A response to L. Ray Smith concerning the doctrine of the two evangels
Despite my disagreement with the late L. Ray Smith on a number of doctrinal subjects (some of which I consider relatively inconsequential, although some are more important), I have a great deal of respect for him, and I have benefited from a number of his articles (especially those in which he defends the absolute sovereignty of God and the salvation of all). At the same time, I think Smith had a number of pretty glaring “blindspots,” and that the doctrinal position he affirmed concerning how many evangels were being heralded during the apostolic era (and the related subject of Israel's prophesied eonian expectation vs. the expectation belonging to those in the body of Christ) was one of them. And among those in the community of believers of which I'm a part who are opposed to the position being defended in this study (including the brother in Christ whose comments I've been responding to), what Smith wrote on this subject seems to be very influential. In any case, it's not unusual to see L. Ray Smith appealed to and quoted by those who believe that only one evangel was heralded during the apostolic era.
In an attempt to refute the “two evangels” doctrinal position, Smith (in his standard “ranting” fashion) wrote the following in an article entitled, “Exposing the ‘Secret Rapture’ Theory”:
In an attempt to refute the “two evangels” doctrinal position, Smith (in his standard “ranting” fashion) wrote the following in an article entitled, “Exposing the ‘Secret Rapture’ Theory”:
“If Paul's gospel differed in SCOPE, CONTENTS, AND
EXPECTATION, from Peter's gospel then we of necessity have "A DIFFERENT GOSPEL"!! And notice carefully that this
author is not suggesting that Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was different
from that brought by "some who are disturbing you want also to distort the
evangel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7), but that Paul's gospel to the uncircumcision was DIFFERENT FROM THE GOSPEL TO THE
CIRCUMCISION. This would clearly mean that Peter's gospel
was a DIFFERENT GOSPEL from Paul's gospel. What might the implications of such
a thing be?”
The first point that could be made in
response to L. Ray Smith’s rejection of the “two evangels” doctrinal position
is also the most obvious and straight-forward: according to what we read in
Galatians 2:7, Paul clearly did have
in mind two distinct evangels which pertained
to two different
categories of human beings (i.e., those described as “the
Circumcision” and those described as “the Uncircumcision”). The grammar itself
bears this out. The same Greek construction found in Gal. 2:7 is also found in
the expression, “evangel of the kingdom” (which, of course, does not refer to a
gospel that was being heralded to the kingdom, but rather to a
gospel that distinctly pertained to the kingdom).
Notice how, when “quoting” Galatians
2:7, Smith repeatedly used the expression “gospel to the uncircumcision” and “gospel to the circumcision.” The reason Smith used the word “to” here is
because the “one gospel” position to which he held (and indeed to which most
Christians hold) absolutely requires
the use of “to” rather than “of” in this verse. That is, the “one gospel”
theory cannot even survive apart from
the term “of” being changed to “to.” In contrast, the view to which I hold
could easily “remain afloat” if the word “of” were replaced with “to” in Gal.
2:7 (for my view that there were, during Paul’s ministry, two callings,
expectations and evangels is not at all dependent on this single verse). But is
the substitution of the term “of” with “to” grammatically valid?
One opponent of the “two evangels”
doctrine attempted to argue that “to” is just as grammatically valid as “of” by
claiming that, in the Greek expression translated “the evangel of the Uncircumcision”
in the CLNT, there is no Greek equivalent to the English word “of” (or “to”). Thus,
according to this objector, the Greek could just as validly be translated, “the
evangel to the Uncircumcision” (thus
supporting the more common view that Paul simply had in view one evangel being
heralded to two different audiences). However, the objector is simply mistaken
here. There is, in fact, a
grammatical equivalent to “of” in the Greek, and thus there is a grammatically valid reason for why
“of” should be used in an English translation of Gal. 2:7 (rather than “to”).
Martin Zender helpfully explains this important
grammatical consideration as follows:
Pertaining to nouns, the ancient Greek language (the language of
the New Testament) has five cases: 1) nominative, 2) vocative, 3) accusative,
4) genitive, and 5) dative. “Case” refers to the way a word functions in a
sentence and how it relates to other words. In English, we determine word
function by the order of a word in a sentence; the Greeks do it by adding
suffixes to words. Rather than define for you each of these cases, I want to
define only the genitive and dative, for these are the cases under
consideration.
The genitive case speaks of possession, character or kind—the
nature of the thing: “the letter of
Sally”; “the music of the Japanese.”
