God’s Covenant People: A Response to Objections (Part Two)

Objection: What Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:11 indicates that he and the twelve apostles were heralding the same gospel.

In 1 Cor. 15:11, Paul wrote, “Then, whether I or they, thus we are heralding and thus you believe.” Some have understood Paul’s words here as evidence that Paul and the twelve apostles heralded the same evangel. According to this view, the truth that Paul had in view as having been heralded by both himself and the rest of the apostles was his evangel in its entirety. However, there is absolutely no evidence that Peter (or any of the other twelve apostles) heralded, as part of their evangel, the death of Christ for the sins of all mankind (which is a truth intrinsic to Paul’s evangel).

Peter, for example, is not recorded as having ever heralded Christ’s death for mankind’s sins, or as even having heralded Christ’s death for the sins of those to whom he spoke. The reader can verify this for themselves by reading through Peter’s evangelistic messages, as recorded in Acts 2:14-40, 3:12-26 and 10:34-43. Was this not the evangel with which Peter had been entrusted (making it “the evangel of the Circumcision”)? I don’t see how this can be denied. How then could it possibly be the same evangel as that which essentially involves the fact that “Christ died for our sins,” and which Paul said had been entrusted to him as “the apostle of the nations?”

The answer is that it can’t be the same evangel. Consider the following logical (and scripturally-informed) argument:

1. The evangel which was distinctly entrusted to Paul essentially involves the truth that “Christ died for our sins.”

2. The evangel that was heralded by Peter (and of which we have three separate examples in the book of Acts) did not contain the truth that “Christ died for our sins.”

3. The evangel that Peter was heralding was not the evangel entrusted to Paul.

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

Objection: Based on what Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 3:6, we should understand those constituting the body of Christ as being beneficiaries of the new covenant.

If Paul understood himself to have been dispensing the literal new covenant between God and Israel, it would mean that Paul expected those to whom he wrote to share in Israel’s covenant-based expectation (see my response to the objection from 1 Cor. 11:23-26). But that’s contrary to the fact that Paul clearly understood the eonian life of those to whom he wrote as a blessing that would be enjoyed “in the heavens,” where Christ is presently located (2 Cor. 5:1-9). What, then, did Paul mean in 2 Cor. 3:6? Here’s the verse: “[God] also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying.”

By “us” in this verse Paul meant himself, Silvanus and Timothy: “Now God is faithful, for our word toward you is not "Yes" and "No," for the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Who is being heralded among you through us -- through me and Silvanus and Timothy -- became not "Yes" and "No," but in Him has become "Yes." For whatever promises are of God, are in Him "Yes." Wherefore through Him also is the "Amen" to God, for glory, through us. Now He Who is confirming us together with you in Christ, and anoints us, is God, Who also seals us and is giving the earnest of the spirit in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:18-22).

When Paul went on to refer to himself and his co-laborers as being dispensers “of a new covenant” in 3:6, the more immediate context of this verse (as well as the larger context of everything Paul wrote to the body of Christ) indicates that Paul was using metaphorical language to refer to the “word” concerning Jesus Christ that was being heralded by Paul, Silvanus and Timothy. And what “word” was this? Answer: it was the evangel of the Uncircumcision, which had been entrusted to Paul. In fact, Paul actually referred to himself elsewhere as the “dispenser” of this evangel:

Eph. 3:6-7

“…in spirit the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body, and joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel of which I became the dispenser...”

Col. 1:23

“…since surely you are persisting in the faith, grounded and settled and are not being removed from the expectation of the evangel which you hear, which is being heralded in the entire creation which is under heaven of which I, Paul, became the dispenser.”

Based on the above considerations, I think it’s reasonable to understand that which Paul referred to as “a new covenant” in 2 Cor. 3:6 as simply being a figurative reference to the evangel of which he’d been made the dispenser (and which certain other qualified men were helping him dispense among the nations). But why would Paul metaphorically refer to the evangel that he, Silvanus and Timothy were dispensing among the nations as “a new covenant?”

It must be emphasized that a metaphor is always based on some similarity, or point of continuity, between two different things. And in order to better understand what the likeness is between the new covenant and the gospel which Paul and his apostolic companions were dispensing among the nations, we need to understand the difference between the old and new covenants between God and Israel. The primary difference between the covenant made through Moses and that which God promised through the prophet Jeremiah is that God himself carries out the conditions of the new covenant, so that the recipients of the covenant inevitably receive the blessings promised in the covenant. Among other things, the blessings of the new covenant will involve God’s delivering the recipients of the covenant from condemnation (Heb. 8:12; 10:17), as well as the placing of God’s spirit within them (Ezek. 36:26-27).

This is very much like God’s blessings to those called through Paul’s evangel (hence, the metaphor used by Paul). As believers in the evangel which Paul was dispensing, our hearts are engraved “with the spirit of the living God” (2 Cor. 3:3; cf. Gal. 4:6). Significantly, the first time Paul referred to the spirit of God in this letter is in 2 Cor. 1:22 (which was quoted earlier): ”Now He Who is confirming us together with you in Christ, and anoints us, is God, Who also seals us and is giving the earnest of the spirit in our hearts.” This verse provides us with a contextual clue as to what Paul was referring to in 2 Cor. 3:3-6 when he spoke of our hearts being engraved with the spirit of God. Paul went on to refer to the dispensing of the “new covenant” that is “of the spirit” as “the dispensation of the spirit,” and referred again to this dispensation in 2 Cor. 4:1. Notice, however, what Paul immediately began talking about in the verses that follow (vv. 3-6): the evangel which he and his co-laborers (Silvanus and Timothy) had been dispensing among the nations.

The evangel of which Paul had been made the dispenser essentially involves the receiving of the spirit, which, in 2 Cor. 3:6, is said to be “vivifying” (compare with Romans 8:11, where we’re told that the spirit of God within us - which we received when we believed on Christ - will be “vivifying [our] mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in [us]”). The vivification to which Paul was referring here (as well as, I believe, in Rom. 8:11) is that which will occur when we undergo the “change” referred to in 1 Cor. 15:50-54, and receive our immortal, spiritual body. The glorified, immortal body which we’ll receive when we’re vivified at “the last trump” is referred to by Paul in 2 Cor. 5:2 as “a house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens” (as an aside, those who think that Paul didn’t reveal the truth of the heavenly destiny of the body of Christ until he wrote his later “prison epistles” must ignore this verse, among others).

