A Study on the Two Evangels (Part 3)

The Evangel of the Circumcision

Previously, it was noted that, prior to the “severing” of Paul and Barnabas for their work among the nations, the truth which Paul labored to convince his fellow Jews of was simply the fact that “Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:19-22). As we’ll see in this section, this truth which Paul was heralding within the synagogues (and which he continued to herald in the synagogues, even after being severed) is the “evangel of the Circumcision” that was originally entrusted to Peter.

In John’s “Gospel Account,” we find that salvation for an Israelite requires believing “in the name [i.e., in the identity] of the only-begotten Son of God.” When John wrote his account, this was the evangel that Israelites had to believe if they were to be having “life eonian”:

“For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian. For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him. He who is believing in Him is not being judged; yet he who is not believing has been judged already, for he has notbelieved in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” John 3:16-18

To an Israelite, Jesus’ being the “Son of God” meant that he is the prophesied Christ or “Messiah” (i.e., the “Anointed One”) destined to sit on “the throne of his father David” and rule over the house of Jacob – and indeed the entire earth - for the coming eons (2 Sam. 7:1-16;Psalm 2:1-12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:31-33; Acts 2:30-31; cf. Heb. 1:5, 8-9). Jesus’ Lordship is also inseparably linked to his identity as the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 22:41-46; Luke 2:11; Acts 2:34-36). 

Earlier, Christ had told Nicodemus that an Israelite had to be “begotten anew” (i.e., begotten of God) in order to “perceive” and “be entering” the kingdom of God (John 3:3-8). And in John’s first letter we read, “Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God…Now who is he who is conquering the world if not he who isbelieving that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:1, 5) John went on to write in v. 13, “These things I write to you that you who are believing in the name of the Son of God may be perceiving that you have life eonian.”

That believing “in the name of the only-begotten Son of God” meant believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is further confirmed by what John wrote towards the end of his account:

“Indeed then, many other signs also Jesus does, in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this scroll. Yet these are written that you should be believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life eonian in His name.” John 20:30-31 (cf. 1 John 5:1, 5)

For Martha, believing the words Jesus declared to her concerning his being “the Resurrection and the Life,” and the one in whom people needed to believe in order to be living “for the eon,” meant believing the truth that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world”:

Jesus said to her, “I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who is believing in Me, even if he should be dying, shall be living. And everyone who is living and believing in Me, should by no means be dying for the eon. Are you believing this?” She is saying to Him, “Yes, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, Who is coming into the world.” John 11:25-27

This truth concerning Jesus’ identity – that he is the Christ, the Son of God - is the “evangel of the Circumcision” with which Peter, John and the rest of the twelve apostles were entrusted. The first time we read of the content of this evangel being made known to Peter is in Matthew 16:15-17: “He is saying to them, ‘Now you, who are you saying that I am?’ Now answering, Simon Peter said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Now, answering, Jesus said to him, ‘Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood does not reveal it to you, but My Father Who is in the heavens.’” Notice that, according to Christ, God himself had revealed this key truth to Peter.

In addition to the above verses, we find that the central theme of Peter’s speeches (as recorded in Acts 2 and 3) also concerns the Messianic identity of Jesus. Peter even concludes and summarizes his first speech (delivered on Pentecost) with the following declaration: “Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as well as Christ — this Jesus Whom you crucify!” Peter’s goal in speaking was quite clear: to make known to his Jewish audience the truth concerning the identity of Jesus, the man whom Israel had crucified. For those Israelites who believed this evangel, the next step on the path leading to salvation – i.e., eonian life in the kingdom of God - was repenting of their (Israel’s) national sin of crucifying Christ and getting baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of [their] sins,” in order to obtain the “gratuity of the holy spirit” (Acts 2:37-40).

What about Acts 15:7?

In Acts 15:7, we read “Now, there coming to be much questioning, rising, 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.’”

How does this declaration by Peter square with the fact that it was Paul– and not Peter - who was made “the apostle of the nations” (Rom. 11:13) and entrusted with the “evangel of the Uncircumcision?” In order to answer this question, we must first find out the identity of the “nations” referred to by Peter. We’ll then examine the content of the “word of the evangel” that they heard and believed.

We know that Peter was not talking about being chosen for an apostolic ministry to “the nations,” in general, for that would’ve meant being chosen to herald his evangel to idol-worshiping pagans (and there is absolutely no indication from Scripture that Peter ever did this). Rather, what Peter had in mind was a single incident that involved Cornelius and his household. Acts 15:8-9 make it clear that Cornelius and his house comprised the “nations” that Peter had in view in v. 7. It was these Gentiles to whom Peter had been chosen by God to herald the evangel with which he’d been entrusted, in accord with his “apostleship of the Circumcision” (and it was this important experience in Peter’s life that taught him something that would later enable him to say what he did at the “Jerusalem council” in defense of the unique apostolic ministry of Paul). 

It is important to note that Peter was the man to whom Christ had given the “keys of the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 16:19-20). It should, consequently, be of little surprise to the reader that it was through Peter's delegated authority and instrumentality that the kingdom of God was “unlocked” to these God-fearing Gentiles. It also need to be noted that, although Cornelius was uncircumcised (and thus not a “full-fledged” proselyte of Israel), he was by no means representative of most Gentiles living during the time of the Roman Empire. 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). It would seem that Cornelius and his household recognized their place in subordination to the nation of Israel, and desired to worship the God of Israel via the mediation of Israel. Other examples of God-fearers like Cornelius would be the Roman centurion (referred to in Luke 7:1-5) and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:29-38).

