Moving
on in Acts with the apostle Paul:
“You
are versed from the first day on which I stepped into the province of Asia, how
I came to be with you all the time, slaving for the Lord with all humility and
tears, and the trials befell me by the plots of the Jews; how under no
circumstances did I shrink from informing you of anything which was expedient,
and teaching you in public and at your homes, certifying to both Jews and to
Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ...nor yet
am I making my soul precious to myself, till I should be perfecting my career
and the dispensation which I got from the Lord Jesus, to certify the evangel of
the grace of God...heralding the kingdom...for under no circumstances do I
shrink from informing you of the entire counsel of God.
Take
heed to yourselves and to the entire flocklet, among which the holy spirit
appointed you supervisors, to be shepherding the ecclesia of God, which He
procures through the blood of His Own. Now I am aware that, after I am out of
reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet.
And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away
disciples after themselves. Wherefore
watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I cease not
admonishing each one with tears. And now I am committing you to God and to the
word of His grace, which is able to edify and give the enjoyment of an
allotment among all who have been hallowed.” Acts 20: 18-32
Is
this a different evangel than the one Paul preached to the Ephesians, or to
those in Rome, the Corinthians, Galatians, etc?
No, it wasn’t
a different evangel. The “evangel of the grace of God” referred to by Paul in
the above passage was undoubtedly the evangel of the Uncircumcision entrusted
to Paul, and which he heralded among the nations. Unlike the evangel heralded by Peter to Israelites and to Cornelius
and his household, the evangel that was entrusted to Paul for him to herald
among the nations essentially involves the fact that Christ died for our sins.
Anonymous
continues: Regardless of the time period that Paul
spoke these words why would there be a change in the evangel? Paul only ever
mentions One Evangel and it concerns the Lord Jesus Christ, the Christ, the
Anointed One, the Messiah. He preached the same message to both Jews and
Greeks.
The only
evangel mentioned by Paul in these passages is “the evangel of the grace of
God.” And insofar as this evangel contained the essential fact that Christ died
for our sins, it wasn’t the evangel
heralded by Peter that we find recorded elsewhere in the book of Acts. Nor do
we have any recorded instances of Paul heralding the evangel of the
Uncircumcision to the Jews that were in attendance at the synagogues he visited
on Sabbath days. However, it should be noted that “repentance toward God and
faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ” (which Paul said he certified “to both Jews
and to Greeks”) was not something distinct to Paul’s evangel, and will remain
an essential truth even after the body of Christ has been removed from the
earth at the snatching away.
Paul
writes to the Galatians: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who
called you in the grace of Christ, for a different evangel; which is really not
another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the
evangel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to
you an evangel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be
anathema” Gal.1:6-8.
And
to emphasize the importance of only one evangel he repeats it again, that there
can be no other evangel!
Paul did not,
in fact, tell the saints in Galatia (and let alone “repeat”) that “there can be
no other evangel.” He said that if anyone preached an evangel to them other
than that which had already been preached to them, then they were to be
“anathema.” And the “different evangel” that he had in mind was clearly not
even an actual, valid evangel (as is expressed in the words, “which is not
really another”). The “different evangel” Paul had in mind is said to have been
a distorted version of the evangel that Paul had previously heralded to them,
and through which they’d been called “in the grace of Christ.”[1]
It’s already
been shown that Anonymous is flat-out wrong concerning there being only one
evangel, since – as has been noted already – Paul’s evangel of the
Uncircumcision essentially involves the fact that “Christ died for our sins,”
and this essential element is completely missing from all three messages by
Peter (who, again, we’re told was entrusted with the evangel of the
Circumcision) that we find recorded in Acts.
He
constantly struggled to defend the evangel from those who would bring another
evangel to divert the believers away from faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus
Christ and away from His saving grace. He called some of them “stubborn or
disobedient Jews” (Acts 14: 2) and “false brethren” (Gal.2:4).
Therefore,
in light of these scriptures alone how is it possible that now suddenly Paul
makes a statement that contradicts his previous ones concerning the evangel?
Right after he mentioned the false brethren in Galatians who snuck into their
midst to spy out their freedom in Christ in order to bring them into bondage
(slavery to law keeping), he says he did not yield in subjection to them even
for an hour so that “the truth of the evangel be continuing with you”.
Then
comes this seeming contradiction in Gal.2:7: “...perceiving that I have been
entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the
Circumcision” . Is this now speaking of two evangels?
In response to
Anonymous’ question, yes, this verse is
“speaking of two evangels.” What Anonymous refers to as a “seeming
contradiction” does not merely seemingly
contradict Anonymous’ position. It actually does
contradict it.