Keeping in mind that Paul referred to believers as having been sealed and given “the earnest of the spirit in our hearts” in 2 Cor. 1:22, it’s significant that Paul went on to link our future vivification with “the earnest of the spirit” that has been given to us: “For we also, who are in the tabernacle, are groaning, being burdened, on which we are not wanting to be stripped, but to be dressed, that the mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now He Who produces us for this same longing is God, Who is also giving us the earnest of the spirit” (2 Cor. 5:4-5). God’s placing his spirit into our hearts is, in other words, his pledge to us that we’re going to be vivified at the time referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:50-54.

In light of these considerations, consider now the following verses from Ephesians:

Eph. 1:13-14

“In Whom you also -- on hearing the word of truth, the evangel of your salvation -- in Whom on believing also, you are sealed with the holy spirit of promise (which is an earnest of the enjoyment of our allotment, to the deliverance of that which has been procured) for the laud of His glory!)…”

The vivifying spirit referred to by Paul in 2 Cor. 3:6 is the same “holy spirit of promise” with which we’re “sealed” when we hear and believe. Hear and believe what? Answer: the same “word” concerning Jesus Christ of which Paul, Silvanus and Timothy had been made competent dispensers. But was this “word” the literal new covenant that God will establish between himself and Israel? No. The word that we hear and believe is “the word of truth, the evangel of [our] salvation.” This word is like the new covenant, in that, when we hear and believe it, we are freed from condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and our hearts are engraved with the spirit of God, which is the pledge of the “deliverance of our body” (Rom. 8:23) and of our eonian life “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1-2).

Objection: According to Galatians 2:15, we should understand Peter to have affirmed the same truth concerning justification as Paul. 

In Galatians 2:14-16, Paul wrote, “But when I perceived that they are not correct in their attitude toward the truth of the evangel, I said to Cephas in front of all, ‘If you, being inherently a Jew, are living as the nations, and not as the Jews, how are you compelling the nations to be judaizing?’ We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified.”

Some believe that, when Paul wrote “we” at the beginning of v. 15, he was including Peter (and, by extension, James and John). However, contrary to the “paraphrase” a fellow believer once provided me with, Paul did not write, “Peter and I, who by nature are Jews…” No, Paul wrote, “We, who by nature are Jews…” Was Paul referring to all Jews here? No; of course not. Was Paul even referring to every Jew who could’ve been considered a “believer” during the apostolic era (such as the “tens of thousands” of believing Jews who, we’re told in Acts 21:20-21, were all zealous for the law of Moses)? I don’t think so, and I doubt that even those who believe Paul was including Peter in v. 15 would go so far as to affirm this position. The only Jews to whom Paul was referring in v. 15 were those who, like himself, had come to perceive “that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus.” Thus, only if we have good reason to believe that Peter was among those who had come to perceive this truth concerning justification do we have reason to believe that Paul was including Peter in the “we” of Gal. 2:15. And I’m not at all convinced that we do (for my thoughts on a passage commonly appealed to in support of the idea that Peter understood himself to have been justified through the faith of Christ, click here). Instead, everything Paul went on to write is perfectly consistent with the view that Peter’s understanding of his own salvation and justification was the same as that affirmed by James in chapter two of his letter to the twelve tribes (which was clearly a salvation and justification that was based on both faith and works).

Now, it must be acknowledged that, if what Paul wrote in v. 15 should be understood as a continuation of the quote that begins in v. 14, it would be unavoidable to understand Paul’s “we” as including Peter. However, there were no quotation marks in the original text of Galatians 2, and it would simply be question-begging to argue that Paul was including Peter in the “we” of v. 15 on the basis of when it’s believed Paul’s quoted statement to Peter ends. The position that Paul’s statement to Peter continues beyond v. 14 is no less dependent on conjecture and broader contextual and doctrinal considerations than the view which sees it as ending with v. 14 (the lack of scholarly consensus on where, exactly, Paul’s quoted statement to Peter should be understood as ending further supports this fact).[1] Grammatically speaking, we have no more reason to understand the “we” of v. 15 as including Peter as we have to understand it as excluding Peter.

On the other hand, everyone would agree that Paul’s quotation of his statement to Peter has to end somewhere. So why shouldn’t it be understood as ending in verse 14? Paul’s question to Peter in v. 14 is a perfectly adequate rebuke in and of itself, and would’ve been sufficient to elicit a positive change in behavior from Peter. And insofar as this is the case (i.e., insofar as the question in v. 14 constitutes a sufficient rebuke of Peter in response to his hypocritical behavior in Antioch), anything written after this single, pointed question can be understood as unlikely to have been part of Paul’s public rebuke of Peter. In other words, to whatever extent the question in v. 14 would have succeeded as a behavior-changing, public rebuke of Peter, everything said in verses 15-21 is, to that extent, unlikely to have been part of Paul’s rebuke of Peter. This simple fact alone can, I believe, be understood as tilting the scales in favor of the view that Paul’s quotation ends in v. 14. In conjunction with this consideration, I suspect that even those who think Peter is to be understood as part of Paul’s “we” in v. 15 would agree that, when understood as forming part of Paul’s public rebuke of Peter, verses 15-21 (especially verses 17-21) begin to look unnecessarily wordy - and even downright puzzling - as an intended rebuke of Peter. In any case, the position which sees the quotation as ending in v. 14 is no less plausible than any other position one could take, and is by far the simplest option available.