The dative case, on the other hand, speaks of direction—where something is
going: “the letter to Sally”; “the
music to the Japanese.” Thus, the
genitive case comes over into English with “of,” and the dative case with “to.”
Is there a way to tell which case is being used in the Greek in
Galatians 2:7? There is. Besides case, when considering Greek nouns and their
declension there are two considerations: 1) gender, and 2) number. Greek nouns
are either masculine, feminine or neuter (gender), or singular or plural
(number). These considerations determine which letters are added to words in
order to indicate case.
To signify the genitive case of a noun—when the noun is
feminine/singular (as are the nouns “Circumcision” and “Uncircumcision”) and
the noun is preceded by the definite article (i.e. “the evangel of the
Circumcision)—the Greeks add the letters “Eyta” (which looks like this: “H”)
and “Sigma” (which looks like this: “C”) to the definite article, which in this
instance starts with the Greek letter “Tau” (which looks like this: “T”). When
they want to indicate the dative case, the Greeks simply drop the “Sigma.” In Galatians
2:7, the three most ancient Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus; Alexandrinus;
Sinaiticus) all use the “THC” construction (the “Sigma” is present).
The Greek equivalent of the English
word “of” in Gal. 2:7 is, in other words, the genitive case of the nouns used by Paul in this verse. It is this
grammatical fact which makes the expression “evangel of the Uncircumcision” (rather than “to the Uncircumcision”) the
only valid translation in English (just as the expression “evangel OF the
kingdom” is more accurate than “evangel TO the kingdom”). Thus, simply from a grammatical
standpoint alone, we find that L. Ray Smith is wrong “right out of the gate.” And
from this it follows that everything he goes on to say in defense of his “one
gospel” position (which takes for granted his erroneous understanding of Gal.
2:7) is wrong as well.
At this point,
it needs to be emphasized that the “two evangels” doctrinal view in no way
“stands or falls” on Galatians 2:7. In contrast with what seems to be the view
of some, this verse is not an
essential, “supporting pillar” for the “two evangels” position. If anything,
this verse is simply the capstone of the entire “Mid-Acts” dispensational
position. It confirms but does not
provide the foundational support for this position. And – as I tried to
demonstrate in my study “God’s Covenant People” (link) – it’s not necessary to appeal
to Galatians 2:7 in order to make a compelling case for the position that this
verse confirms. Nevertheless, this verse exists (whether one finds it “challenging” or not), and can be understood as providing a clear refutation of those who believe that there was only one
evangel being heralded during the apostolic era. This verse leaves opponents of
the doctrinal position being defended in this study without any good excuse for
believing that there is no single, clear verse in Scripture that affirms the
position to which they're opposed.
L. Ray Smith: “If Peter really had a "different" gospel or evangel from
Paul, and Peter would have on occasion taught in one of Paul's evangelized
areas, would Peter be ANATHEMA (or ACCURSED)? Does anyone really believe such a
thing? Peter? The HEAD APOSTLE Peter, ANATHEMATIZED for the very gospel he was
taught by his Lord and Paul's Lord?”
As should be obvious to the reader, I think that
members of the body of Christ believe the truth concerning Jesus’ Messianic
identity that constitutes the evangel of the Circumcision (i.e., that Jesus is
“the Christ, the Son of God”). What differentiates those in the body of Christ
from those who responded in faith to Peter’s evangelistic messages in Acts 2, 3
or 10 (for example) is simply that we’re
not called to our expectation through
this particular evangel. Our
believing the truth concerning Jesus’ Messianic identity is not what results in our justification.
Rather, the evangel through which God calls us to our expectation (and through
which we’re justified) is the evangel that was entrusted to Paul to herald
among the nations – i.e., the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” (which, again, is
the evangel that those pre-designated to become part of the body of Christ
will, at some point, believe). So the problem of someone like Peter, James or
John heralding the evangel of the Circumcision among the nations does not consist
in the communication of this specific truth. Rather, the problem is in what
bringing the evangel of the Circumcision to the nations would imply, and
involve.
Recall that it is through the heralding of
particular evangel to a particular group of people that people are “called” to
a particular expectation. So for Peter (for example) to have gone to Galatia
and began bringing the evangel with which he was entrusted (and which he’s
recorded as heralding to Israel in Acts 2 and 3) to people from among the
nations would’ve implied that he was
calling them to Israel’s covenant-based expectation. And that’s a big
problem. For – as argued elsewhere – Israel’s covenant-based expectation is an
expectation that belongs to the following two categories of people:
1. Members of God’s covenant people, Israel
(who, being in covenant with God, have certain covenant-based obligations
involving circumcision and the law); and
2. Gentiles who (as Peter learned through the
events involving Cornelius and his household) are “acceptable to God” by virtue
of the fact that they’re “fearing God and acting righteously.”
So, let’s assume that Peter decided he was
going to bring his evangel to believing Gentiles in Galatia. Unless these
believers chose to proselytize and become members of God’s covenant people
(which would’ve involved coming under the law), the only way they could qualify
to even have the evangel of the Circumcision brought to them (i.e., as a way of
calling them to Israel’s eonian expectation) would be for them to first become
“acceptable to God” in the sense that Cornelius and his household were
acceptable to God before Peter
heralded his evangel to them. Recall Peter’s opening words to Cornelius and his
household in Acts 10:34, when he “opened his mouth” to share his evangel with
them: “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.” By “acceptable
to Him,” Peter meant that, by virtue of
their fear of God and righteous conduct in relation to God’s covenant people
(conduct which we find specified in Acts 10:1-4, 22, 33), Cornelius and his
household were able to be accepted
among those who, by faith in the evangel entrusted to Peter, had obtained the forgiveness
of sins and could thus receive eonian life in the kingdom that’s going to be
restored to Israel (for a more in- depth defense of this position, see the
following two-part study: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/gods-covenant-people-response-to.html).
It should also be noted that, for Peter and the
other apostles of the Circumcision, faith in the evangel they heralded (and
having one’s past sins forgiven) required
getting water baptized. For Peter,
water baptism was not optional, but rather 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 forgiven: “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.[1]
Unlike L. Ray
Smith, Paul knew full well what the implications of the Circumcision evangel
being “brought” to Gentile believers were, and thus would not tolerate the
scenario Smith envisioned. But, as we’ll now see, L. Ray Smith’s hypothetical
scenario involving Peter “accidentally” bringing the evangel of the
Circumcision to believing (or unbelieving) Gentiles in Galatia is a completely moot
point. For, according to what we read in Galatians 2:7-9, there was an
agreement among the apostles of the Circumcision and Paul that they would not
be heralding their respective evangels among those outside of the people-groups
for whom they were appointed as apostles. In other words, it was agreed by
Peter, James and John that they would be “for the Circumcision” (with regard to
heralding the evangel of the Circumcision), while Paul and his co-laborers
would be “for the Uncircumcision” (with regard to heralding the evangel of the
Uncircumcision).
Since – in accord
with this agreement – Paul knew that Peter, James and John weren’t going to be bringing
their evangel to the nations in Galatia, Smith's hypothetical scenario involving
Peter (or any other apostles of the Circumcision) “on occasion” teaching “in
one of Paul’s evangelized areas” was not something that Paul feared might
happen. Thus, Paul did not envision a scenario in which Peter would come to be
“anathema.” So, as already stated, Smith’s argument is a completely moot point,
and fails to take Gal. 2:7-9 into consideration. Perhaps in his zealous
hostility toward the “two evangels” view, Smith simply forgot what Paul wrote
here. In any case, his point fails to refute or undermine the doctrinal
position against which he wrote (for more on why L. Ray Smith is completely
mistaken concerning what Paul wrote in Galatians 1:6-9, I encourage the reader
to check out Martin Zender’s refutation of Alan Hess on this subject: http://martinzender.com/ZWTF/ZWTF7.40.pdf).
L. Ray Smith went on to write: “And what if Paul had an occasion to
teach circumcision saints with a gospel that was "different" from the
gospel they receive by the apostles, then what?”
This is yet another moot point by Smith. For the evangel that
was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations (the evangel of the
Uncircumcision) was never heralded by Paul in the synagogues, or to “teach
circumcision saints.” Based on what we read in Acts, the only evangel that Paul
heralded in the synagogues was the evangel of the Circumcision. In accord with
the agreement already referred to, Paul kept his ministry among the nations
distinct from anything he did specifically for the sake of his Jewish brethren
according to the flesh. While there were some Jews who were called by God
through Paul’s evangel, they weren’t called as a result of hearing it preached
by Paul in the synagogues. Rather, they would’ve heard it when Paul was
heralding it among the nations.
L. Ray Smith: “But even II Pet. 3:15 shows how they
welcomed "ALL THE EPISTLES" of Paul which contained Paul's gospel.
And for sure they didn't call Paul "wicked," but rather "BELOVED
BROTHER PAUL." How then is it even conceivable that Paul's gospel and the
gospel of Peter and John were DIFFERENT?”
It’s evident that Paul wrote at least one
letter to the same company of believers to whom Peter wrote (so Smith and I are
in complete agreement on this point). Some think it was the letter to the
Hebrews to which Peter was referring. However, for all we know, it wasn’t God’s
will for the letter by Paul to which Peter was referring 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, Smith is going beyond
what Peter actually wrote when he said that the Jewish believers to whom Peter
wrote “welcomed all the epistles of Paul.” Peter neither said nor implied this.
The most that can be inferred from what Peter
wrote in 2 Pet. 3:15-16 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 the Jewish believers 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). And each of these points is completely
consistent with the “two evangels” position. Moreover, there is no evidence
whatsoever that those to whom Peter wrote his letters were members of the same
company of believers to whom Paul wrote his thirteen letters (i.e., the
“ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body”).
L. Ray Smith: “Maybe it's time we give Peter the
kind of respect and honor that he deserves!”
There is no question
that Peter deserves a great deal of respect and honor. However, Smith’s appeal
to the fact that Peter deserves respect and honor is a poor substitute for an
actual argument against the view he’s criticizing. Giving Peter “the kind of respect
and honor that he deserves” in no way requires the belief that he heralded the
same evangel that Paul heralded among the nations. Nor does it require the belief that
Peter was in the body of Christ (any more than giving John the Baptist or the
prophet Daniel the respect and honor they
deserve requires the belief that they
were in the body of Christ). As I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere, the expectation of
the twelve apostles (Peter included) is tied to the kingdom of God that is
going to be set up on the earth (i.e., the kingdom that is going to be restored
to Israel). The twelve apostles were the leaders of the “little flock” referred
to by Christ in Luke 12:32, and were part of the believing remnant among God’s
covenant nation, Israel. As members of
God’s covenant nation, the twelve apostles have a covenant-based expectation
that is in accord with all of the prophecies concerning Israel’s eonian
destiny. In accord with what Christ himself declared concerning the eonian
destiny of the twelve apostles in Matt. 19:28, they will be sitting on twelve
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Peter will, in other words, be
among “the saints of the Most High” who will be living and reigning on the
earth during the eon to come, and who will be dwelling in “the beloved city”
that we find referred to in Rev. 20:7-9.
In contrast, those believers who constitute the body of Christ
do not share Israel’s covenant-based expectation. Rather than “reigning on the
earth” as “a chosen race,” “a royal priesthood,” and “a holy nation” (in the
words of Peter in 1 Pet. 2:9), our eonian life is going to be enjoyed in the
location where Christ is, presently – i.e., “in the heavens” (2 Cor.
5:1-9). We know that Christ is currently sitting enthroned at the right hand of
God (which is, of course, in heaven itself; see Heb. 8:1; 9:24). In Ephesians
1:20 Christ’s heavenly location is described by Paul as being “among the celestials” (which, in
Eph. 6:12, is also where we’re told the wicked spiritual beings with whom we
“wrestle” are as well). And it is “among the celestials” that those in
the body of Christ will be seated together with Christ (Eph. 2:6; cf. 1:3).
“For,” Paul elsewhere wrote, “our realm is inherent in the heavens” (Phil. 3:20). Thus,
with respect to the locations in which the twelve apostles and the apostle Paul
will be during the eons to come, there could not be a greater difference. The
location of the twelve apostles will be on the earth with the twelve tribes of
Israel, while the location of the apostle Paul (and the company of saints to
which he belongs) will be “in the heavens” and “among the celestials.”
L. Ray Smith: “Is there a Scripture that actually says
that Paul evangelized the same gospel as the apostles? Yes, actually,
there is.”
Smith went on to quote Galatians 1:23-24. The irony here is that, rather than supporting Smith’s
“one gospel” position, what we read in Galatians 1:23-24 actually serves to further confirm the fact that the
evangel Paul heralded among the nations (and through which people were being
called to the expectation associated with the body of Christ) was distinct from the evangel which he
heralded among the Jewish people. To better understand how this is so, let’s
review the timeline of events provided by Paul in Galatians 1-2 and by Luke in
Acts 9-15.
Following his conversion on the road
to Damascus, Paul was filled with the holy spirit and baptized by Ananias. Paul
then traveled to Arabia and remained there for about three years (Gal.
1:17). After returning to Damascus, Paul immediately began heralding Jesus in
the synagogues, trying to convince his Jewish brethren that Jesus “is the Son
of God” and “the Christ” (Acts 9:19-22) – which is precisely the message that
the twelve apostles had been heralding since the events of Pentecost in 30
AD. We read that all who heard him
heralding Jesus were amazed, and said, “Is
not this the one who, in Jerusalem, ravages those who are invoking this Name?” (vv. 20-21)
Paul then went to Jerusalem to stay
with Peter for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18), during which time he “became acquainted with no one different from the apostles, except
James, the brother of the Lord” (v. 19).
Concerning this time in Jerusalem, we read the following in Acts 9:26-29: ”Now, on coming along to Jerusalem, he tried to join the
disciples; and all feared him, not believing that he is a disciple. Yet Barnabas,
getting hold of him, led him to the
apostles and relates to them how he became acquainted with the Lord on the
road, and that He speaks to him, and how, in Damascus, he speaks boldly in the
name of Jesus. And he was with them, going in and out, in Jerusalem. Speaking boldly in the name of the Lord
Jesus, he both spoke and discussed with the Hellenists.”
After an assassination attempt (an
episode omitted by Paul in Gal. 1:18-21), Paul subsequently returned to Tarsus
(the capital of Cilicia) for safety (Acts 9:28-30). And after being found by
Barnabas, Paul and Barnabas spent a year in Antioch (the capital of Syria),
teaching “a considerable throng” of Jews (Acts 11:25). After a short time in
Jerusalem with Barnabas, we read that they returned to Antioch (Acts 12:25). It
is at this point in Paul’s ministry that we read of he and Barnabas being “severed” to God for the work among the
nations to which he’d called them (Acts 13:1-3).
Now, during the entire time prior
to the “severing” of Paul and Barnabas for their ministry among the
nations, there is no indication whatsoever that they had been heralding any
message other than that which the
rest of the apostles had been heralding since the descent of the holy spirit on
Pentecost. Thus, in Galatians 1:23 we read that, during this early period of
Paul’s ministry (from his time in Damascus to his time in Syria and Cilicia),
he had been “evangelizing the faith which once he
ravaged.” In other words, Paul had been
heralding the evangel of the Circumcision exclusively during this time.
And yet, we’re told by Paul in Romans 1:1 that he had been “severed for the evangel of God,”
which is undoubtedly a reference to the same evangel that Paul referred to as
the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” in Gal. 2:7 (Paul referred to his evangel
as the “evangel of God” several times in his first letter to the Thessalonians;
1 Thess. 2:2, 8-9; 3:2). If the evangel for which
Paul had been “severed” is the same evangel that Peter, James
and John were heralding (and which Paul had been heralding among the Jews in
the synagogues), what necessitated a revelation from Christ according to which
Paul and Barnabas had to return to Jerusalem in order to “submit” to those of
repute (i.e., Peter, James and John) the evangel which they had been heralding
among the nations since the time they had been “severed” (Gal. 2:2)?
According to Paul, this private meeting in Jerusalem with Peter,
James and John took place 14 years after his conversion (and
approximately 10-12 years after he’d been in the regions of Syria and Cilicia).
This means that it took place approximately 5-7 years after he and Barnabas had
begun heralding the evangel among the nations. If the truth that Paul and
Barnabas had been heralding among the nations since the events of Acts 13 was
the same truth that Paul had been heralding to his fellow
Israelites in the synagogues since the time covered by Acts 9, such a meeting
would have been completely unnecessary. Recall that, more than 10 years before this meeting in Jerusalem took
place, Paul had already stayed with Peter, and had spoken to both he and James
during this time. They already knew
about his conversion to the truth concerning Jesus’ Messianic identity, and
were aware of the fact that he had been heralding this truth in the synagogues.
And during Paul’s time in Syria and Cilicia (prior to the start of his ministry
among the nations), it became well-known among “the ecclesias in Judea” that Paul was “evangelizing the
faith which once he ravaged” (Gal. 1:23-24)!
Here, then, are the facts:
1. Paul travelled to Jerusalem to become personally acquainted
with Peter and the other apostles (as well as James), and stayed with Peter for
fifteen days (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19). Thus, by this time, the twelve
apostles and James were well aware of Paul’s conversion and of the fact that,
in Damascus, he’d been heralding the evangel which they’d been heralding since the events of Pentecost in 30 AD.
2. Paul then left Jerusalem and travelled to Syria and Cilicia,
during which time it became well-known among “the ecclesias in Judea” that Paul
was “evangelizing the faith which once he ravaged” (Gal. 1:23-24).
3. Approximately ten to twelve years later, Paul – “in accord with a revelation” – went up to
Jerusalem (with Barnabas and Titus) to submit to the apostles and elders there
(“those of repute,” e.g., Peter, John and James) the
evangel which he had been heralding among the nations since the time of the
events referred to in Acts 13:47-49. Evidently, this was done privately, prior
to the Jerusalem Conference.
Based on these facts, we can reasonably infer that the evangel
which Paul and Barnabas had been heralding among the nations – and which they
privately submitted to “those of repute” in Jerusalem – was distinct from the evangel that Paul had
been heralding among the Jews prior to the events of Acts 13:47-49 (for it was
already well-known to Peter, James and John – as well as among “the ecclesias
in Judea” – that Paul believed that Jesus
is “the Son of God” and “the Christ,” and had been heralding this truth among
the Jews). The reason Paul had to submit the evangel which had been entrusted
to him (the evangel of the Uncircumcision) to Peter, James and John is because
it went beyond the
evangel that God had revealed to Peter (Matt. 16:15-17), and which Paul himself
had been heralding exclusively prior
to his being “severed” for his ministry to the nations.
Thus, L. Ray Smith’s appeal to
Galatians 1:23-24 completely backfires on him.
L. Ray Smith: “Let us suppose for a moment (just a
moment mind you), that Peter and Paul really did have and did preach DIFFERENT
gospels. What problems might that create? First of all, it would mean that not
only did they have different gospels from each other, but also that each one
would have had to have their own separate or different gospels as well. Peter
would have had to have two different gospels and Paul would have had to have
two different gospels. You see Paul often went first to the JEWS (which
according to this theory) would have required one gospel, and then when he
taught the Gentiles, he would have needed a second different gospel. And since
Peter taught primarily to the Jews, he would have needed one gospel for them,
but since he also was the first apostle to go to the Gentiles, he would have
also needed a second different gospel for them! NONSENSE!”
As I demonstrated in my two-part study on Acts 15:1-17 (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/gods-covenant-people-response-to.html), Peter did
not have to herald a
different gospel to Cornelius and his house than the one that we’re told was
entrusted to him in Gal. 2:7. Contrary to what most Christians believe,
Cornelius and his house did not, after believing the evangel heralded to them,
become members of the body of Christ (and were not, therefore, “the first
Gentiles” to become part of this particular company of believers). Rather, the eonian
expectation to which they were called through the heralding of the evangel
Peter brought to them was the same expectation to which every Jew prior to this
time (including Peter himself) had been called – i.e., the covenant-based
expectation that those constituting the “Israel of God” will enjoy after Christ
returns to earth. Just like the “sheep” referred to in Matthew 25:31-46 (who
will be blessed because of their treatment of Israel during the time when the
“evangel of the kingdom” shall be “heralded in the whole inhabited earth for a
testimony to all the nations,” in accord with Christ’s words in Matt. 24:14),
Cornelius and his house will be enjoying an allotment in the same kingdom that
the “evangel of the kingdom” pertains to – i.e., the kingdom that is going to
be restored to Israel after Christ returns.
Although
L. Ray Smith was mistaken for thinking that Peter would’ve “needed one gospel
for [the Jews]” and “a second different gospel for [the Gentiles,” his
assumption that Paul would’ve had to have heralded “two different gospels”
during his ministry is 100% correct. However, contrary to what Smith concluded,
there is nothing at all problematic or nonsensical about this. Simply put, the apostle
Paul had two distinct ministries. His first ministry (which took place on the Sabbath,
and usually in the synagogues) involved heralding the evangel through which
Israelites were called to Israel’s covenant-based expectation. However,
beginning around the time of the events recorded in Acts 13:1-12, Paul began
another, separate ministry. This ministry involved heralding the evangel
through which people from among the nations (and a small number of Jews) were
called by God to the eonian expectation that belongs to those in the body of
Christ (as well as establishing and edifying the various ecclesias to which Paul
ended up writing). Although Paul was involved in both of these ministries for
most of his apostolic career as the “apostle of the nations,” he kept them
distinct.
[1] Moreover, in 2 Peter 1:8-9, the “cleansing from the 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 forgiveness they received when they repented and were baptized
involved past sins only, then the forgiveness of their future sins was not
guaranteed or secured by their original “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 forgiveness 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).