In all available Greek manuscripts, the terms translated “the
Uncircumcision” and “the Circumcision” in Gal. 2:7 are both in the genitive
(i.e., the possessive) case, meaning that they have to do with the kind or character of
each evangel in view. The same Greek construction found in this verse is used
in the expression translated “evangel of the kingdom” elsewhere. This
latter expression does not, of course, refer to the evangel being
heralded to the kingdom; rather, it means that the character
of the evangel is such that it distinctly pertains to the kingdom. In
the same way, when Paul wrote of the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” and that
“of the Circumcision,” he did not have in view one evangel that was being
heralded to two different categories of human beings, but rather two distinct
evangels which, in some way, pertained to two different
categories of human beings: (1) those described as “the Circumcision”
(circumcision, of course, being the sign of Israel’s covenant relationship with
God), and (2) the “Uncircumcision” (i.e., non-Israelites, or
“Gentiles”).”
Thus, Anonymous is simply in error here. And – as we’ll see
– there is nothing said by Anonymous which in any way demonstrates that Paul
was not actually referring to two evangels in Galatians 2:7.
If
that is the case, then this ought to be the time Paul would explain what the
differences are, because he has just emphatically said there is only one
evangel!
Anonymous must be reading his or her “one evangel” theory in
between the lines of what Paul actually wrote, for nowhere in Galatians 1 did
Paul emphatically (or even implicitly) say that there is “only one evangel.” Anonymous
is, apparently, so in the grips of the “one evangel” theory that he or she
doesn’t realize this. Moreover – and contrary to Anonymous’ assertion - there
is no reason at all why Paul “ought” to have explained in his letter to the
saints in Galatia what the differences between the two evangels referred to in
Galatians 2:7 are. The saints in Galatia already knew what the evangel through
which they had been called consisted of, and that’s all that mattered. It
would’ve served no practical purpose for Paul to have added, “And, by the way,
the evangel of the Circumcision to which I just referred is simply that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God. Believing this evangel is essential for God’s
covenant people if they want to enter into the kingdom that is going to be
restored to Israel, as well as for any Gentiles who are blessing God’s covenant
people and are called to receive an allotment in this kingdom alongside
Israelites.”
However,
this is what he goes on to say:
“...(for
He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me
also for the nations)...that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they
(James, Cephas, and John) for the Circumcision --”
What Paul wrote in Galatians 2:8 is absolutely true, and I
believe every word of it. However – and this next point needs to be stressed,
so I’m going to put it in bold – what
Paul wrote in Galatians 2:8 doesn’t negate the fact that Paul referred to two
evangels in the verse immediately preceding it. Anonymous can’t use Gal.
2:8 to “explain away” what Paul wrote in Gal. 2:7 (as if that were even
possible), because what Paul wrote in verse 8 doesn’t change or give some new
or different meaning to what he wrote in verse 7. Galatians 2:8 doesn’t help Anonymous’
case in the slightest; he or she still must deal with v. 7 (and this, it would
seem, Anonymous is unable or unwilling to do).
If
Peter's so-called Circumcision evangel, differs from Paul's to the nations then
how? Law keeping? Grace and law mixed in a way only the Jews can manage?
What Anonymous refers to as Peter’s “so-called Circumcision
evangel” is the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This evangel is
recorded as having been heralded by Peter in three different places in Acts. In
contrast with this evangel, the evangel of the Uncircumcision entrusted to Paul
consists of the fact that Christ died for our sins and was roused from among
the dead. The only way that Anonymous (or anyone else) could possibly think
that the message heralded by Peter in Acts 2,3 and 10 is the same evangel as
that which Paul said he heralded among the nations is by ignoring an essential element of this evangel (i.e., the truth
that “Christ died for our sins”).
Yet
the scriptures are clear on this. There are only two alternatives: it is either
Law or Faith! Circumcision or Christ! Grace or works! See Rom. 3:19-28; 11:6
Gal. 2:15,16; 4:21-31; 5:1-6.
Every single verse that Anonymous referenced is from Paul’s
letters to the saints in the body of Christ. If Anonymous thinks that what Paul
wrote in these verses is equally applicable to every believer who was alive in Paul’s day (such as, for example,
the “tens of thousands” of believing, circumcised, law-keeping Jews referred to
in Acts 21:20), then Anonymous is simply begging the question in favor of his
or her own position. The fact is that, for
those in the body of Christ, salvation does not involve keeping the
law/good works or being a member of God’s covenant people (the covenant sign of
which is circumcision). However, as I’ve demonstrated in another article, the
same cannot be said for God’s covenant people. Those among God’s covenant
people who want to “enter life” and have an allotment in the kingdom that is to
be restored to Israel must believe that Jesus is the Christ, be water baptized
in his name and “keep the precepts” (in accord with their covenantal
obligation). Their justification is not “by faith alone” but requires obedient
works as well (James 2:24).
“...Abraham's
faith is reckoned for righteousness. How, then, is it reckoned? Being in
circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision.
And he obtained the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith
which was in uncircumcision, for him to be the father of all those believing
through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be reckoned to them, and the
father of the Circumcision, not to those of the Circumcision only, but to those
also who are observing the elements of the faith in the footprints of our
father Abraham, in uncircumcision.