It may be objected that, even if Paul’s statement to Peter is to be understood as ending in v. 14, one could still believe that, nevertheless, Paul would’ve understood Peter as being included in his “we” in v. 15. However, I think we have good reason – both from the larger context of this letter as well as the Greek scriptures as a whole – to understand Paul’s “we” as a reference to Jewish believers whose ministry was in accord with the distinct administration given to Paul, and who were said to be “for the nations” (such as, for example, Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Silvanus and Timothy). In fact, in the context, Paul makes explicit mention of himself and Barnabas as those who, in contrast with Peter, James and John, were to be “for the nations,” bringing them the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” (Gal. 2:1, 7-10, 13). In verse 9, Paul even contrasts himself and Barnabas with Peter, James and John by using the words “we” and “they.” In other words, Paul had already made a distinction between two clearly defined, separate “ministries” involving two groups of Jewish believers, and Paul’s “we” in v. 15 should, I believe, be understood in this broader context.

Beginning around v. 13 of chapter 1, Paul had been recounting past events that were pertinent to the issue at hand, and which served to support his apostolic authority and the truth that he and his co-laborers had been dispensing among the nations. This historical recounting ends with the words Paul declared to Peter in Antioch (v. 14), and in v. 15 Paul has “returned to the present,” so to speak, and resumed his direct address to the saints to whom he wrote this letter. Verse 15 is the beginning of another “phase” in Paul’s doctrinal defense of the truth he had previously taught the ecclesias of Galatia. Paul mentioned the incident involving Peter at Antioch in order to further defend his apostolic authority and ministry, and because it served to support his point that the Gentiles didn’t have to become proselytes to Judaism (or “be judaizing”) in order to be saved. 

Even Peter had come to realize this through the events involving Cornelius and his house, and had to be rebuked for behaving in a way that was inconsistent with what he’d learned through these events (and which was inconsistent with the truth of the evangel Paul had been heralding among the nations). And if this was something recognized by Peter (as well as James and John), then what the Galatians were being pressured by certain Judaizers to do (i.e., proselytize to Judaism) was inconsistent with not only Paul’s administration and ministry, but with Peter’s as well. However, it should be emphasized that Peter’s realization that those among the nations didn’t have to proselytize to Judaism in order to be saved is a far cry from saying that, like Paul and Barnabas, he had come to perceive the much greater (and more recently revealed) truth that Paul went on to defend in this letter, concerning the righteousness that is based on Christ’s faith alone rather than on anything that we do or don’t do (including any and all “works of righteousness”; see Titus 3:4-7). 

Excluding Peter from Paul’s “we” in Gal. 2:15 is, therefore, not some “ad hoc” move on the part of those who affirm the “two evangels” doctrinal position. Rather, it’s an interpretation of what Paul wrote that is informed by the broader context of Galatians, and is in keeping with what we know to be true about the two distinct apostolic ministries and administrations that belonged to Paul and Peter, respectively. Paul (and his apostolic companion at the time, Barnabas) had been severed to God from the rest of the apostles for a distinct ministry that was in accord with a new dispensation and administration (Acts 13:1-3; 20:24; Eph. 3:1, 9). And the truth that they dispensed among the nations (and those Israelites who came to faith in Christ through their ministry rather than before the start of that new administration) was truth that I see no reason to believe or assume that Peter, James and John had come to embrace, or had begun teaching the Jews, proselytes and God-fearers within the sphere of their “for the Circumcision” ministry.

Part three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/gods-covenant-people-response-to_24.html

---

[1] In addition to the conflicting opinions we find expressed in the literature and in commentaries, the lack of scholarly consensus concerning where Paul’s quotation ends is also evidenced from the fact that some Bible translations end the quotation at v. 14 while others continue it to v. 21 (for examples of translations in which the quotation is understood as ending in v. 14, see the ESV, the HCSB, the NET the RSV and the NRSV).

God’s Covenant People: A Response to Objections (Part One)

I think it’s safe to say that, for any doctrinal position to which one could hold, there will invariably be some verses and passages of scripture which, at first glance at least, will appear inconsistent with it (and which those who oppose and reject the doctrine will insist are, in fact, inconsistent with it). When I first came to believe in the truth of the salvation of all, for example, there were certain passages that, at the time, I wasn’t entirely sure what to do with (and the 20+ years I’d already spent in the institutional church certainly didn’t help, what with all the erroneous doctrinal baggage I’d accumulated over the years!). Even though I’d come to understand what certain passages couldn’t mean (without contradicting what I knew to be true), I was unsure as to what, exactly, they did mean, and how, exactly, they were to be understood in relation to the rest of scripture. Much study and investigation remained to be done in order to tie up certain “loose ends.”

The doctrinal position defended in ”God’s covenant people” is no exception to everything said above. It’s certainly not without its share of opponents who are convinced (or inclined to believe) that it’s contradicted by at least some verses or passages of scripture. What I want to do in this series of articles, then, is “tie up some loose ends” by responding to the most common scripture-based objections I’ve seen to the position defended in my study. Throughout this series of articles, I will be presupposing that those reading have already read my previous study, and will be familiar with the conclusions at which I arrived.  

Objection: Based on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and 1 Cor. 3:21-23, we can conclude that Peter was in the body of Christ (and that those who deny this fact are guilty of “dividing Christ”).

In 1 Cor. 1:10-13 we read the following: “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 it was made evident to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe, that 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! Not Paul was crucified for your sakes! Or into the name of Paul are you baptized?”

Some see this passage as evidence for their position that Peter was a member of the body of Christ, and that those who deny Peter’s membership in the body of Christ are guilty of “parting” (or “dividing”) Christ. In contrast with this view, I believe that everything Paul wrote in these verses is perfectly consistent with the position I defended in “God’s covenant people.”

First, it must be emphasized that Paul didn’t say that either an affirmation or a denial of Peter’s membership in the body of Christ is what led to Christ’s being “parted” (or potentially “parted”). Instead, what led to Paul’s rebuke in the above passage was the existence of rival factions within the ecclesia in Corinth (one of which apparently involved a preference for, and sectarian loyalty to, the apostle Peter over against Paul and Apollos). The root of the problem to which Paul was responding was not “merely” doctrinal in nature (even if the doctrinal understanding of those involved may have played a part); rather, the root of the problem was a divisive, contrarian and dissentious attitude. 