It is also worthy of notice when the holy spirit came upon Cornelius and his household. Note that the holy spirit was not poured out upon them after they had heard Peter’s message (a message which, in Acts 11:14, is referred to as “declarations to you [Cornelius] by which you shall be saved, you and your entire house”). Rather, the holy spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his household as Peter “begins to speak” (Acts 11:15). Thus, their speaking in tongues by the power of the holy spirit was not evidence that Cornelius and his household had already been saved, but rather testified to the fact that they were eligible to be saved – i.e., it was confirmation for Peter and his Jewish companions that the kingdom of God had been “unlocked” to these Gentiles.

After Peter had finished speaking (and Cornelius and his household had heard and believed the declarations by which they could be saved), Peter then had Cornelius and his household baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:47-48). Peter’s “bidding” Cornelius and his household to be water baptized was no mere superfluous action on Peter’s part. Water baptism was in accordance with his apostolic commission and Israel’s “salvation program,” as it was essential for one’s receiving the “pardon of sins” (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:35-38). And (as Peter declared in Acts 15:9), God “in nothing” discriminated between Peter and his Jewish companions and Cornelius and his household (i.e., with regards to how they each received salvation).

That the “word of the evangel” which Peter heralded to Cornelius and his household was, in fact, the evangel of the Circumcision, is clear from what we read of its content. Notice how Peter began his message:

“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. Of the word He dispatches to the sons of Israel, bringing the evangel of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all), you are aware, the declaration coming to be down the whole of Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John heralds: Jesus from Nazareth, as God anoints Him with holy spirit and power, Who passed through as a benefactor and healer of all those who are tyrannized over by the Adversary, for God was with Him” (Acts 10:34-38).

As noted earlier, “Christ” means “Anointed One”; thus, Peter’s declaring that Jesus of Nazareth had been anointing by God “with holy spirit and power” is simply another way of identifying him as the Christ, the Son of God (see Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34). Everything Peter said – including the facts concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection – served to support and further validate this central truth. That the truth about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth constituted Peter’s evangel is especially evident from how Peter concluded his message: “And he [God] charges us to herald to the people and to certify that this One is he who is specified by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To this one are all the prophets testifying: Everyone who is believing in him is to obtain the pardon of sins through his name” (Acts 10:42-43).

To say that Jesus is “…he who is specified by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (which, again, was the truth that Peter said he and his co-laborers had been charged by God to herald) was simply another way of saying that Jesus is the Christ, for no other man had been, or would be, given this great authority from God (cf. John 5:21-29).

The Evangel of the Kingdom

But what about the “evangel of the kingdom” that we’re told was heralded by Christ during his earthly ministry (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:15), and which Christ declared would be heralded during the time of great affliction preceding his return at the end of the eon (Matt. 24:14)? Well, for an Israelite to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” was to believe that Jesus is the one about whom numerous Messianic scriptures prophesied – including that found in Daniel 9:24-27 concerning the seventy heptads (490 years) that had to be fulfilled before the kingdom could be restored to Israel (and in which we read of a “Messiah,” or Christ, who would be “cut off”). The fact that Jesus is the Christ was indeed good news for those who believed it, since it meant that the one through whom God was going to “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6; cf. Dan. 2:44; 7:14, 22-27; Luke 12:32) had finally come into the world. And this meant that the time for the setting up of the kingdom of God had drawn “near” (Mark 1:14-15)! But what did Christ mean by “near?”

Concerning this subject, A.E. Knoch notes on pg. 58 of his commentary (emphasis mine),

“…our Lord’s ministry as a whole was, from the prophetic viewpoint, within something over seven years of the kingdom. This is the force of the oft-repeated expression which was the burden of [Christ’s] proclamation, “The kingdom of God has drawn near.” The sixty-ninth heptad of Daniel ended with His triumphal entry (Mark 11:8). Only seven more prophetic years remained, which begin with the confirmation of the covenant with the coming prince (Dan 9:27)…This word [translated “drawn near”] is very carefully chosen. The Lord did not predict positively that the kingdom was “at hand” so that it must come in a short time, but relatively, that it needed little time to make it a reality.”

Thus we see that the “evangel of the kingdom” heralded by Christ during his earthly ministry was not actually a different evangel than the evangel which proclaims his identity as the Christ; rather, the “evangel of the kingdom” and the “evangel of the circumcision” are simply two ways of referring to the same evangel. As heralded by Christ during his earthly ministry, this evangel implied the information more explicitly expressed when heralded by Christ’s twelve apostles - i.e., that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” And as heralded by Christ’s twelve apostles, this evangel implied the information more explicitly expressed when heralded by Christ - i.e., “Fulfilled is the era, and near is the kingdom of God!” Ever since the arrival of Christ into the world, the kingdom of God has been - and will remain - “near,” in the sense that, prophetically speaking, little time needs to transpire in order for it to arrive.

We see the interconnection between the fact of Jesus’ identity and the nearness of the kingdom of God in Peter’s evangelical messages to Israel, as recorded in Acts 2 and 3. At the beginning of his first message, Peter points out that the miraculous occurrence of which his listeners had become witnesses while assembled on Pentecost (see Acts 2:1-12) was the fulfillment of what the prophet Joel had uttered concerning the “last days” (vv. 14-21). Significantly, when quoting Joel, Peter included the portion of Joel’s prophecy that clearly refers to the eon-terminating events that will take place just before Christ’s return to earth, at the end of the 70^th heptad (vv. 19-20). The connection between the fact that Jesus is the Christ and the relative nearness of the kingdom of God is even more explicit in Peter’s next message (see Acts 3:17-23).

From these messages we see that Peter (and those to whom he spoke) knew that, with the arrival of the Messiah into the world, the “last days” had arrived as well; from a prophetic standpoint, little time had to elapse before the kingdom of God would be set up on the earth. The fact that Jesus of Nazareth – the man Israel had rejected and crucified - was “the Christ, the Son of God,” implied that the coming of the kingdom of God was “right around the corner,” prophetically speaking.  This remains the case even during the present administration that was given to Paul, since the length of time during which this administration is to continue was never revealed to Paul or anyone else. Only in hindsight do we know that the time of the present administration was not intended by God to end sometime in the first century A.D., or that it would continue for as long as it has. As soon as this administration ends (which I believe will take place at the time of the snatching away of the body of Christ), the kingdom of God will be even nearer to being established on the earth than it was during Christ’s earthly ministry.

Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-study-on-two-evangels-part-4.html

A Study on the Two Evangels (Part 2)

Two “Salvation Programs” 

Concerning his earthly ministry, we read in Romans 15:8 that Christ was “the Servant of the Circumcision, for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the patriarchal promises.” Commenting on this verse, A.E. Knoch noted the following:

“Christ never went outside the land of Israel. He was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul, on the contrary, was not called until he had left the land of Israel. He was sent to the Uncircumcision. It is of the utmost importance that we recognize these distinctive ministries, for the distinction has been virtually ignored. Christ is taken as the minister to the nations and Paul is forgotten. Yet throughout the Lord's public life He emphasized the fact that His mission was to Israel exclusively. A few proselytes, indeed, received blessing, but they were counted as one with the favored nation. The Syro-Phoenician woman had to take the place of an outcast before she could get a crumb from Israel's board. Paul is a direct contrast to all this.”

In contrast with the view articulated by Knoch above, it would seem that most Christians today do not see Paul’s ministry as being a "direct contrast" to the ministry of Christ while he was on earth. Popular Christian belief notwithstanding, I side with Knoch on this subject. The earthly ministry of Christ and that of Paul were quite different in nature; they were not merely different phases of the same program of salvation. But in order to appreciate why this was the case, we must understand that, during his earthly ministry, Christ was confirming what Paul called the “patriarchal promises” (and, of course, we must further understand what these "patriarchal promises" were!).

The promises that Christ confirmed as the “Servant of the Circumcision” were the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – i.e., the promises that are commonly referred to as the “Abrahamic Covenant.” This covenant is referred to as the “covenant of circumcision” by Stephen in Acts 7:8, since circumcision was the sign or token of this covenant (Gen.17:9-13). As Clyde Pilkington points out in his book God’s Holy Nation (p. 29), the Abrahamic Covenant is “the basis and foundation of National Israel.” Pilkington goes on to note that “the original covenant was laid forth in Genesis 12:1-3” and then later “confirmed and amplified in Genesis 12:6-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-18.” 

In accordance with this foundational covenant, all the nations and kindreds of the earth are to be blessed through Abraham’s seed – i.e., those constituting the nation of Israel (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:17-18; cf. Acts 3:25-26). But Israel must first be saved from her sins before the nation can be a blessing to the rest of the world (Isaiah 59:20-60:1-3; Zech. 8:13, 22-23). In his book Things That Differ (1996), C.R. Stam explains (p. 246), “The great Abrahamic Covenant guaranteed the blessing of the Gentiles through Israel; therefore, Israel first must be saved and blessed. The whole prophetic program is founded on this great covenant.”

In other words, Israel cannot fulfill its prophesied destiny as the chosen nation through which the rest of the nations of the earth will be blessed until it has become a nation constituted by Israelites who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16-18), and whose righteousness is “super-abounding more” than that of the scribes and Pharisees who lived in Christ’s day (Matt. 5:17-20). That is, it must be a nation constituted by Israelites who have been “begotten of God” (1 John 3:7-10; 5:1-4, 13, 18; cf. John 3:3-8) – Israelites who have been freed from their sins by the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5), and on whose hearts God has inscribed his laws (Heb. 8:8-12).

This fact explains why Christ, in order to confirm the patriarchal promises, had to keep his focus on Israel, and was able to declare that he “was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). This also explains why Christ would charge 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.” Only after the nation of Israel becomes constituted by a people fully invigorated by God's spirit will it then become the channel through which blessings may flow to the rest of the nations, in accordance with the patriarchal promises.

Even the so-called “great commission” that Christ gave to his apostles before his ascension presupposed that all the nations and families of the earth would be blessed through a pardoned and believing nation of Israel. As the ones destined to reign over the twelve tribes of Israel in the eon to come, the twelve apostles (with Matthias taking the place of Judas shortly after Christ’s ascension) became the official representatives of the future redeemed nation (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:28-30). As such, the twelve were commissioned to herald, in Christ’s name, “repentance for the pardon of sins, to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). Only after Israel had repented and believed in the name of Christ (and thus received the pardon of sins) could they then go into “all the world” (Mark 16:15) and “disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to be keeping all” of what Christ directed them (Matt. 28:19).

Contrary to their commission-based expectation, the nation of Israel - as a nation - failed to respond positively to the heralding of the twelve apostles with repentance and faith in Christ. Consequently, rather than being able to fulfill their prophetically-based commission - which was to take them from Jerusalem to “all the nations” in the rest of the world - we find the twelve apostles and their co-laborers having to confine their ministry to Jews and proselytes dwelling in the cities of Israel (Matt. 10:23), and to those among the twelve tribes who had been scattered “in the dispersion” (1 Pet. 1:1; James 1:1). Their ministry was, in other words, limited to those among (and those closely associated with) “the circumcision” (Gal. 2:8).

It is after the twelve apostles have found themselves unable to fulfill their worldwide commission from Christ that we then find God doing something completely unexpected: God, in accord with his own secret “purpose of the eons,” raises up another apostle to be the “apostle of the nations,” and to bring an “evangel of the Uncircumcision” to the nations. The ministry of the apostle Paul to the nations should, therefore, be understood as a radical departure from the commission given to the twelve. It simply cannot be seen as a continuation of their prophetic and promise-based program.

In contrast with Christ’s earthly ministry and that of his twelve apostles, Paul’s ministry as the apostle of the nations did not “confirm the patriarchal promises.” When Paul’s administration began, the nations were not being blessed on the basis of the commission that Christ gave the twelve apostles. Thus, the very fact that Paul was made an apostle, and was laboring at all, is proof that he was not (as some have erroneously asserted) laboring under a “Jewish, prophetic economy.”

Paul knew that God’s prophetic purpose concerning Israel as a nation would not begin to find fulfillment until “the complement of the nations” had entered (Rom. 11:25). Until this time comes, “callousness, in part” is to remain on Israel. Paul also described the calloused condition of the majority of Israelites (and thus Israel as a nation) during the present era of world-conciliation as “their casting away” (Rom. 11:15), which implies that this state of affairs involving Israel will continue for as long as people from among the nations are being called out by God to become members of the body of Christ.

This interval during which Israel, as a nation, is “calloused” and “cast away” and people from among the nations are being saved through faith in Paul’s evangel is referred to by Paul as a “most acceptable era” and “day of salvation” (2 Cor. 5:18-21; 6:1-2). And there is no indication that Paul had any idea how long this present period will last; as far as Paul knew, the snatching away could’ve taken place during the lifetime of some of the saints to whom he wrote.

When this event takes place and the body of Christ is removed from the earth, the present administration of the grace of God will come to a close. And with the ushering in of the final, 70^th heptad prophesied in Daniel 9 and the resumption of God’s “prophetic program” involving Israel, the evangel that was entrusted to the apostle Peter – the evangel of the Circumcision - will, once again, be the only evangel by which people will be saved.

Two callings, two expectations and (therefore) two evangels

What sometimes gets left out of the discussion when the subject involves the question of how many evangels there are is the related issue of a person’s “calling” and “expectation.” As I hope to make clear, believing the truth of a particular evangel is one thing; being called through the evangel to the expectation that pertains to it is another thing entirely. One can do the former without the latter also being the case. Once we understand that not every believer has the same exact eonian “expectation” – and that it is by hearing and believing a particular evangel that one is “called” by God to their particular expectation - it becomes much easier to make sense of why there would be two distinct evangels (as well as how a person could believe the truth constituting both evangels while only having one eonian expectation).

There are a number of verses in the Greek scriptures in which the calling and/or expectation of a believer is referred to. Here are just some examples from the letters of Paul:

“I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-7).

“Contend the ideal contest of the faith. Get hold of eonian life, for which you were called, and you avow the ideal avowal in the sight of many witnesses” (1 Tim. 6:12).

“You may not be ashamed, then, of the testimony of our Lord, nor yet of me, His prisoner, but suffer evil with the evangel in accord with the power of God, Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, 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…” (2 Tim. 1:8-9)

“Now we are aware that God is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls also, and whom He calls, these He justifies also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also. (Rom. 8:28-30)

[God is] making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He makes ready before for glory -- us, whom He calls also, not only out of the Jews, but out of the nations also (Rom. 9:23-24)

In Ephesians 1:17-18, Paul prayed that “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may be giving you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the realization of Him, the eyes of your heart having been enlightened, for you to perceive what is the expectation of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of the enjoyment of His allotment among the saints…”

Paul referred to this calling and expectation again a little later in this letter: “I am entreating you, then, I, the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit with the tie of peace: one body and one spirit, according as you were called also with one expectation of your calling” (Eph. 4:1-4).

We find in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 that those “designated beforehand” for the eonian destiny referred to above are called through Paul’s evangel: “Now we ought to be thanking God always concerning you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, seeing that God prefers you from the beginning for salvation, in holiness of the spirit and faith in the truth, into which He also calls us through our evangel, for the procuring of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Before the “casting away” of the majority of unbelieving Israelites (Rom. 11:12-15) and the start of the present (and un-prophesied) “administration of the grace of God” that was given to Paul, the only expectation to which people were being called was that which pertains to God’s covenant people, Israel, and their distinct role and allotment in the eons to come. Peter (whose letters are addressed to Jewish believers) referred to this calling in the following verses:

“As obedient children, not configuring to the former desires, in your ignorance, but, according as He Who calls you is holy, you also become holy in all behavior, because it is written that, Holy shall you be, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15).

“But if, doing good and suffering, you will be enduring, this is grace with God. For for this were you called, seeing that Christ also suffered for your sakes, leaving you a copy, that you should be following up in the footprints of Him Who does no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth…” (1 Pet. 2:20-22)

“Now the God of all grace, Who calls you into His eonian glory in Christ, while briefly suffering, He will be adjusting, establishing, firming, founding you” (1 Pet. 5:10).

We read about this calling and eonian expectation in the letter to the Hebrews as well:

“And therefore [Christ] is the Mediator of a new covenant, so that at a death occurring for the deliverance of the transgressions of those under the first covenant, those who are called may be obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” (Heb. 9:15).

In Hebrews 3:1 the author referred to the calling of these believing Israelites as a “celestial calling”: “Whence, holy brethren, partners of a celestial calling, consider the Apostle and Chief Priest of our avowal, Jesus, Who is faithful to Him Who makes Him, as Moses also was in His whole house.”

We must not understand from the expression “celestial calling” that the eonian expectation of those to whom the author wrote is in (or “among”) the celestials. In another article I’ve defended the position that the eonian destiny of the saints in the body of Christ is heavenly, or celestial, in location, while the eonian destiny of all other saints throughout the ages – including those constituting the “Israel of God” - is terrestrial, or earthly, in location. Concerning the “celestial calling” referred to in Hebrews 3:1, A.E. Knoch remarks as follows in his commentary:

“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.”

Those who are called to the expectation associated with Israel’s eonian destiny are called by God through the “evangel of the Circumcision,” and - after believing this evangel - come to comprise what I believe Paul had in mind when he referred to the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), “Israel” (Rom. 9:6), and the “chosen remnant” (Romans 11:5-7). But of what truth does this evangel consist? 

Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-study-on-two-evangels-part-3.html

A Study on the Two Evangels (Part 1)

A Study on the Two Evangels: Preliminary Considerations

The word translated “gospel” in most translations of scripture is euangelion (“well-message”), and is derived from the noun angelos (“messenger”). Concerning the meaning of this word, Bible.org notes the following: “In classical Greek, a euangelos was one who brought a message of victory or other political or personal news that caused joy. In addition, euangelizomai (the middle voice form of the verb) meant “to speak as a messenger of gladness, to proclaim good news.” Further, the noun euangelion became a technical term for the message of victory, though it was also used for a political or private message that brought joy.”

In the “Greek-English Keyword Concordance” of the Concordant Literal New Testament, we read the following concerning this word: “The term evangel is much to be preferred to “gospel,” as it has the verb evangelize and the noun evangelist in accepted usage, and it is not encumbered with many unscriptural associations and phrases.” Since I agree with this remark, I will be using the term “evangel” rather than “gospel” throughout this article.

It seems that, for most Christians throughout church history, it has been taken for granted that all of Christ’s apostles - Paul included - heralded the same “gospel” or evangel, and that all who have been saved since the coming of Christ into the world (or at least since his death and resurrection) have been saved by virtue of believing the same basic message. This was the doctrinal position of the Presbyterian church in which I was raised, and is what I continued to believe for a number years even after leaving the institutional church. In contrast to this popular and largely unquestioned view, I believe scripture reveals that the evangel which Paul received and heralded among the nations (Gal. 1:16, 2:2) was not the exact same evangel as that which was heralded by Peter in accord with his “apostleship for the Circumcision.” Rather, there were two evangels that were heralded during the "Acts period" - evangels which, although affirming truths that are completely harmonious and concordant in nature, are nonetheless different with regards to their content and "target audience."

That there were, in fact, two evangels being heralded in Paul's lifetime is, I believe, implied by Paul’s words in Galatians 1:1-24 and 2:1-10. In view of what Paul wrote in these passages, consider the following: If the evangel of the Uncircumcision was the same evangel as the evangel of the Circumcision, then why would Paul have to receive it through “a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12)? After being filled with the holy spirit and baptized, Paul traveled to Arabia and remained there for about three years (Gal. 1:17). After returning to Damascus, Paul’s evangelistic efforts were spent heralding Jesus in the synagogues, and trying to convince his Jewish brethren that Jesus “is the Son of God” (Acts 9:19-22) – which is precisely the message that the twelve apostles had been heralding. Paul then went to Jerusalem to relate the story of his conversion to Peter (Gal. 1:18), and - after an assassination attempt (not by Peter, of course!) - Paul subsequently returned to Tarsus for safety (Acts 9:28-30). After being found by Barnabas, Paul and Barnabas spent a year in Antioch, 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 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 work 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. In fact, 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!”

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, 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 fourteen years after he had been in the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21), which means it was approximately 4-7 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. We can infer, then, that the evangel which they’d been heralding among the nations was distinct from the evangel they’d been heralding in the synagogues all this time.

Not only can it be inferred that Paul and his co-laborers had been heralding a different evangel among the nations than that which they been heralding in the synagogues, Paul explicitly distinguishes the evangel of the Uncircumcision from that of the Circumcision in Galatians 2:7. There, Paul wrote that “…I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision…” In all available Greek manuscripts, both the noun translated “Circumcision” and that translated “Uncircumcision” in Gal. 2:7 are 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”). We’ll later see how each evangel pertains to its distinct “group”; for now, it’s sufficient to note that there is, in fact, a difference.

But why would there be two evangels? And what is it that distinguishes one from the other? In order to begin to answer these questions, more needs to be said in defense of the position that Paul’s apostolic ministry and dispensation as the “apostle of the nations” was not a continuation of the apostolic ministry which belonged to Peter, John and the rest of the twelve apostles. In the next section, I will be arguing that Paul’s ministry among the nations involved a different “salvation program” [1] than that according to which the twelve apostles were laboring. Understanding this distinction will, I think, make it easier to understand why there would be (and, I believe, are) two evangels.

Part Two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-study-on-two-evangels-part-2.html

---

[1] By “program” I simply mean, “a plan of things that are done in order to achieve a specific result” or “a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/program).

Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited: A Response to “Proof of Paul’s Progression” (Part Four)

Miscellaneous Subjects

As evidence for his position, Stephen claims that there are things said by Paul in his “pre-prison” letters that are not as relevant or applicable to the body of Christ today as they were when Paul wrote to the saints at that time. The examples he gives are repentance, the Lord's Dinner and the spiritual gifts (e.g., speaking in tongues, performing miracles, healing and prophesying). Stephen writes: “Consider this: if we neglect to rightly divide Paul's epistles, we have no choice but to partake in the Lord's Dinner, seek the spiritual gifts, attempt to heal others, and so forth. Paul instructed his early readers (especially the Corinthians) to do all these things, declaring that Christ had passed them along to him. If Paul's letters are all equally relevant for us today, then either those ordinances are still valid, or Paul contradicts himself.”

The Spiritual Gifts

According to Stephen, partaking in the Lord's Dinner, seeking the spiritual gifts, attempting to heal and prophesying are all “ordinances in keeping with the Israeli program.” In “The Status of the Body of Christ Prior to Acts 28:28,” I argued that the presence and exercise of spiritual gifts (e.g., speaking in tongues, healing, prophesying) at the time when Paul wrote to the Corinthians need not be understood as suggesting that Paul’s ministry at this time was in accord with an “Israeli program.” There is simply no need to divide up Paul’s letters into two distinct “dispensational” categories in order to understand why the spiritual gifts were in operation at that time, but aren’t today. It was because of the unique circumstances in that day that the spiritual gifts were present within the body of Christ when Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

One of the reasons for their manifestation had to do with the validation of Paul’s apostleship as the apostle of the nations (see 2 Cor. 12:11-13; cf. 13:1-3). In Romans 15:18-19, Paul referred to the “signs and wonders” he performed in validation of his apostleship as being “for the obedience of the nations” (not “of Israel” or even “of Greek proselytes”), and - as noted earlier - these signs and wonders had been manifested from the beginning of his ministry to the nations (Acts 15:12). They were never meant to have a permanent place in the administration of the grace of God, but continued to be manifested only for as long as God deemed it necessary. When their manifestation ceased (or began to cease), Paul’s instructions to the saints regarding them ceased to be directly applicable. But again, their ceasing had nothing to do with Israel, or with the ending of one administration and the beginning of a new one.

With regards to the issue of applicability and relevance, something that needs to be kept in mind is that none of Paul’s letters – whether they were written during the “Acts era” or afterwards – were written directly to anyone alive today. No one alive today was among the original recipients of Paul’s letters. This is not to deny that what Paul wrote to the saints in the body of Christ in the first century is more relevant, applicable and useful to believers today than (for example) James’ letter to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. But it does mean that there are some things said by Paul that are less relevant and applicable to the saints today than they were to the saints that Paul had in mind when he wrote his letters – and this, again, is true regardless of when the letters were written.

Paul’s instructions regarding the use of the spiritual gifts that were present within the body of Christ when Paul wrote to the Corinthians isn't the only example of Paul exhorting or entreating the original recipients of his letters to do things which a subsequent change in circumstances (circumstances which had nothing to do with a change in administrations) rendered inapplicable and no longer directly relevant to those reading his letters. Consider, for example, Paul’s request in Ephesians 6:18-20, as well as his subsequent remarks in verses 21-22. It would be absurd to argue that, because what Paul wrote in these verses is not directly applicable or relevant to those reading today, it must be because we live in a different administration or dispensation! The fact is simply that a change in circumstances which had nothing to do with the administration we’re under caused this part of Paul’s letter to lose its direct relevance and applicability to those reading. I’m not, of course, saying that these words of Paul are entirely without applicability, or that they have no benefit for us; I’m simply pointing out what should be obvious: not everything that Paul wrote (whether in his “pre-prison letters” or “prison letters”) directly pertains to us, or to every possible saint whom Paul believed may read his letters. Even for those saints who were among the first to read or hear what Paul wrote in Ephesians, the last few verses ceased to have the same relevance and applicability that they originally had when the circumstances that made it necessary for Paul to write what he did changed.

Consider also Phil. 2:25-30, noting especially Paul’s appeal to the recipients of his letter to “receive him [Epaphroditus].” Can Stephen or any other saints besides those to whom Paul wrote this letter do what Paul requested? No. What about Paul’s further entreatment in Phil. 4:2-3? Again, the answer is no. Or how about what Paul wrote in Colossians 4:2-4, 7-10 and 15-17? Can the saints today do what Paul exhorted the original recipients of this letter to do in these verses? If not, does it mean we exist in a different administration? Or does it simply mean that the circumstances of those to whom Paul originally wrote and our own circumstances are such that what Paul wrote in these verses simply doesn’t directly pertain to us? Obviously, it’s the latter. These are not, of course, the only examples of things that Paul wrote in his letters which, although not directly applicable to us today, Paul nonetheless included in his letters because of the circumstances at that time. But these examples should, hopefully, suffice.

Repentance: It’s Not Just For Jews

According to Stephen, “Repentance is another important distinguisher between Paul’s earlier and later epistles.” Stephen then adds, “Paul’s message in his earlier epistles contained a call to repentance, whereas his latter epistles stressed justification through faith.” The sentence I underlined is perhaps the most perplexing and head-scratching statement Stephen makes in his entire article. So off-base is this statement that I actually thought I’d misread what Stephen wrote immediately after reading it. The most glaring problem with this assertion is the idea that Paul’s “latter epistles stressed justification through faith,” whereas his earlier epistles didn’t. Stephen must have been sleep-deprived when he wrote that. Even a cursory reading of Paul’s letters makes it clear that Paul spoke of justification by faith far more frequently in his “earlier letters” than in any of the letters he wrote while in prison (or after he was imprisoned). In fact, by my count the words “justification,” “justify” or “justified” appear in Paul’s “earlier epistles” (Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Romans) at least 15 times. Contrast this with the number of times that any of these words appear in his “latter epistles”: the word “justified” appears only once, in Titus 3:7. To this fact Stephen may reply, “Yes, but that doesn’t mean the truth of justification isn’t implied in Paul’s other ‘prison epistles’; just because a certain term isn’t explicitly used by Paul doesn’t mean the idea or concept isn’t present.” Agreed, but as we’ll see below, the same could be said concerning the truth of repentance.

Stephen seems to think that repenting and being justified by faith are somehow mutually exclusive – as if one cannot be justified and also be in need of “repenting” of something. But when we understand what “repentance” is, it should be obvious that this is simply not the case. The Greek noun metanoia (usually translated “repentance”) simply means “a change of mind about something or someone”; similarly, its cognate verb metanoeo (“repent”) simply means “to change one’s mind about something or someone.” There is ample evidence in the New Testament, the Septuagint (LXX) and in extra-biblical Greek literature that supports this understanding of the words.[1] The words, by themselves, are completely neutral with regards to that about which one is changing one’s mind (or not), or about which one is being called to change one’s mind (and that includes the action that is expected to follow from the change of mind). Only the context in which the words are found can inform us of this. 

Although metanoia and metanoeo were certainly used in reference to the need of an Israelite to think (and then act) differently with regards to both their individual sins as well as their national unbelief/rejection of Christ, the words have nothing inherently to do with Israel, the Mosaic Law or an Israelite’s view of Christ. For example, Paul declared to the pagan (non-proselytized) Gentiles in Athens that “God is now charging mankind that all everywhere are to repent (metanoeo), forasmuch as He assigns a day in which He is about to be judging the inhabited earth in righteousness by the Man Whom He specifies, tendering faith to all, raising Him from among the dead-” (Acts 17:30-31). In the context, the “repentance” (or change of mind) in view involves turning away from the worship of false gods/idols and worshipping the one true God (as he has revealed himself in “the man whom he specifies,” Christ Jesus).

Again, to repent is simply to change one’s mind about something or someone (which, depending on what one is changing one’s mind about, will result in changed behavior). Our being justified – i.e., our being declared (or reckoned) righteous by God – does not put us beyond the need to change our mind with regards to some erroneous belief(s) we may have, or concerning some unloving, sinful behavior(s) we may be engaged in. It does not put us beyond the need to think differently about something and then to begin to act differently. The saints in Corinth to whom Paul wrote had been “justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11) and thus become “God’s righteousness in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:21). As such, they were “new creations” (v. 17). And yet, Paul did not hesitate to rebuke them for certain sinful and immature behavior they were engaged in, and to exhort them to think and act differently. We find this throughout his first letter to them. Interestingly, however, Paul never explicitly tells the Corinthian believers to “repent” of what they were doing in his first letter. And yet, whenever he rebuked them or exhorted them to think or act differently, their need for repentance (to change their mind) was implied. That this is the case is evident from the fact that Paul spoke of their response to his first letter as appropriately involving repentance (2 Cor. 7:9-10). Although Paul seemed satisfied with how some of the saints had responded to the rebukes and exhortations of his first letter, there were still others within the ecclesia who remained in need of “repenting of the uncleanness and prostitution and wantonness” which they were committing (2 Cor. 12:21). Did this mean that, while they were in need of repentance, they weren’t justified by faith? No; of course not. Their eonian life “in the heavens” was just as secure as when they first believed and received the “earnest of the spirit” (2 Cor. 5:1-5). But their justification (and eonian expectation) notwithstanding, they were still “minors in Christ,” and greatly lacking in maturity (1 Cor. 3:1-4).

Because a need for repentance was implied whenever Paul exhorted the Corinthian saints to think and behave differently than how they were behaving (again, Paul never explicitly mentioned repentance in his first letter to them), it can be reasonably concluded that a need for repentance was equally implied elsewhere in his letters whenever he exhorted the saints of other ecclesias to not behave in a certain way or do certain things. For example, Paul’s exhortations in Ephesians 4:17-32 (such as, “Let him who steals by no means still be stealing; yet rather let him be toiling, working with his hands at what is good, that he may have to share with one who has need”) imply a need for repentance for any of the saints who may have been engaged in such sinful behavior, rather than walking worthily of the calling with which they had been called (Eph. 4:1). If someone was stealing or engaged in prostitution (for example), then such behavior was something of which they were in need of repenting (i.e., changing their mind about). But again, a need for a believer to repent (to think and act differently than how they’re thinking and acting) does not imply that one isn’t justified, or that one is in any danger of losing one’s eonian life.

The Lord’s Dinner

Concerning the “Lord’s dinner” referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17), there is no indication that Paul considered this an ordinance that had to be kept, a “sacrament” that had to be “administered,” or a ceremonial ritual that had to periodically observed by the saints to whom he wrote. There is no evidence that it was considered something that had to be done in order for one to be saved, or in order for one to comply with some standard of righteousness (such as the Mosaic Law). There is, consequently, no contradiction between what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 on this subject, and what he wrote in Colossians 2:16-23 concerning our freedom from having to comply with religious dietary laws, observe religious holy days, etc. 

Although some have claimed that the Lord’s dinner was the Passover feast, there are several considerations that show this position to be mistaken. We know, for example, that there were uncircumcised Gentiles in the Corinthian ecclesia, and that some of the Gentile saints (perhaps most) were even former idol-worshiping pagans (as has been argued in a previous section). However, we know from Exodus 12:43-48 that uncircumcised Gentiles were not allowed to participate in Israel’s Passover feast. In addition to this, it is implied that the meal which Paul had in view was not an annual event (as was Israel’s Passover feast); it was, rather, something that occurred (or, at least, was suppose to occur) whenever they came together to eat (1 Cor. 11:33-34). Not only does the Lord’s dinner not refer to the Passover, but the meal of which Christ and his twelve disciples partook on the last night of our Lord’s mortal life was not the Passover, either.[1] The so-called “last supper” occurred on the night before the Passover (John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42). Although certain preparations were made for the Passover feast by Christ's disciples, Christ knew his intense yearning to celebrate it with his disciples before his suffering would not be fulfilled (Luke 22:15), and that he would not be eating of the Passover meal with his disciples until after the coming of the kingdom of God (v. 16).

