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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

After quoting Jesus’ words in John 17:17-23, Anonymous asks, ”Does not this prayer of Jesus include all of us, Jew and Gentile?”  

No, it doesn’t. And Anonymous provides no scriptural evidence at all in support of his or her view that it does. Jesus was, at this time, praying for the unity of a company of believers that predated his death and resurrection, and which shared in Israel’s calling and expectation (and who will thus be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom of God on earth). Even the future believers that Christ included in his prayer in v. 20 (i.e., those who would come to believe on Christ through the heralded word of the twelve apostles) were those who were to become part of the company of believers for whom he was praying at this time. And as even Anonymous would have to admit, the body of Christ didn’t even exist until sometime after Christ’s death and resurrection. Those for whom Christ was praying (and who constituted part of that company of believers that Christ prayed would be “one”) didn’t even believe that Jesus was going to die and be resurrected yet (let alone believe that Christ “died for our sins”)! Thus, Christ was praying for a company of believers that was distinct from the company of believers that would later constitute the body of Christ. The calling and expectation in which this company of believers shared is that which belongs to Israel. 

Does this “one” contradict the “one” of Ephesians?

I’m not exactly sure what it would mean for the “one” referred to by Jesus in John 17:21-23 to “contradict” the “one” referred to by Paul in Ephesians 2:14-16. If Anonymous is simply asking whether those constituting the “one” of John 17 are distinct from those constituting the “one” of Eph. 2, then yes, I think we have scripturally-informed reasons to think that they are.

Is the one that the apostles are with Jesus less than our one in the body of Christ?

I’m also not sure what it would mean for the “one” referred to by Jesus in John 17:17-23 to be “less than our one in the body of Christ” (as Anonymous says). It is, however, a “one” that was constituted by a company of believers whose calling and expectation is distinct from the calling and expectation belonging to those in the body of Christ.

Why cannot these spiritual revelations from John be joined with Paul's Ephesians?

Once again, we find Anonymous using vague, ambiguous language. What does Anonymous mean by “joining” two “spiritual revelations?” Obviously, we can learn from Jesus’ words to his disciples, and there are truths which Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry which transcend time periods and administrations, and which apply just as much to us as they did to the people to whom he spoke. But if by “joining revelations” Anonymous means understanding Jesus to have been addressing and praying for believers in the body of Christ in John 17, then no, we shouldn’t “join these spiritual revelations.”

Jesus Himself said that His words are spirit and life and that the flesh profits nothing! Nothing!

Anonymous is referring to Christ’s words in John 6:63. In the immediate context, Christ’s reference to “the flesh” seems to refer to his own flesh (see John 6:51-56). What Christ was denying in John 6:63 was that the flesh of which he’d been speaking in verses 51-56 was literally a source of eonian life (for what he’d previously said about “eating his flesh” was really about believing on him and receiving/keeping his words). It was those who believed and kept the words that Christ declared during his earthly ministry who would receive eonian life in the kingdom of God. Thus, it was Christ’s words and not the “flesh” of which he’d been speaking which would result in the vivification of those to whom he spoke.

Now, it should be emphasized that there are a number of truths which Jesus affirmed during the time of his earthly ministry which transcend time periods and administrations, and which apply just as much to us as they did to the people to whom he spoke. However, much of what Christ declared during this time – despite being “spirit and life” for those to whom he spoke - does not directly pertain to those in the body of Christ. Christ himself declared that he had not been commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15:24). Christ also made it clear that keeping the precepts of the law was essential to entering into life (see Matthew 5:17-20; 19:16-17; 23:1-3; etc.). Thus, however one understands Christ’s words in John 6:63, they can’t contradict the fact that there was, in fact, great advantage to being “of the house of Israel” during Christ’s earthly ministry. Although being an Israelite was far from sufficient for salvation, it was still the case that salvation was “of the Jews” (John 4:22).[1] Thus, Anonymous cannot appeal to Christ’s words in John 6:63 in support of the position that the doctrinal truth taught by Christ during his earthly ministry and that found in Paul’s thirteen letters is 100% compatible.

FLESH DESIRES PREEMINENCE

Paul not only suffered inordinately because of the evangel entrusted to him, he also spent much time and energy convincing the Jews that Gentiles are now  on par with the Jews in God's economy; that all barriers separating them are now removed through the cross of Christ. The Gentiles now share the same blessings and promises that were given to Abraham, the father of all who believe. Yet now, the same opposition to the truth of the evangel has appeared but, as the other side of the same coin, so to speak. The Gentile is now said to have the higher position in Christ, a celestial allotment, with a future glorified spiritual body like His. Whereas, the Jew is given a lower position, an earthly allotment with a terrestrial body. It's said that we will reign in the celestials and they will reign on earth. And ironically, this is taught by those who believe they are followers of Paul.

Anonymous doesn’t seem to understand the position that he or she is attempting to refute. Of course it’s true that in the body of Christ there is no distinction between those who are circumcised and those who aren’t (and to my knowledge, no one who holds to the position Anonymous is attempting to refute denies this). But Anonymous has not even come close to proving that every circumcised believer during the apostolic era was, in fact, in the body of Christ, and that every believer during this time shared the same expectation.

Whereas, Paul writes in 1Cor.6:2-3, “Or are not aware that the saints shall judge the world?...Are you not aware that we shall be judging messengers, not to mention life's affairs?”

Anonymous’ “whereas” makes it appear as if he or she is going to prove that every believer in Paul’s day shared the same expectation. But is that what 1 Cor. 6:2-3 proves? No. These verses simply provide some insight into what the expectation of those in the body of Christ will involve.