The primary problem was, in other words, “of the heart” rather than of the understanding. This means that if (as I believe) those who were claiming to be “of Cephas” were mistaken for believing that Peter was just as much of an apostolic authority within the body of Christ as was Paul or Apollos, it would not have helped the situation for Paul to have attempted to correct their mistaken belief. Pointing out their error in this doctrinal area would’ve been beside the point (and, for Paul, a waste of ink and parchment space – his first letter to the Corinthians is long enough as it is!).

Moreover, it should be noted that Paul didn’t actually say that Peter was, in fact, a member of the body of Christ. Those who think this passage supports the view that Peter was in the body of Christ are making an inference based on what some of the saints in Corinth were saying (i.e., “I of Cephas”). The assumption is that, even if those who were saying “I of Cephas” were wrong for claiming sectarian allegiance to Peter, they weren’t mistaken for thinking that Peter was an apostolic authority within the body of Christ. But what reason do we have for believing that those saying “I of Cephas” were even justified in believing what they did concerning Peter’s apostolic status in relation to those in the body of Christ? If - as argued in “God’s covenant people” – we have good reason to believe that Peter wasn’t a member of the body of Christ, then we can dismiss the position of those who were saying “I  of Cephas” as being based on a mistaken belief.

Based on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:1-9, it would seem that the main two rival factions in the ecclesia in Corinth involved Paul and Apollos.[1] That the two main factions would’ve involved Paul and Apollos shouldn’t really be surprising given the important roles that these men played in establishing this ecclesia (see 1 Cor. 3:6 and :10). However, in contrast with what we know about Paul and Apollos, we have no reason to believe that the apostle Peter had ever been to Corinth, or that he played any role whatsoever in the establishment of the ecclesia there. But if that’s the case, then how do we account for the presence of an actual “Cephas faction” in Corinth?

Given Peter’s lack of direct influence on the saints in Corinth, a “Cephas faction” can, I believe, best be accounted for as having been the result of the influence of Judaizers (who would’ve undoubtedly viewed Peter - rather than Paul or Apollos - as their highest apostolic authority). We know that there was a Judaizing presence and influence in Galatia (see Gal. 1:7; 5:7-12), and it can be inferred from parts of Paul’s first and second letter to the Corinthians that there was one in Corinth as well. In 1 Cor. 9:1-7, Paul was compelled to write in defense of his apostleship, and part of his defense involved the claim that he had the same apostolic rights as “the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” (v. 5). The fact that Paul would single out Cephas here suggests that those against whom Paul was defending his apostleship were partial to Cephas (which would further suggest that those calling into question his apostleship were, in fact, Judaizers).[2]

This seems further evident from Paul’s defense of the validity of his apostleship in 2 Corinthians (which, among other things, was being challenged on the basis that he had no “commendatory letters” - likely from Jerusalem - as others did, and that he was not a qualified or powerful speaker).[3] Consider especially Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 11:22-28, where there can be little doubt that those who had been leveling charges against the validity of his apostleship (and to whom he had been responding) were, in fact, Judaizers. But irrespective of why a member of the ecclesia in Corinth may have been saying, “I of Cephas,” what needs to be emphasized for the purpose of this response is that the mention of Cephas in 1 Cor. 1:12 is no proof whatsoever that Paul himself believed that Peter was an apostolic member of the body of Christ.

But what about 1 Cor. 3:21-23? In these verses we read, “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.” Everything Paul wrote in these verses is perfectly consistent with the view that the apostle Peter belonged to a company of believers distinct from the body of Christ. 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.

It may be objected that Paul specified Peter (Cephas) as being ours right after referring to himself and Apollos. However, 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 in this passage to convey the idea that each of these people or things is “ours” in the same exact sense. And given that this is obviously the case, this passage is useless as a “proof-text” for the position that Peter is an apostle of the body of Christ, or that his letters are just as equally to and for those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen letters.

Objection: Based on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 11:23-26, we should understand those in the body of Christ as being beneficiaries of the new covenant.

As demonstrated in “God’s covenant people,” the eonian allotment of those in the body of Christ is as distinct from that belonging to the beneficiaries of the new covenant as heaven is distinct from earth. But if those in the body of Christ are not going to be beneficiaries of the new covenant, what, then, are we to make of Paul’s reference to the words Christ spoke on the night that he was betrayed? Paul wrote that he’d accepted certain facts “from the Lord” (i.e., from Christ in his glorified, post-ascended state) which pertained to what took place on this night (1 Cor. 11:23).[4] Now, based on what Christ himself declared on this night (and which Paul quotes him as saying), all that the twelve disciples would’ve understood - or would’ve eventually come to understand - concerning Jesus’ death was that it was by means of this that the new covenant between God and Israel was ratified, or confirmed. This was the extent of the meaning that Jesus’ words and actions on that night would’ve had for them. But by the time Paul began heralding his evangel among the nations, he knew something about Christ’s death that the twelve apostles didn’t understand at that time, and which gave the observance of the Lord’s dinner by the body of Christ a whole new meaning and significance. 

Concerning the Lord’s dinner, Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, “The cup of blessing which we are blessing, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we are breaking, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, who are many, are one bread, one body, for we are all partaking of the one bread.”

The “one body” to which Paul was referring here is, of course, a reference to that company of saints that Paul elsewhere called “the body of Christ” and “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.” Paul went on to refer to the means by which those to whom he wrote had become members of this “one body” of Christ as a spiritual baptism:

“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. 12:12-13).

In Romans 6:3-10, Paul further described the status of those spiritually baptized into the body of Christ as follows:

Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death? We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life. For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of Sin may be nullified, for us by no means to be still slaving for Sin, for one who dies has been justified from Sin. Now if we died together with Christ, we believe that we shall be living together with Him also, having perceived that Christ, being roused from among the dead, is no longer dying. Death is lording it over Him no longer, for in that He died, He died to Sin once for all time, yet in that He is living, He is living to God.

Here we find that, by virtue of our spiritual union with Christ, Christ’s justified status before God (as manifested in his resurrection and present deathless state) is, and will be, ours as well, and everyone in the body of Christ is thus certain to “be living together with [Christ] also.”

Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, every member of the body of Christ has been reconciled “in one body to God through the cross” (Eph. 2:13-18). We are “now justified in [Christ’s] blood,” “conciliated to God through the death of His Son,” and “shall be saved from indignation, through Him” (Rom. 5:6-11). Because of our spiritual union with the One who “gave himself for our sins,” we who are members of Christ’s body will be extricated “out of this present wicked eon” and thus rescued by Christ “out of the coming indignation” so that “we should be living at the same time together with Him” (Gal. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9-10).

From everything said above, it is evident that the death of Christ has a far greater significance for those in the body of Christ than was made known by Christ during his earthly ministry, and as heralded by the twelve apostles after the events of Pentecost. When, by taking part in the Lord’s Dinner, we are “announcing the Lord’s death until his coming,” it is not merely Christ’s death as the fulfillment of prophecy or as the ratification of the new covenant that we’re announcing. Rather, it is Christ’s death as the basis on which we who’ve been called through Paul’s gospel have been justified and reconciled to God “in one body,” and have been given an expectation that is completely distinct from Israel’s covenant-based expectation (i.e., eonian life “in the heavens” and “among the celestials”). And the “coming” of the Lord that Paul had in mind is not Christ’s return to the earth to establish his kingdom (i.e., when he descends upon the Mount of Olives), but rather his manifestation to the body of Christ in the air, at the time of the “snatching away” (as referred to in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, Phil. 3:21 and Col. 3:4).  

But what is the Lord’s dinner, as referred to by Paul? 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, those who’ve been justified in Christ’s blood and reconciled “in one body to God through the cross” 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.[5]

Part two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/gods-covenant-people-response-to_3.html

---

[1] Some commentators have suggested that those who were creating divisions among the saints in Corinth had ranged themselves under these two names only, and that Paul’s inclusion of “Cephas” and “Christ” was only a rhetorical device. According to this view, Paul’s inclusion of Cephas and Christ as individuals around whom some were forming factions would’ve served to vary Paul’s illustration and drive home his point more forcefully by making the absurdity of the sort of “strife” that was present among the saints even more apparent. Although I don’t hold to this view, I do see it as a possibility.

[2] Concerning 1 Cor. 9:3, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges notes as follows: “The Judaizers of whom we hear in the Epistle to the Galatians and in Acts 15, are now heard of here also, and this Epistle seems to have stirred them up to a still stronger antagonism, for St Paul is obliged to travel over the same ground in his second Epistle, and with much greater fullness. St Paul, therefore, though he ‘transferred in a figure to himself and Apollos’ what he had said with reference to the Corinthian teachers, had nevertheless in view also some who disparaged his authority. It is worthy of note that the terms answer and examine in the original are the usual legal expressions (Olshausen), as though the Apostle conceived himself to be on his trial.”

[3] See 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 and 10:10-12 (cf. 10:1-3 and 11:5-6).

[4] 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 his arrest was not the Passover, either. 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).

[5] But what about the judgments that fell upon those who were eating and drinking “unworthily?” At this time in Paul’s ministry, the “signs and wonders” that Paul mentions in Rom. 15:18-19 (as being part of his apostolic ministry “for the obedience of the nations”) were still being manifested. This was never meant to have a permanent place in the secret administration that began with Paul’s calling; rather, these signs and wonders simply served to authenticate his apostleship and apostolic authority. Such signs and wonders (including miraculous healings, the infliction of judgments and the power to speak in foreign languages) do not indicate a different administration, for they were never meant to be a permanent part of the administration which began with Paul’s calling. 

John’s expectation and doctrinal position concerning salvation

As argued in part two of my “Two Evangels” study, I believe that both the “evangel of the Circumcision” and the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” are the means through which God calls people to whatever eonian expectation for which they were pre-designated by him. If one has been pre-designated by God to enjoy an eonian allotment that is in accord with Israel’s prophesied, covenant-based expectation, then one will, at some point in their lifetime, be called by God through the evangel of the Circumcision (which, as argued in part three of the aforementioned study, I believe to be constituted by the truth that Jesus “is the Christ, the Son of God”).

What differentiates those in the body of Christ from those who responded in faith to Peter’s message in Acts 2 or Acts 10 (for example) is not our denial of the truth of the gospel of the Circumcision; in accord with the words of Matthew 16:16 and John 20:31, we believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” just as strongly as those who responded in faith to Peter’s messages in Acts 2 and 3. Rather, what distinguishes us from these believers is that we were not called to our expectation through this particular evangel. Our belief in the evangel of the Circumcision is not what resulted in our justification, because our calling is through the evangel that was entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations (which, again, is the evangel that those pre-designated to become part of the body of Christ will, at some point during this mortal lifetime, be given the faith to believe).

Now, as argued in my study, ”God’s covenant people” (as well as in my study on Acts 15:1-17 and Matthew 25:31-46), I believe there are two general categories of people who have been (and will be) called through the gospel of the Circumcision, and who will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel after Christ’s return to earth: (1) faithful members of God’s covenant people (including both Jews and proselytes) and (2) God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles (i.e., those among the nations who take the God of Israel seriously by blessing his covenant people, and who thus belong to that category of righteous Gentiles referred to by Christ as the “sheep” in Matt. 25:31-46). An example of someone in the second category of people who will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel would be Cornelius (see Acts 10:2, 22, 31; cf. Acts 15:13-17), and an example of someone in the first category of people who will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom is the apostle John.

Not only did Christ himself affirm that John will be sitting on one of twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel during the eon to come (Matt. 19:28-29), but John also included himself as being among those who “shall be reigning on the earth” as “a kingdom and priests to [Christ’s] God and Father” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10; cf. 20:4-6). John, therefore, will be among those who, at the time when Satan’s thousand-year imprisonment ends (and Satan goes out “to deceive all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth”), will be dwelling in “the citadel of the saints and the beloved city” referred to in Rev. 20:9. This, of course, means that John’s allotment during the eon to come will be on the earth, and the “kingdom of God” in which he will be enjoying his allotment is the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel.

In contrast with John’s eonian destiny, we know that the eonian allotment of every member of the body of Christ will be “in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1-9; Phil. 3:20) and “among the celestials.” (Eph. 1:3; 2:6; cf. 1:20). It will be in the Lord’s “celestial kingdom” that we in the body of Christ will be enjoying our eonian life (2 Tim. 4:18). This is the “kingdom of God” in which “flesh and blood is not able to enjoy an allotment” (1 Cor. 15:50-53). Based on the clear-cut distinction between the terrestrial expectation of the apostle John and the celestial expectation of those in the body of Christ, we can conclude that John was not in the body of Christ. And given the fact that only those called to be in the body of Christ are presently being “justified through the faith of Christ,” it also follows that John was not justified through the faith of Christ, either. Instead, John’s justified status was based on faith and works (which is in accord with what we read in James 2:24). Consider the following argument:

1. Everyone called through the evangel that Paul heralded among the nations is justified through the faith of Christ when they believe, and everyone who has been justified through the faith of Christ is in the body of Christ.

2. Every member of the body of Christ has an expectation that is distinct from Israel’s earthly, covenant-based expectation.

3. The expectation of the apostle John is in accord with Israel’s earthly, covenant-based expectation.

4. Therefore, the apostle John is not in the body of Christ, and was not justified through the faith of Christ.

In regard to the category of saints to whom the apostle John belongs, we know that, during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, members of God’s covenant people had a covenant-based obligation to keep the precepts of the law. We also know that, in conjunction with the requirement that they believe “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), God’s covenant people could not expect to receive eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel apart from having the same sort of obedient, law-keeping conduct that faithful Israelites such as Zechariah and Elizabeth had (Luke 1:5-6; cf. Matt. 5:17-20; 7:21-23; 19:16-17; 23:1-3; etc.). In regard to their qualifying for life in the future kingdom, their faith IN God and his Son could not be separated from their faithfulness TO God and his Son (which consisted in obedient, law-keeping conduct, as opposed to “lawlessness”).

In light of these facts, let’s consider the following questions: When did this ever cease to be the case for Israel? When was it revealed to any of the twelve apostles (or to James) that the believing Jewish remnant within Israel could expect to receive eonian life in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel apart from both faith and their keeping the precepts of the law (such as the ten commandments)? When did the twelve apostles stop believing that the salvation of God’s covenant people hinged on both faith and righteous conduct (or “works,” as James wrote)? I submit that there is no record that it ever ceased to be the case that the salvation of God’s covenant people required both faith and works, or that the twelve apostles ever stopped believing this to be the case.

None of the twelve apostles – John and Peter included – were ever given any reason to believe that keeping the precepts given by God to Israel had become optional, or that righteous conduct was no longer required for them to receive an allotment in the earthly kingdom of God. What changed after the calling of Paul was not the way by which members of God’s covenant people could qualify for Israel’s covenant-based expectation (i.e., eonian life in the earthly kingdom). Rather, what changed was the introduction of a new expectation that is distinct from Israel’s covenant-based expectation, and the formation of a new company of believers who were being called by God to this new expectation through the evangel of the Uncircumcision entrusted to Paul. Thus, by the time Paul was given his “administration of the grace of God” and began dispensing his evangel of the Uncircumcision among the nations, it became the case that people were being called to two different eonian expectations through two different gospels.

The position of the twelve apostles and a supposed “absence of evidence”

One brother in Christ who rejects the position summarized above recently asserted (as an objection to the “two gospels” position), “Nowhere do we read that any of the apostles taught salvation by grace and law, or law alone.” I’m not sure why this brother felt the need to add the words “or law alone” to his objection, since the view that any Israelite has ever been saved by “law alone” is obviously false, and has never - to my knowledge, at least - been affirmed by anyone who holds to the position which he rejects. This fact would make the “law alone” part of his objection a straw-man, and we may therefore dismiss it. But what shall we say in response to the objector’s assertion that none of the apostles are said to have “taught salvation by grace and law?”

By speaking of salvation “by grace and law,” I assume that the objector was referring to a salvation that involves both God’s grace (which I believe to be an essential element in the salvation of anyone who has ever lived, or ever will live) as well as righteous, precept-keeping conduct (i.e., the sort of conduct that Christ exhorted his disciples to have so that they could be "entering into life"). So is it true that there is no recorded instance of any apostle teaching Jewish believers that their salvation – i.e., their entrance into the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel – depends (at least, in part) on righteous conduct/keeping the precepts of God? Well, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is not a single verse written by any of the apostles of Christ that indicates that the salvation of the Jewish believers to whom they wrote depended on both their faith and on their faithful, precept-keeping conduct. Would this be evidence against the position that the twelve apostles considered both faith and righteous conduct a requirement for the salvation of those to whom they wrote? Not at all.

To demonstrate the irrelevance of the objector’s assertion, consider another similar assertion: “Nowhere do we read that any of the twelve ‘minor prophets’ (i.e., Hosea through Malachi) taught that the covenantal obligation of Israelites involved circumcising their male children, resting on the Sabbath and not eating certain kinds of animals.” Although this statement is, as far as I can tell, true, I think a perfectly reasonable (albeit curt) response would be, “Okay, but so what?” One would be making a more relevant and valid point by instead saying, “Nowhere do we read that any of the twelve ‘minor prophets’ (i.e., Hosea through Malachi) taught that the covenantal obligation of Israelites had ceased to involve circumcising their male children, resting on the Sabbath and certain dietary restrictions.” Apart from some specific situation that required that one of these aspects of Israel’s covenantal obligation be addressed, why should we expect these prophets to have explicitly taught that Israel’s covenantal obligation still involved circumcising their children, resting on the Sabbath and avoiding certain foods? It would be absurd to understand their silence on this subject as suggesting that, perhaps, Israel could suddenly stop circumcising their children, start working on the Sabbath, and start eating pork and shrimp.

Keeping this analogy in mind, let’s now consider again the objector’s assertion that we “nowhere read that any of the apostles taught salvation by grace and law.” Assuming - as is reasonable - that the majority of those who were being taught by the twelve apostles were members of God’s covenant people (whether Jews or proselytes), then one question that could be asked in response to the objector’s assertion is, “Where do we read that the twelve apostles taught that God’s covenant people no longer had to keep the precepts of God in order to receive an allotment in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel?” Unlike the assertion of the objector, this question correctly presupposes what we know to be true concerning the salvation of God’s covenant people before and during Christ’s earthly ministry (see, for example, part three of “God’s covenant people”).

The erroneous assumption underlying the objector’s assertion is that the twelve apostles had, at some point subsequent to Christ’s ascension, abandoned the doctrinal position to which they held during Christ’s earthly ministry (and which Christ himself had affirmed in his teaching) concerning what was expected of an Israelite if he or she was to “enter into life” in the kingdom of God. Again, we know for a fact that Israel has, from the beginning, had a covenant-based obligation to keep the precepts of the law given to her by God, and that no Israelite could qualify for eonian life in the kingdom (and take part in the “resurrection of the just”) apart from having the sort of righteous, law-keeping conduct that faithful Israelites such as Zechariah and Elizabeth had (Luke 1:5-6). We also know that, in conjunction with the requirement that an Israelite believe the evangel that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), the sort of faithful, precept-keeping conduct that characterized the life of Zechariah and Elizabeth continued to be essential to the salvation of those who came to believe this evangel (Matt. 5:17-20; 19:16-17; 23:1-3; etc.).

This means that the twelve apostles would’ve had to reject what they’d learned from Christ during their time with him in order to come to believe that God’s covenant people no longer had to keep the precepts of the law in order to receive an allotment in the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel. And this means that the burden of proof is not on those who believe that the twelve apostles continued to affirm that the salvation of Israel required both faith and works (as is explicitly affirmed by James in his letter to the twelve tribes). Rather, the burden of proof is on those who deny this. And their “burden of proof” involves presenting a verse or passage of scripture which explicitly reveals that the twelve apostles no longer affirmed this.

Consider the following argument:

1. Before and during Christ’s earthly ministry, the salvation of God’s covenant people (i.e., their taking part in “the resurrection of the just” and “entering into life” in the kingdom that will be restored to Israel) required both faith and works/righteous conduct (i.e., keeping the precepts of God).

2. During Christ’s earthly ministry, the twelve apostles believed that the salvation of God’s covenant people required both faith (i.e., faith in God and that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God”) and works/righteous conduct.

3. The burden of proof is, therefore, on those who believe that, at some point subsequent to the ascension of Christ, the twelve apostles came to no longer believe that the salvation of God’s covenant people required both faith and works/righteous conduct.

For those who believe that the twelve apostles eventually came to reject a belief that had been taught/reinforced by Christ himself during his earthly ministry, this burden of proof is bad enough. But it gets worse. For not only is it not revealed that the twelve apostles ever came to reject the idea that the salvation of God’s covenant people required both faith and works, but there are a number of statements found in the letters of those who wrote to believing Israelites that are either explicitly or implicitly inconsistent with the idea that the twelve apostles came to believe that the salvation of God’s covenant people was “through the faith of Christ” rather than based on their own faith and works.

The salvation of John based on both faith and righteous conduct

We’ve already considered the eonian expectation of the apostle John (which, as shown above, is in accord with Israel’s earthly, covenant-based expectation). But a case could just as easily be made that John understood the salvation of himself and those to whom he wrote as being based on both faith and precept-keeping, righteous conduct (rather than “faith alone”).

In John’s first letter, we read the following in 1 John 1:6-9: “If we should be saying that we are having fellowship with Him and should be walking in darkness, we are lying and are not doing the truth. Yet if we should be walking in the light as He is in the light, we are having fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, is cleansing us from every sin. If we should be saying that we have no sin we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we should be avowing our sins, He is faithful and just that He may be pardoning us our sins and should be cleansing us from all injustice.”

Notice how, according to John, one’s being cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus depended on one’s conduct – i.e., “walking in the light as he is in the light” (rather than “walking in darkness”). John and those to whom he wrote were being “cleansed from every sin” by Jesus’ blood if they were doing this. What did John mean by “walking in the light” rather than “in darkness?” In the next chapter it is clear that walking in the light involved “keeping his precepts,” “keeping his word” and thus “walking as he walks” (2:3-6). And to be doing this meant (or at least essentially included) “loving [one’s] brother,” rather than hating one’s brother (vv. 8-11), and “believing in the name of [God’s] Son, Jesus Christ” (3:23-24).

To be “believing in the name of Jesus Christ” is, or course, to be believing the evangel of the Circumcision. And for those to whom John wrote to be walking as Christ walked meant keeping the precepts that Christ kept during his earthly ministry. Only by striving to do this would the Jewish believers to whom John wrote be “remaining in the light” and not “walking in darkness.” Moreover, John explained that one of the reasons for writing was so “that [those to whom he wrote] may not be sinning” (2:1), and John elsewhere clarifies that by “sin” he means “lawlessness” (3:4) – i.e., breaking the precepts of God. However, when the believers to whom John wrote did sin, they had to “avow” their sins so that their sins could be pardoned and they could be “cleansed from all injustice.” 

John went on to say that it was those who were “doing the will of God” who would be “remaining for the eon” – and, in the immediate context, doing the will of God clearly involved (although should not be understood as being limited to) “not loving the world” or “that which is in the world” (1 John 2:15-17). In the larger context of John’s letter, “doing the will of God” must be understood as involving “keeping [God’s] precepts” and “doing what is pleasing in his sight” (1 John 3:22-24). Thus, one’s “remaining for the eon” – i.e., having eonian life – required not just believing in the name of Christ (which, being the evangel of the circumcision, was essential), but also keeping his precepts and loving one’s brother (rather than “the world” and “that which is in the world”). It must be emphasized that the only “righteous” status of which John wrote in his letter is that which depended on the precept-keeping conduct of those to whom he wrote. John did not seem to be aware of any other “righteousness” that the recipients of his letter could have except that which was based on the righteous conduct that was expected to accompany faith in God and Christ (conduct which involved “keeping [Christ’s] precepts,” “keeping his word” and “walking as He walks”). 