If the Lord’s dinner referred to in 1 Corinthians 11 was neither the Passover feast nor some other type of religious ceremony, ritual or ordinance that the body of Christ had to observe, then what was it? It was (and is), I believe, simply this: a shared meal between members of the body of Christ when we come together “in the same place” to fellowship with one another. Whenever this occurs - and there is an endeavor to “keep the unity of the spirit” (Eph. 4:2-4) – our eating and drinking together is the Lord’s dinner (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17). Through the sharing of a meal in a way that displays this unity, the saints in the body of Christ “are announcing the Lord’s death until He should be coming” (1 Cor. 11:26). However, to the extent that disunity characterizes the gathering together of the saints in the body of Christ - and the ecclesia of God is “despised” through selfish, unloving behavior (vv. 21-22) - the Lord’s dinner is not being eaten.

The Jerusalem Council Decrees

Concerning the “essentials” decided upon at the gathering in Jerusalem (as described in Acts 15), Stephen writes:

"When Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles and elders of Jerusalem to discuss the requirements for salvation for the nations, they agreed that while circumcision was not a requirement, other observances of the Mosaic Law--items they deemed "essentials" (v. 28)--were still to be kept (namely: abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood). This decision, agreed upon by Paul in Acts 15, is a far cry from his later evangel of God's grace which requires no law keeping, whatsoever."

As noted in part three, the decrees presupposed that the nations in view were not proselytes. Rather, the decrees presupposed that they came from a pagan, idol-worshipping background. The meeting in Jerusalem had to do with whether or not those among the nations who were “turning back to God”[2] had to become proselytes (which would’ve involved their being circumcised and keeping the law of Moses) in order to be saved. As Stephen would agree, the answer on which everyone agreed was “no.” Becoming proselytized was not required for the believing Gentiles. This decision notwithstanding, Stephen believes that the four things that they decided the nations would be “well engaged” to be abstaining from were “observances of the Mosaic Law” that were “requirements for salvation.” However, nowhere in the letter in which the decrees are mentioned is there any mention of salvation. Nor do we read of any penalties/consequences for violating the decrees; the letter simply ends by saying that if the nations abstain from the things referred to, they “will be well engaged” (CV), “shall prosper” (Rotherham), or “shall do well” (Young). 

Thus, while the decrees were certainly exhortations to avoid certain things, that does not make them “requirements for salvation” or an example of “law keeping.” Being examples of apostolic exhortations, they should be understood as having the same status as the exhortations found throughout Paul’s letters. They are, in other words, standards that reveal how believers should be “walking” in order to “walk worthily of the calling with which [we] were called” (Eph. 4:1; cf. 4:17-19; 5:15-16). They are not a matter of eonian life or death, but of living in a way that honors God and Christ and promotes peace and harmony between believers. These decrees are no more Mosaic commandments than are Paul’s exhortations that believers not steal (Eph. 4:28), that they avoid prostitution and uncleanness (5:3), and that they abstain from getting drunk with wine (v. 18).

But why were these particular “essentials” chosen, as opposed to others? If, as Stephen believes, these four decrees were selected as requirements for salvation and law-keeping for believing Gentiles, then it would be inexplicable why these four were selected and others excluded. If these essentials are understood as a selection from the 613 laws of Moses that the believing Gentiles were to keep in order to be saved, the selection would be completely arbitrary. To help the reader better appreciate this point, consider the following imaginary dialogue between Peter and James:

James: “Okay, so I think we’re all agreed that the salvation of those among the nations who believe doesn’t depend on their being circumcised - which, as we all know, would make them debtors to the whole Mosaic Law [Gal. 5:3]. At the same time, we don’t want any non-proselytized Gentiles to be complete violators of the whole law, either.”

Peter: “Good point. What do you propose, James?”

James: “Let’s just come up with four commandments to make sure at least part of the law will be kept by them. That should suffice, right?”

Peter: “How about abstaining from idol sacrifices, and blood, and what is strangled, and prostitution?”

James: “Sure; sounds good. All those in favor, say ‘Aye!’”

Understood in this way, the decrees and the decision reached would've been completely contrary to everything Paul wrote concerning the nations being justified by faith apart from the works of the law (as revealed most clearly in Galatians and Romans). Had Paul understood this to be the purpose and nature of the decrees, there is no way he would’ve agreed to it. But if these four decrees aren’t a random selection from the Mosaic Law, how then should we understand them? Although several theories have been put forth (such as seeing the decrees as having their basis in the so-called “Noachide Laws”), I believe the best explanation is that all four essentials had to do with customs associated with pagan cults.[3] That is, the decrees did not comprise a random list of things that the nations were to avoid, but were all connected to certain activities/rituals that were performed in (and were seen as inseparable from) the worship of false gods. This understanding of the decrees would explain why Paul would have no problem approving of them; as Paul made clear in 1 Cor. 10:14-22, it was not appropriate for the saints to be participating in activities that were connected with the worship of demons (which Paul understood as being behind all idolatrous practices).

---

[1] See, for example, the article at the following link: https://bible.org/seriespage/3-new-testament-repentance-lexical-considerations

[2] When those from the nations repent of their idolatry and turn to the one true God, it can be spoken of as a “turning back to God.” At one point in history, all humanity (i.e., before there were Israelites) worshipped the one true God. Only later did the worship of the one true God degenerate into the worship of false gods/idols. Thus, when any Gentile repents of his idolatry, he is returning, in a sense, to the primitive state of his ancestors.

[3] For a more in-depth defense of this position, the reader is encouraged to check out the following articles: https://www.gci.org/acts/decree2 and http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Acts%2015.pdf.