“For
not through law is the promise to Abraham, or to his Seed, for him to be
enjoyer of the allotment of the world, but through faith's righteousness. For
if those of law are enjoyers of the allotment, faith has been made void and the
promise has been nullified...
Therefore it is of faith that it may accord with grace, for the promise
to be confirmed to the entire seed, not to those of the law only, but to those
also of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all, according as it is
written that, 'A father of many nations have I appointed you...' ” Rom.4:10-17
It
is clear that the promise is through faith not through law. The promise made to
Abraham is not only for the Jew but is also for the Gentile because it comes
through Isaac, the son of promise, which is Christ.
Ironically,
one of the verses from the above passage actually undermines the very position Anonymous
was trying to defend by quoting it. In verse 16 we read, “Therefore it is of faith that it may accord with grace, for the promise to be confirmed to the
entire seed, not to those of the law only, but to those also of the faith of
Abraham, who is father of us all, according as it is written that, ‘A
father of many nations have I appointed you...’”
Notice how
Paul had two categories of Abraham’s “seed” in view to which the “promise”
would be confirmed: (1) those who he referred to as “those of the law” and (2)
those who he referred to as “those also of the faith of Abraham.” Who did Paul
have in view as “those of the law?” It couldn’t have been unbelieving Jews, for
the “promise” of which Paul wrote isn’t going to be confirmed to them. But nor
could it have been a reference to those in the body of Christ (whether
uncircumcised or circumcised).
Rather, Paul was referring to those who comprised the believing Jewish remnant,
which Paul elsewhere referred to as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and among
whom we can include the “tens of thousands” of believing, law-keeping Jews
referred to in Acts 21:20. It is these believers among God’s covenant people
who are the true Israel, and who are
being reckoned by God as Abraham’s seed (Rom. 9:6-8). Those in the body of
Christ are referred to as Abraham’s seed as well (since we are “of the faith of
Abraham,” making Abraham our figurative “father”), but we are not the seed of
Abraham that is “of the law” (i.e., the “Israel of God”).
Those
who teach that there are two evangels often connect “correctly cutting the word
of truth” (2Tim.2:15) with “the evangel
of the uncircumcision and the evangel of the circumcision” (Gal.2:7). However,
why is it assumed when the context in Timothy has no indication of that? There
isn't even a hint that it could be referring to the so called two evangels.
Apart from Philetus and Hymeneus teaching error and subverting the faith of
some the context deals a lot with behavior, what Paul says we should be
concerned about. Is it handling accurately the word of truth to teach that
correctly cutting the word means dividing between the Circumcision and
Uncircumcision evangels?
Since Paul did, in fact, refer to two evangels in
Galatians 2:7, then, yes, it would be
an accurate handling of the word of truth to divide between these two evangels
(Anonymous’ position notwithstanding).
There
is only one verse, one witness, that says “the evangel of the Uncircumcision”
and “the evangel of the Circumcision”.
Contrary to
what Anonymous may believe, “one verse, one witness” is sufficient for
validating doctrinal truth (especially since the truth explicitly affirmed in
this verse is consistent with the rest of scripture). And why would Paul even
refer to either evangel as he does here unless the circumstances required it
(as they did on this occasion)?
And
within this context it seems that the explanation is given: ( for He Who
operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also
for the nations)...that we (Paul and Barnabas) are to be for the nations, yet
they (Cephas, James and John) for the Circumcision—Gal.2:8-10. Can it not be said that the following verses
give a double witness that it is not speaking of two evangels, but rather,
ministry to two groups of believers? Yet even more critical is it, to build a
major teaching out of one verse of scripture when numerous verses speak of one
evangel? And one being the operative word concerning the revelation of unity.
As noted earlier, Anonymous can’t use Gal. 2:8 to “explain
away” what Paul wrote in Gal. 2:7, because what Paul wrote in verse 8 doesn’t
change or give some new or different meaning to what he wrote in verse 7. It’s a
simple and straight-forward verse, and Paul would’ve worded what he wrote
differently if he hadn’t believed that one evangel had been entrusted to him,
and another to Peter. And although I do think there are other considerations
which support the truth being affirmed by Paul in Galatians 2:7, for something
in scripture to be true (and to be believed as true), it is not necessary to
have more than “one witness.” A single, straight-forward verse (which is what
Galatians 2:7) is enough. And no amount of appealing to “numerous verses” that
(according to Anonymous) supposedly “speak of one evangel” can overturn the
truth of Galatians 2:7. Every verse that Anonymous thinks supports his or her
“one evangel” position can easily be understood as a reference to either the evangel of the Uncircumcision
(which Paul heralded among the nations) or
to the evangel of the Circumcision.
[1] It’s possible
that this false evangel – which was neither the evangel of the Circumcision nor
the evangel of the Uncircumcision - involved the idea that Christ died only for
the sins of Israel (which would mean that any Gentiles who wanted to benefit
from Christ’s death would have to become proselytes). This would certainly
account for the false views concerning how one is saved (or remains saved) that
he wrote to correct in this letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment