Acts 15:7-11

Where are the differences between the believing Jews with Peter and Paul with the nations, in regards to the evangel that was preached? The basic truth of the evangel is, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was entombed, and that He has been aroused the third day according to the scriptures, and this was preached by the twelve apostles and Paul.

According to Anonymous, ”the basic truth of the evangel is, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was entombed, and that He has been aroused the third day according to the scriptures.” What Anonymous should have said was that this was the basic truth of the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations. What is (conveniently) overlooked by Anonymous is the fact that, in the message heralded by Peter to Cornelius and his household (as recorded in Acts 10:34-43), there is no mention of one of the essential elements of Paul’s “evangel of the Uncircumcision” – i.e., that “Christ died for our sins.” Thus, Anonymous is simply mistaken in thinking that “the word of the evangel” being referred to by Peter in Acts 15:7 was the same evangel that Paul said had been entrusted to him, and which he heralded among the nations. The simple fact is that the evangel heralded to Cornelius and his household (the “nations” referred to in the above passage) was the evangel of the Circumcision.

Moreover – and even more problematic for Anonymous’ position – we’re actually told why Cornelius was able to have this evangel heralded to him, so that he could receive the holy spirit and be saved. Peter provides us with the reason in Acts 10:34-35 (and note that this was how Peter introduced the evangel he subsequently heralded to Cornelius and his household): “Of a truth I am grasping that God is not partial, but in every nation he who is fearing Him and acting righteously is acceptable to Him.” In this verse we find Peter providing Cornelius and his household with the reason why this small company of Gentiles had been deemed acceptable to God, and why they therefore qualified to have the evangel of the Circumcision heralded to them by Peter: Cornelius and his household were “fearing God and acting righteously.”

But how were they “acting righteously?” According to Acts 10:2, 22, Cornelius was “devout and fearing God with his entire house, doing many alms to the people [Israel] and beseeching God continually…a man just and God-fearing, besides being attested by the whole nation of the Jews” (Acts 10: 2, 22). We also read that a celestial messenger told Cornelius the following in Acts 10:31: “Cornelius, your prayer is hearkened to, and your alms are brought to remembrance in God’s sight.” To whom was Cornelius giving the alms which were “brought to remembrance in God’s sight?” Answer: he was giving alms to the poor among Israel (which is undoubtedly one of the reasons why he was “attested by the whole nation of the Jews”). This God-fearing Gentile was, in other words, acceptable to God (and thus worthy to have the evangel of the Circumcision heralded to him) because he prayed to the God of Israel and was blessing God’s covenant people, Israel. In other words, Cornelius was a prime example of those who belong to that category of Gentiles referred to as “the sheep” in Matthew 25:31-46 (who, because of their righteous treatment of God’s covenant people, will be worthy to receive eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel after Christ's return to earth).

Part three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2_56.html