Most likely the majority of Corinthians were Gentiles. Also, it's interesting that in Hebrews celestial is mentioned at least 5 times. Here are three clear references to a celestial expectation mentioned for the Jewish believers:

“In faith died all these, not being requited with the promises, but perceiving them ahead and saluting them, and avowing that they are strangers and expatriates on the earth. For those who are saying such things are disclosing that they are seeking for a country of their own. And, if, indeed, they remembered that from which they came out, they might have had occasion to go back. Yet now they are craving a better, that is, a celestial; wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be invoked as their God, for He makes ready for them a city.” Heb.11:13-16

The celestial city referred to in Hebrews will not be in heaven when it’s inhabited by the saints who are in view. Rather, we’re told that, after the creation of the new heaven and new earth, the new Jerusalem will descend “out of heaven from God.” Thus, the city is only celestial in regard to its source or origin, and not in regard to its location when it will be inhabited by the saints for whom it is being made ready by God. This expectation is, therefore, perfectly consistent with the position that the expectation and calling of the saints to whom the author of Hebrews wrote is distinct from that of the body of Christ.

“Whence, holy brethren, partners of a celestial calling...” Heb.3:1

I think A.E. Knoch’s remarks on this verse will suffice as a response to Anonymous’ appeal to it. Concerning the “celestial calling” referred to in this verse, Knoch remarked as follows in his commentary (emphasis mine):

“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.”

I strongly suspect that Anonymous was not ignorant of the above remarks by Knoch (at the very least, the author likely had access to the commentary in which they’re found). And yet, there is no attempt made by Anonymous to refute what Knoch wrote concerning the “celestial calling” referred to in Heb. 3:1.

Paul also says in Galatians 4:26, “Yet the Jerusalem above is free, who is mother of us all.” Wouldn't these scriptures cause concern to those who would separate what so clearly is joined together in Christ? 

In Galatians 4:26, Paul introduced the “Jerusalem above” as a contrast to the then-present Jerusalem of which the Judaizers were, figuratively, “children” (because of their being in slavery to the law). Paul need not be understood as suggesting that the eonian expectation of the body of Christ was, at the time he wrote, tied to the new Jerusalem (which would make the expectation of the body of Christ inseparable from Israel’s covenant-based expectation).  The imagery Paul used in v. 26 is simply a natural extension of his allegorical argument against the Judaizers, which begins in v. 21. And it must be emphasized that the reason Paul used an allegorical argument from the law in the first place is because it was under the law that, due to a Judaizing influence, some of saints in Galatia wanted to be under. Paul would’ve had no reason to even make mention of the “Jerusalem above” in this letter were it not for the fact that it was a fitting contrast to the present Jerusalem, which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar.

In Paul’s allegorical argument, Hagar (the “slave woman”) represents the old covenant and Mount Sinai, and corresponds to the “present Jerusalem,” who was “in slavery [to the law] with her children” (vv. 24-25). In contrast, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, corresponds to “the Jerusalem above,” who, we’re told, “is free.” Notice that, in verses 26 and 31, both the “Jerusalem above” and Sarah (the “free woman”) are spoken of as if they are the mother of the believers to whom Paul wrote. Obviously, Paul was using figurative, metaphorical language in both instances; neither Sarah nor the “Jerusalem above” are literally the mothers of those to whom Paul wrote. So what is this metaphorical language intended to convey?

In the case of Sarah, believers are (figuratively) her “children” in the sense that we are like her son, Isaac. Isaac represents those who are “children of promise,” and, being free rather than slaves, are consequently “enjoyers of an allotment” (see Gal.  3:29; 4:7; cf. Rom. 8:17). Just as Sarah is figuratively described as our mother (and we her children) because we are like her son Isaac (we resemble him in some important sense), so the “Jerusalem above” is metaphorically said to be “mother of us all” because we are like her future citizens (we resemble them in some important sense). Notice that Paul said the “children” of the earthly Jerusalem were “in slavery.” That is, the earthly Jerusalem that was then present was, figuratively speaking, the “mother” of those who were in slavery (i.e., her law-enslaved citizens).

Since the “Jerusalem above is free,” it follows that her “children” are also free. Just as we are said to be “children” of Sarah because of what we have in common with Isaac (we are like Isaac in that we’re “children of promise”), so the Jerusalem above is metaphorically said to be our “mother” because of the distinguishing characteristic that we share with her future citizens (i.e., we’re free from the law of Moses, as will be the case for the future citizens of the new Jerusalem). But we have no reason to believe that Paul understood those to whom he wrote to actually be citizens of the “Jerusalem above.” Abiding in the new Jerusalem during the final eon is a blessing specifically for Abraham (as the circumcised father of the “Israel of God”) and his faithful, Israelite descendents among the twelve tribes (Heb. 11:8-10; Rev. 21:9-14; 22:3-5). Again, the only reason that Paul even made mention of the “Jerusalem above” in chapter four of Galatians is because it was a fitting contrast to the present Jerusalem, which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar.

In addition to the above remarks, Anonymous would do well to ponder the interesting fact that, in Rev. 21:14, we’re told that the foundations of the new Jerusalem are twelve in number, and that “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lambkin” are engraved on them. The conspicuous absence of Paul’s name from the foundation of the new Jerusalem is, I believe, inexplicable if he’s to be understood as part of the same company of saints to which the twelve apostles belonged, and as having the same calling and expectation as they have. But of course, the new Jerusalem – which is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based expectation – has no need or room for a “thirteenth apostle.” Paul does not belong there, and we should not try to force him into this expectation. Nor should we try to force Peter, James and John into the expectation that belongs to those in the body of Christ. 

Concerning Paul's and Peter's epistles, there are slight differences in terminology with information added or omitted, but no contradictions. There are also many similar words and phrases that are found in each of their writings. Nevertheless, Peter does not teach salvation through works, nor do the other apostles.

The view being articulated by Anonymous - i.e., that there are only “slight differences in terminology” (rather than actual doctrinal contradictions) between the letters of Paul and Peter (and the rest of the letters comprising the Greek scriptures) - is commonly-held among Christians. However, I think it’s also contrary to the facts. Consider the following points:

 1. According to Peter, water baptism was 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 pardoned: “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.

2. In 2 Peter 1:8-9, the “cleansing from the penalties of 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 pardon they received when they repented and were baptized involved past sins only, then the pardon of their future sins was not guaranteed or secured by their original pardon or “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 pardon 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).

3. The believers to whom Peter wrote are described as having come “to the recognition of our Lord, Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:8), and as having fled “from the corruption which is in the world by lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). However, in 2 Peter 2:20-21, we find Peter warning those who have “fled from the defilements of the world by the recognition of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” as follows: If they became yet again “involved” in these “defilements,” their “last state” would be “worse than the first.” These words of exhortation and warning are strikingly similar to what we read in Heb. 6:4-8 and 10:26-31 (see also Christ’s words in Matt. 5:13 and John 15:2, 6). Peter went on to warn, “For it were better for them not to have recognized the way of righteousness, than, recognizing it, to go back to what was behind, from the holy precept given to them” (v. 21). Again, Peter is referring to those who could be characterized as believers in the evangel he heralded, for they had come to “a recognition of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (cf. Matt. 16:15-17; John 20:31). In contrast with what Peter wrote here, it could never be the case that the “last state” of those who have believed the truth of Paul’s evangel (and who have thus been justified through the faith of Christ) could be worse than the state we were in before we came into a realization of the truth.

Although I would agree that merely pointing out differences between what Paul and Peter (or James or John) wrote is not the best way to prove that there were two different companies of believers with two different callings and expectations, I don’t think the differences emphasized above can simply be explained away as ”slight differences in terminology with information added or omitted, but no contradictions.”

Anonymous goes on to state that ”grace is mentioned ten times in 1st Peter.” So what? Grace is not exclusive to those in the body of Christ. James - with whom Peter undoubtedly would’ve been in doctrinal agreement - explicitly taught that the salvation of the believers to whom he wrote among “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” required both faith and works (James 2:14-26). And yet James also affirmed the need for God’s grace: “Yet greater is the grace He is giving. Wherefore He is saying, God the proud is resisting, yet to the humble He is giving grace” (James 4:5-6). James was quoting Proverbs 3:34 here. Significantly, Peter quotes the same exact verse in 1 Pet. 5:5. Since James clearly didn’t see God’s grace and salvation by faith and works as mutually exclusive, we have good reason to believe that Peter didn’t, either. What distinguishes those to whom Peter and James wrote from the saints in the body of Christ is not the need for grace, but the fact that the grace on which their salvation depends is conditionally received; as both James and Peter affirm, it is “to the humble” that God “is giving grace.”

What Peter has to say about Paul's epistles should also be considered:

“Wherefore, beloved, hoping for these things, endeavor to be found by Him in peace, unspotted and flawless. And be deeming the patience of the Lord salvation, according as our brother Paul also writes to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to apprehend, which the unlearned and unstable are twisting, as the rest of the scriptures also, to their own destruction.” 2 Pet.3:14-16

According to the above they are both writing to the same ecclesias and their messages do not contradict each other!

If by, “they are both writing to the same ecclesias,” Anonymous simply means that Paul wrote at least one letter to the same company of believers to whom Peter wrote, then I have no disagreement with the above. However, I think one would be mistaken to infer from this that those to whom Peter wrote were in the body of Christ, or that Peter wrote to the same company of believers to whom Paul wrote his thirteen letters. The most that can be inferred from the above passage 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 them 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).

Some have speculated concerning which of Paul’s letters Peter might have been referring to (with some arguing - without any conclusive evidence - that it must’ve been that letter which we know today as the letter to the Hebrews). However, for all we know, it wasn’t God’s will for the letter by Paul to which Peter referred 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, it’s illogical to believe that, because Paul wrote at least one letter to the believing Jews to whom Peter wrote, it follows that every letter written by Peter and Paul was written to the same company of saints, and that there are no doctrinal differences between their letters. In fact, the idea that all of Paul’s letters were written to and for those to whom Peter wrote is ruled out by the fact that Peter distinguished between what Paul had written to them and the rest of his letters (notice the words “also in all the epistles” in v. 16).

Part six: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2_73.html

---

[1] Christ’s subsequent words in verses 23-24 do not contradict this; they simply emphasize the fact that, even among God’s covenant people, the sort of worship that pleases God is not merely external. Worship of God must be “in spirit and truth.”

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

TOGETHER-BOND OF PEACE

Going back to Ephesians 4, we are entreated to be endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit with the tie or literally together-bond of peace. What else could this together-bond be besides just not arguing or separating? Well, Paul tells us already in Ephesians 2 what that together-bond is:

“For He is our Peace, Who makes both one...that He should be creating the two in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace...And coming He brings the evangel of peace to you, those afar, and peace to those near, for through Him we both have had the access, in one spirit, to the Father.”

There is a lot of peace and oneness now, because of Christ Jesus, Who is our peace. And notice the evangel of peace that He brings to both Jew and Gentile.

Since the time that the evangel of the Uncircumcision first began to be believed by people from among the nations, the body of Christ has included both Jews and Gentiles. And the peace and oneness of which Paul wrote in the above passage from Ephesians 4 is clearly a reference to the oneness of those in the body of Christ. However, this passage in no way supports the idea that every believer in Paul’s day was a member of the body of Christ, or disproves the position that most believing Jews in Paul’s day weren’t in the body of Christ.

ALL ONE BODY

Those who teach two evangels do claim to believe what Paul wrote in Ephesians about the one body but still teach that the apostles, Peter, James and John, are not part of this together-bond body of Christ. On what authority can that be stated? Where is that written? Do the apostles not have the holy spirit, the same spirit the Gentiles receive upon believing on the Lord Jesus Christ?

“For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit.”1 Cor.12:13

To echo Anonymous’ questions above, I ask in turn: On what authority can it be stated that the calling and expectation of Peter, James and John – which was in accord with Israel’s covenant-based promises - ever changed? Where is it written that they became members of that company of saints that began to be formed after Paul was entrusted with an evangel that Peter did not herald (and which essentially involves the truth that Christ died for our sins)? It is not enough to say that Peter, James and John all had the holy spirit, for this fact alone doesn’t make one a member of the body of Christ. The real question is, “Were Peter, James and John spiritually baptized into the same body as Paul and those to whom he wrote?” And in response to this question, I can find no affirmative answer in scripture.

Anonymous then asks, ”How is it that the apostles are not part of this body?” Because Peter, James and John belonged to the believing remnant among God’s covenant people, Israel, and – insofar as this is the case - have a different calling and expectation than the saints in the body of Christ (Paul included). Their status as believing members of God’s covenant people, Israel, means that they are not part of that company of saints which is (and always has been) distinct from God’s covenant people, and which has a calling and expectation that is distinct from Israel’s covenant-based promises.

Ironically, in forcing Peter, James and John into the body of Christ, it is actually the author of the article I’m refuting who ends up creating a divide between members of the body. According to the logical implication of Anonymous’ position, some members of the body of Christ will be enjoying their eonian life in the kingdom of God on the earth (e.g., Peter, James and John), while others will be enjoying their eonian life in “in the heavens” and “among the celestials” (e.g., Paul and the saints to whom he wrote). 

What does Paul go on to say in v.27-28? “Now you are the body of Christ, and members of a part, whom also God, indeed, placed in the ecclesia, first, apostles, second, prophets, third teachers...”

Why would the twelve, especially, Peter, James and John be outside of this body, when God placed in the ecclesia, first, apostles but then leave out the earliest apostles? Wouldn't it be stated somewhere clearly? It is confusing and contradictory to teach that.

Anonymous seems to be implying that, without a verse in scripture that “clearly” and explicitly denies that the twelve apostles are in the body of Christ, it’s unreasonable for anyone to believe that they aren’t. But that itself is an entirely unreasonable position to take. Just because something’s not clearly and explicitly denied to be true in scripture doesn’t mean we ought to therefore affirm it. For example, nowhere in scripture is there a verse or passage that clearly and explicitly denies that God is a “triune being,” but that doesn’t mean God is a triune being. In the same way, there’s no good reason to expect any inspired author to have “stated somewhere clearly” that Peter, James and John weren’t in the body of Christ. However, this doesn’t mean that anyone today is justified in believing that they were in the body of Christ, especially when we know (for example) that the twelve apostles belonged to a company of believers that existed before the body of Christ came into existence, and which had (and has) a calling and expectation that is completely distinct from that which belongs to those in the body of Christ.

Moreover (and as noted earlier), Paul’s words in Eph. 4:7-14 indicate that the apostles which Paul had in view as being members of “the ecclesia which is Christ’s body” were given by Christ after he had already ascended to heaven (and would include men such as Paul himself, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Timothy, etc.). It was those who were given by the ascended Christ who were given “for the up-building of the body of Christ.” This would necessarily exclude the twelve apostles from being the apostles that God “placed in the ecclesia, first.” For again, the twelve were made apostles before Christ’s ascension into heaven (see Matt. 10:1-5; Mark 3:14; 6:7, 30; cf. Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:1-5). Insofar as this is the case, the twelve apostles cannot be among the apostles referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:27-28.

As far as what Anonymous considers “confusing and contradictory,” there’s nothing confusing or contradictory about believing that the body of Christ has had apostles as members since it first came into existence, while also denying that these apostles included the twelve apostles.

And is there an ecclesia that is separate from the body? That teaching has to be read into the scriptures to support it.

There absolutely is “an ecclesia that is separate from” what Paul referred to as “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.“ For example, we read of the “ecclesia in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), which was “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2). And we also read of the ecclesia that Christ referred to in Matthew 16:18, which was being built on the foundational truth that Jesus “is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16). As I’ve argued, this is the truth which constitutes the evangel of the Circumcision. The calling and expectation of this ecclesia (to which Peter and the rest of the twelve apostles belonged) is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based promises, and those constituting this ecclesia will be enjoying their allotment in the kingdom of God on the earth (i.e., the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel, in accord with the expectation of the apostles in Acts 1:6; cf. Acts 1:2-3). It was to Peter – who was entrusted with the evangel of the Circumcision - that Christ gave the “keys” of this kingdom.

God's family is being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cap corner stone, in Whom the entire building, being connected together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord. The only people excluded from this building, ecclesia or body, are those who rejected Christ and unbelievers.

Paul did not write that the “family” of God was “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.”

Anonymous: In fact, Paul wrote earlier in 1Cor.10:1-4: “For I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers all were under  the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual Rock which followed. Now the Rock was Christ.”

How much more can we now say, all are now partaking of the same spiritual food and drink, which is the spiritual body and blood of Christ? All means all, not some, and not just those who followed Paul, or as is taught, those who chose to follow his evangel of grace as opposed to those who chose to stay in the Circumcision evangel entrusted to Peter. That can nowhere be found. Further more, it is God, Who is choosing, and placing every member in the body of Christ, is it not?

Yes, it is God who is choosing and placing people in the body of Christ. But Anonymous is simply begging the question if he or she thinks that this fact proves that every believer in Paul’s day had been chosen by God to be in the body of Christ.

PAUL ONLY?

Concerning Paul versus Peter lets go to 1Cor.1:10-13:

“Now I am entreating you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all may be saying the same thing, and there may be no schisms among you, but you may be attuned to the same mind and to the same opinion. For ...there are strifes among you. Now I am saying this, that each of you is saying, 'I, indeed, am of Paul,' yet 'I of Apollos,' yet 'I of Cephas,' yet 'I of Christ.' Christ is parted! (Christ is divided!) Not Paul was crucified for your sakes! Or into the name of Paul are you baptized?”

How can we say that we are of Paul and not of Peter when Paul tells us not to say that? How can we say we are following Paul and then turn around and contradict the very words he spoke? If we are just of Paul then we are saying that Christ can be divided.

What, exactly, does Anonymous think would make believers today guilty of that of which some of the saints in Corinth were guilty in Paul’s day? Would one be guilty of “dividing” Christ by claiming that Christ – and not Paul, Apollos or Peter – was crucified for our sakes? Of course not. Affirming a doctrinal truth about Christ that does not apply to Paul, Apollos or Peter (or any other man) does not make one guilty of the divisive, schism-creating attitude that was being manifested by those who were saying they were “of” this or that person. Rather, to affirm that something is true of Christ that isn’t true of Paul, Apollos or Peter is simply to affirm the truth.

Now, let’s apply this same principle to the apostle Paul. Is one necessarily guilty of the same divisive, faction-creating attitude and actions that some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of by affirming that Paul – and not Peter  – was “the apostle of the nations” (and thus the apostle commissioned by Christ to bring the evangel entrusted to him to pagan, idol-worshipping Gentiles)? No. Paul himself declared that he was the apostle of the nations (Rom. 11:13), and that he - and not Peter - had been entrusted with “the evangel of the Uncircumcision” (Gal. 2:7). So it’s simply not the case that Christ is being “divided” by those who affirm this truth.

In the same way, Christ is not being “divided” by those who read and study Paul’s thirteen letters as letters which, in contrast with the letters of Peter and James (for example), were written to and for believers who are “of the nations.” If this is what Anonymous thinks some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of (and for which Paul had to rebuke them), then Anonymous is simply mistaken. One is not guilty of “dividing Christ” by affirming that Paul made known certain truths in his letters to the saints in the body of Christ that weren’t made known in the letters of Peter, James or John (including the truth that there even is a company of saints called “the body of Christ”). Nor is one guilty of “dividing Christ” by believing that Paul was given an administration that was not given to Peter, James or John. Nor is one guilty of “dividing Christ” by believing that Paul – but not Peter, James or John – revealed truths that pertain to those in the body of Christ, but not to those who belong to the “all Israel” which will be saved when Christ returns to the earth.

We could further add that Christ is not being “divided” by those who believe that Paul – but not Peter, James and John – revealed the truth that our justification is “through the faith of Christ,” that those in the body of Christ are going to be snatched away to meet the Lord in the air before the indignation of God begins coming upon the earth, and that our eonian life is going to be enjoyed “in the heavens” and “among the celestials.” If those who agree with everything stated above are guilty of “dividing Christ,” then Paul himself was guilty of “dividing Christ!” But that, of course, is absurd. The fact is that believing in “administrational” (or “dispensational”) differences between Paul and the twelve apostles (or between Paul and James) has nothing at all to do with what Paul was rebuking the saints in Corinth for doing.

In the Corinthian ecclesia there were four different groups each saying we are “of” someone, excluding the others. It's even wrong to say that we are of Christ because that attitude divides. In fact, if we are attuned to the same mind and opinion, the mind of Christ, then we will all be saying the same thing and there will be no schisms in our midst. This is exactly what Paul has said!

Based on what is said above, it would seem that Anonymous and I are in agreement that the problem to which Paul was responding was a divisive attitude among the saints in Corinth. What some of the saints in Corinth were guilty of doing was claiming allegiance to a certain individual as their leader, and forming rival cliques/factions around this leader. The key to understanding the problem to which Paul was responding is, I believe, found in the words, “I am of Christ.” How could it be wrong to affirm that one is “of Christ” unless, in doing so, one was attempting to distance oneself from other members of the same ecclesia, and create separations between those in the body of Christ? Thus, we can conclude that the problem involved a divisive attitude among the saints, and not simply differences concerning doctrine (including the doctrinal question of whether the apostle Peter shared in the calling and expectation of the body of Christ or that of Israel).

THE SPIRIT TEACHES

“So that, let no one be boasting in men,  for all is yours , whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or the present, or that which is  impending---all is yours, yet you are Christ's, yet Christ is God's” (1Cor.3:21-23).

What? All is for us? All things belong to us? Whether Paul or Cephas or...? Have we not heard it taught that we must be careful to not take what doesn't belong to us, what was given to Israel by God in covenant? So why is Paul saying it all belongs to us? Well the scriptures tell us why and the topic of Israel and covenant can be examined later. This whole topic has many aspects to it and it is difficult to isolate each one from the other because they all connect in spiritual understanding.

Everything Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:21-23 is perfectly consistent with the view that the apostle Peter belonged to a company of believers distinct from the body of Christ (i.e., the chosen remnant within Israel). We can learn and benefit from what Peter wrote in his two letters just as we can learn and benefit from what John wrote in Revelation, or from what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch, or from what the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote in their respective works. But that doesn’t mean that what Peter wrote (or any other inspired author) is just as relevant and applicable to the saints in the body of Christ as what Paul wrote in his thirteen letters. 

And lest Anonymous object that Paul specified Peter (Cephas) as being “ours” right after referring to himself and Apollos, Paul went on to include “the world,” “life,” “death,” “the present,” and “that which is impending” as part of the same “all” that is ours! Clearly, it wasn’t Paul’s intent to convey the idea that each of the people or things that are said to be “ours” in 1 Cor. 3:23 benefit us in the same way and in the exact sense (or does Anonymous believe that we benefit from “life” in the same sense that we benefit from “death,” the “last enemy”?). And given that this is obviously the case, this passage is completely useless as a “proof-text” for Anonymous’ position that Peter is an apostle in the body of Christ, or that his letters are just as equally to and for those in the body of Christ as are Paul’s thirteen letters.

ALL SCRIPTURE

If we think that the gospels and the so-called circumcision epistles are not written to us and that we should avoid them lest we begin mixing what belongs in another administration for another people we will suffer loss in our spiritual service and maturity. Paul tells us:

“....  the sacred scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All the scriptures testify of Christ.

“All scripture is inspired by God, and is beneficial for teaching, for exposure, for correction, for discipline in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped, fitted out for every good act.” 2Tim.3:15-17

Anonymous is attacking a straw-man here. Anyone who believes that we should “avoid” all scripture outside of Paul’s letters (and I’m not aware of anyone who does believe this) is clearly mistaken on this point, irrespective of whatever else they may or may not believe. But let’s consider just how consistent Anonymous’ argument is. Anonymous is appealing to Paul’s words that “all scripture” is beneficial to teachers in the body of Christ in order to support the position that “the so-called circumcision epistles” (i.e., Hebrews through Revelation) are just as applicable and relevant to the saints in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen epistles (and, by implication, that the original recipients of the “circumcision epistles” were members of the body of Christ). But would Anonymous say the same thing about everything written in the Scriptures? Is everything that we read in Genesis through Malachi (for example) just as relevant and applicable to those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters? Obviously not. And given that this is the case, Anonymous can’t appeal to Paul’s words in the verses quoted above as evidence that the “circumcision epistles” must also be considered just as relevant and applicable to those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters. It simply doesn’t follow.

Thus, Anonymous’ “all scripture” argument fails.

Part five: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2_91.html

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

Moving on in Acts with the apostle Paul:

“You are versed from the first day on which I stepped into the province of Asia, how I came to be with you all the time, slaving for the Lord with all humility and tears, and the trials befell me by the plots of the Jews; how under no circumstances did I shrink from informing you of anything which was expedient, and teaching you in public and at your homes, certifying to both Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ...nor yet am I making my soul precious to myself, till I should be perfecting my career and the dispensation which I got from the Lord Jesus, to certify the evangel of the grace of God...heralding the kingdom...for under no circumstances do I shrink from informing you of the entire counsel of God.

Take heed to yourselves and to the entire flocklet, among which the holy spirit appointed you supervisors, to be shepherding the ecclesia of God, which He procures through the blood of His Own. Now I am aware that, after I am out of reach, burdensome wolves will be entering among you, not sparing the flocklet. And from among yourselves will arise men, speaking perverse things to pull away disciples after themselves. Wherefore  watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I cease not admonishing each one with tears. And now I am committing you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to edify and give the enjoyment of an allotment among all who have been hallowed.” Acts 20: 18-32

Is this a different evangel than the one Paul preached to the Ephesians, or to those in Rome, the Corinthians, Galatians, etc? 

No, it wasn’t a different evangel. The “evangel of the grace of God” referred to by Paul in the above passage was undoubtedly the evangel of the Uncircumcision entrusted to Paul, and which he heralded among the nations. Unlike the evangel heralded by Peter to Israelites and to Cornelius and his household, the evangel that was entrusted to Paul for him to herald among the nations essentially involves the fact that Christ died for our sins.

Anonymous continues: Regardless of the time period that Paul spoke these words why would there be a change in the evangel? Paul only ever mentions One Evangel and it concerns the Lord Jesus Christ, the Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah. He preached the same message to both Jews and Greeks.

The only evangel mentioned by Paul in these passages is “the evangel of the grace of God.” And insofar as this evangel contained the essential fact that Christ died for our sins, it wasn’t the evangel heralded by Peter that we find recorded elsewhere in the book of Acts. Nor do we have any recorded instances of Paul heralding the evangel of the Uncircumcision to the Jews that were in attendance at the synagogues he visited on Sabbath days. However, it should be noted that “repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ” (which Paul said he certified “to both Jews and to Greeks”) was not something distinct to Paul’s evangel, and will remain an essential truth even after the body of Christ has been removed from the earth at the snatching away.

Paul writes to the Galatians: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ, for a different evangel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the evangel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you an evangel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” Gal.1:6-8.

And to emphasize the importance of only one evangel he repeats it again, that there can be no other evangel!

Paul did not, in fact, tell the saints in Galatia (and let alone “repeat”) that “there can be no other evangel.” He said that if anyone preached an evangel to them other than that which had already been preached to them, then they were to be “anathema.” And the “different evangel” that he had in mind was clearly not even an actual, valid evangel (as is expressed in the words, “which is not really another”). The “different evangel” Paul had in mind is said to have been a distorted version of the evangel that Paul had previously heralded to them, and through which they’d been called “in the grace of Christ.”[1]

It’s already been shown that Anonymous is flat-out wrong concerning there being only one evangel, since – as has been noted already – Paul’s evangel of the Uncircumcision essentially involves the fact that “Christ died for our sins,” and this essential element is completely missing from all three messages by Peter (who, again, we’re told was entrusted with the evangel of the Circumcision) that we find recorded in Acts.

He constantly struggled to defend the evangel from those who would bring another evangel to divert the believers away from faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ and away from His saving grace. He called some of them “stubborn or disobedient Jews” (Acts 14: 2) and “false brethren” (Gal.2:4).

Therefore, in light of these scriptures alone how is it possible that now suddenly Paul makes a statement that contradicts his previous ones concerning the evangel? Right after he mentioned the false brethren in Galatians who snuck into their midst to spy out their freedom in Christ in order to bring them into bondage (slavery to law keeping), he says he did not yield in subjection to them even for an hour so that “the truth of the evangel be continuing with you”.

Then comes this seeming contradiction in Gal.2:7: “...perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision” . Is this now speaking of two evangels?

In response to Anonymous’ question, yes, this verse is “speaking of two evangels.” What Anonymous refers to as a “seeming contradiction” does not merely seemingly contradict Anonymous’ position. It actually does contradict it.

In all available Greek manuscripts, the terms translated “the Uncircumcision” and “the Circumcision” in Gal. 2:7 are both in the genitive (i.e., the possessive) case, meaning that they have to do with the kind or character of each evangel in view. The same Greek construction found in this verse is used in the expression translated “evangel of the kingdom” elsewhere. This latter expression does not, of course, refer to the evangel being heralded to the kingdom; rather, it means that the character of the evangel is such that it distinctly pertains to the kingdom. In the same way, when Paul wrote of the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” and that “of the Circumcision,” he did not have in view one evangel that was being heralded to two different categories of human beings, but rather two distinct evangels which, in some way, pertained to two different categories of human beings: (1) those described as “the Circumcision” (circumcision, of course, being the sign of Israel’s covenant relationship with God), and (2) the “Uncircumcision” (i.e., non-Israelites, or “Gentiles”).” 

Thus, Anonymous is simply in error here. And – as we’ll see – there is nothing said by Anonymous which in any way demonstrates that Paul was not actually referring to two evangels in Galatians 2:7. 

If that is the case, then this ought to be the time Paul would explain what the differences are, because he has just emphatically said there is only one evangel!

Anonymous must be reading his or her “one evangel” theory in between the lines of what Paul actually wrote, for nowhere in Galatians 1 did Paul emphatically (or even implicitly) say that there is “only one evangel.” Anonymous is, apparently, so in the grips of the “one evangel” theory that he or she doesn’t realize this. Moreover – and contrary to Anonymous’ assertion - there is no reason at all why Paul “ought” to have explained in his letter to the saints in Galatia what the differences between the two evangels referred to in Galatians 2:7 are. The saints in Galatia already knew what the evangel through which they had been called consisted of, and that’s all that mattered. It would’ve served no practical purpose for Paul to have added, “And, by the way, the evangel of the Circumcision to which I just referred is simply that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Believing this evangel is essential for God’s covenant people if they want to enter into the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel, as well as for any Gentiles who are blessing God’s covenant people and are called to receive an allotment in this kingdom alongside Israelites.”

However, this is what he goes on to say:

“...(for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations)...that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they (James, Cephas, and John) for the Circumcision --”

What Paul wrote in Galatians 2:8 is absolutely true, and I believe every word of it. However – and this next point needs to be stressed, so I’m going to put it in bold – what Paul wrote in Galatians 2:8 doesn’t negate the fact that Paul referred to two evangels in the verse immediately preceding it. Anonymous can’t use Gal. 2:8 to “explain away” what Paul wrote in Gal. 2:7 (as if that were even possible), because what Paul wrote in verse 8 doesn’t change or give some new or different meaning to what he wrote in verse 7. Galatians 2:8 doesn’t help Anonymous’ case in the slightest; he or she still must deal with v. 7 (and this, it would seem, Anonymous is unable or unwilling to do).

If Peter's so-called Circumcision evangel, differs from Paul's to the nations then how? Law keeping? Grace and law mixed in a way only the Jews can manage?

What Anonymous refers to as Peter’s “so-called Circumcision evangel” is the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This evangel is recorded as having been heralded by Peter in three different places in Acts. In contrast with this evangel, the evangel of the Uncircumcision entrusted to Paul consists of the fact that Christ died for our sins and was roused from among the dead. The only way that Anonymous (or anyone else) could possibly think that the message heralded by Peter in Acts 2,3 and 10 is the same evangel as that which Paul said he heralded among the nations is by ignoring an essential element of this evangel (i.e., the truth that “Christ died for our sins”).

Yet the scriptures are clear on this. There are only two alternatives: it is either Law or Faith! Circumcision or Christ! Grace or works! See Rom. 3:19-28; 11:6 Gal. 2:15,16; 4:21-31; 5:1-6.

Every single verse that Anonymous referenced is from Paul’s letters to the saints in the body of Christ. If Anonymous thinks that what Paul wrote in these verses is equally applicable to every believer who was alive in Paul’s day (such as, for example, the “tens of thousands” of believing, circumcised, law-keeping Jews referred to in Acts 21:20), then Anonymous is simply begging the question in favor of his or her own position. The fact is that, for those in the body of Christ, salvation does not involve keeping the law/good works or being a member of God’s covenant people (the covenant sign of which is circumcision). However, as I’ve demonstrated in another article, the same cannot be said for God’s covenant people. Those among God’s covenant people who want to “enter life” and have an allotment in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel must believe that Jesus is the Christ, be water baptized in his name and “keep the precepts” (in accord with their covenantal obligation). Their justification is not “by faith alone” but requires obedient works as well (James 2:24).

“...Abraham's faith is reckoned for righteousness. How, then, is it reckoned? Being in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision. And he obtained the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which was in uncircumcision, for him to be the father of all those believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be reckoned to them, and the father of the Circumcision, not to those of the Circumcision only, but to those also who are observing the elements of the faith in the footprints of our father Abraham, in uncircumcision.

“For not through law is the promise to Abraham, or to his Seed, for him to be enjoyer of the allotment of the world, but through faith's righteousness. For if those of law are enjoyers of the allotment, faith has been made void and the promise has been nullified...      Therefore it is of faith that it may accord with grace, for the promise to be confirmed to the entire seed, not to those of the law only, but to those also of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all, according as it is written that, 'A father of many nations have I appointed you...' ” Rom.4:10-17

It is clear that the promise is through faith not through law. The promise made to Abraham is not only for the Jew but is also for the Gentile because it comes through Isaac, the son of promise, which is Christ.

Ironically, one of the verses from the above passage actually undermines the very position Anonymous was trying to defend by quoting it. In verse 16 we read, “Therefore it is of faith that it may accord with grace, for the promise to be confirmed to the entire seed, not to those of the law only, but to those also of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all, according as it is written that, ‘A father of many nations have I appointed you...’”

Notice how Paul had two categories of Abraham’s “seed” in view to which the “promise” would be confirmed: (1) those who he referred to as “those of the law” and (2) those who he referred to as “those also of the faith of Abraham.” Who did Paul have in view as “those of the law?” It couldn’t have been unbelieving Jews, for the “promise” of which Paul wrote isn’t going to be confirmed to them. But nor could it have been a reference to those in the body of Christ (whether uncircumcised or circumcised). Rather, Paul was referring to those who comprised the believing Jewish remnant, which Paul elsewhere referred to as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), and among whom we can include the “tens of thousands” of believing, law-keeping Jews referred to in Acts 21:20. It is these believers among God’s covenant people who are the true Israel, and who are being reckoned by God as Abraham’s seed (Rom. 9:6-8). Those in the body of Christ are referred to as Abraham’s seed as well (since we are “of the faith of Abraham,” making Abraham our figurative “father”), but we are not the seed of Abraham that is “of the law” (i.e., the “Israel of God”).

Those who teach that there are two evangels often connect “correctly cutting the word of truth” (2Tim.2:15)  with “the evangel of the uncircumcision and the evangel of the circumcision” (Gal.2:7). However, why is it assumed when the context in Timothy has no indication of that? There isn't even a hint that it could be referring to the so called two evangels. Apart from Philetus and Hymeneus teaching error and subverting the faith of some the context deals a lot with behavior, what Paul says we should be concerned about. Is it handling accurately the word of truth to teach that correctly cutting the word means dividing between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision evangels?

Since Paul did, in fact, refer to two evangels in Galatians 2:7, then, yes, it would be an accurate handling of the word of truth to divide between these two evangels (Anonymous’ position notwithstanding).

There is only one verse, one witness, that says “the evangel of the Uncircumcision” and “the evangel of the Circumcision”.

Contrary to what Anonymous may believe, “one verse, one witness” is sufficient for validating doctrinal truth (especially since the truth explicitly affirmed in this verse is consistent with the rest of scripture). And why would Paul even refer to either evangel as he does here unless the circumstances required it (as they did on this occasion)?

And within this context it seems that the explanation is given: ( for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations)...that we (Paul and Barnabas) are to be for the nations, yet they (Cephas, James and John) for the Circumcision—Gal.2:8-10.  Can it not be said that the following verses give a double witness that it is not speaking of two evangels, but rather, ministry to two groups of believers? Yet even more critical is it, to build a major teaching out of one verse of scripture when numerous verses speak of one evangel? And one being the operative word concerning the revelation of unity.

As noted earlier, Anonymous can’t use Gal. 2:8 to “explain away” what Paul wrote in Gal. 2:7, because what Paul wrote in verse 8 doesn’t change or give some new or different meaning to what he wrote in verse 7. It’s a simple and straight-forward verse, and Paul would’ve worded what he wrote differently if he hadn’t believed that one evangel had been entrusted to him, and another to Peter. And although I do think there are other considerations which support the truth being affirmed by Paul in Galatians 2:7, for something in scripture to be true (and to be believed as true), it is not necessary to have more than “one witness.” A single, straight-forward verse (which is what Galatians 2:7) is enough. And no amount of appealing to “numerous verses” that (according to Anonymous) supposedly “speak of one evangel” can overturn the truth of Galatians 2:7. Every verse that Anonymous thinks supports his or her “one evangel” position can easily be understood as a reference to either the evangel of the Uncircumcision (which Paul heralded among the nations) or to the evangel of the Circumcision.

Part four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-refutation-of-unity-of-spirit-2_61.html

---

[1] It’s possible that this false evangel – which was neither the evangel of the Circumcision nor the evangel of the Uncircumcision - involved the idea that Christ died only for the sins of Israel (which would mean that any Gentiles who wanted to benefit from Christ’s death would have to become proselytes). This would certainly account for the false views concerning how one is saved (or remains saved) that he wrote to correct in this letter.