For John, it was because those to whom he wrote were keeping Christ’s precept to “be loving the brethren” that they were aware of having “proceeded out of death into life” (3:11-13).[1] On the other hand, anyone who was not loving the brethren was a “man-killer,” and consequently had “no life eonian remaining in him” (v. 15). For those to whom John wrote, keeping Christ’s precept by loving the brethren was just as essential to having life eonian as “believing in the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). It was, in other words, just as essential for their salvation as it was when Christ first gave his disciples this precept, shortly before his death (John 15:12-14). It was by keeping Christ’s precepts that they remained in his love (John 15:9-10). But how were the recipients of John’s letter supposed to be “loving the brethren,” so that they could know that they had eonian life remaining in them? In 1 John 5:2-3 we read, “In this we know that we are loving the children of God, whenever we may be loving God and may be doing His precepts. For this is the love of God, that we may be keeping His precepts. And His precepts are not heavy…”

In 1 John 2:24-25 and 28-29, we read, “Let that which you hear from the beginning be remaining in you. If ever that which you hear from the beginning should be remaining in you, you, also, will be remaining in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise which He promises us: the life eonian…And now, little children, remain in Him, that, if He should be manifested, we should be having boldness and not be put to shame by Him in His presence. If you should be perceiving that He is just, you know that everyone also who is doing righteousness is begotten of Him.”

Notice that the promise of “life eonian” is only said to be for those who are remaining in the Son and the Father, and it is only those who remain in Christ who we’re told will not be “put to shame by him in his presence.” And – based on v. 29 – we know that those who remain in Christ are those who are “doing righteousness” and are “begotten of him.” Concerning what it meant to be “remaining in Christ,” John went on to say: “…everyone who is remaining in [Christ] is not sinning...let no one deceive you. He who is doing righteousness is just, according as he is just. Yet he who is doing sin is of the Adversary…everyone who is not doing righteousness is not of God, and who is not loving his brother” (1 John 3:6-7). John also stated that the way in which those to whom he wrote could know that they were “in [Christ’” was that they were “walking according as He walks” (1 John 2:6).

What did John mean by “walking according as He walks?” John was, of course, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, and had observed Jesus’ “walk” very closely for approximately 3 ½ years. And what did John observe? Did John observe Jesus breaking the precepts of God, and living a life of lawlessness? Or did John observe Jesus faithfully keeping God’s precepts? Obviously, John observed Jesus faithfully keeping the precepts of God as found in Scripture, and living by “every declaration going out through the mouth of God.” And it is according to the “walk” of the One of whom John had been a disciple for 3 ½ years that those to whom John wrote were exhorted to walk in order to “remain” in Christ. From these and other verses and considerations, it is clear that John understood being “in Christ” as a conditional state of affairs that involved both the faith and the obedient conduct of those whom John exhorted to “remain in him.”

Everything John wrote in these and other verses is in perfect accord with what John learned from Christ himself during Christ’s earthly ministry. In John 15, we read that Christ provided his disciples with a “grapevine” parable in order to help them better understand their relationship with him. Christ told his disciples that every branch in him not bringing forth fruit would be removed by God (v. 2). And if someone didn’t remain in Christ, we read that they’d be “cast out as a branch,” which would then wither and be cast into the fire (v. 6). Those “cast out” are undoubtedly the ones who, according to John, will be “put to shame” by Christ in his presence (and who, in the words of Hebrews 10:26-27, will have “a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy”).

Conclusion

From everything said above, it should be evident to the reader that the apostle John - no less than James, the brother of Jesus (who, of course, famously stated that faith without works is dead, and that justification requires works) - believed that the salvation of those to whom he wrote (and, by implication, the salvation of he himself) was not “by faith alone.” Faith in Christ was clearly essential to the salvation of John and those to whom he wrote (and thus worth emphasizing), but faith alone was not sufficient. In regard to whether or not one’s sins remained pardoned - and whether or not one would be “remaining for the eon” - one’s conduct was equally important.

Keeping in mind that John included himself as being among those who “shall be reigning on the earth” as “a kingdom and priests to [Christ’s] God and Father” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10; cf. 20:4-6), I’ll close this article with a consideration of the requirement(s) for salvation as described in the following excerpts from the book of Revelation (which was, of course, written by John):

“I am aware of your acts, and your toil, and your endurance…But I have against you that you leave your first love. Remember, then, whence you have fallen, and repent, and do the former acts. Yet if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, if ever you should not be repenting…To the one who is conquering, I will be granting to be eating of the tree of life which is in the center of the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:2-7). 

“Become faithful until death, and I shall be giving you the wreath of life…the one who is conquering will not be injured by the second death” (Rev. 2:10). 

“I will give to each of you as your works deserve…the one who is conquering and who is keeping my acts until the consummation, to him will I be giving authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:23, 26-28).

“I am aware of your acts, that you have a name that you are living, and are dead. Become watchful, and establish the rest who were about to be dying; for I have not found your acts completed in the sight of my God…Yet you have a few names in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. The one who is conquering will be clothed thus in white garments, and under no circumstances will I be erasing his name from the scroll of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his messengers.” (Rev. 3:1-5) 

Notice that, in the above passages, Christ wasn’t merely talking about receiving something in addition to salvation. He was talking about salvation itself – i.e., having eonian life during the last and greatest eon (that which pertains to the “new heaven and new earth”). Having access to the “tree of life,” receiving the “wreath of life” (and avoiding the “second death”) and not having one’s name erased from “the scroll of life” are undoubtedly about being saved rather than unsaved. It should also be noted that every believing Israelite who will enjoy eonian life on the new earth will also enjoy eonian life in the kingdom during the next eon as well (in other words, there won’t be an Israelite enjoying eonian life on the new earth who didn’t have eonian life during the thousand + years preceding the creation of the new earth).

Notice also that being granted to “be eating of the tree of life” (which will be available to everyone who will be living on the new earth), being given the “wreath of life,” and not having one’s name erased “from the scroll of life” was conditioned on a person’s “conquering.” And in the context, “conquering” clearly involved faithful conduct (“keeping [Christ’s] acts until the consummation”). And from Rev. 14:12 it’s further evident that the “conquering” which Christ had in mind involved “keeping the precepts of God and the faith of Jesus.” Thus, the salvation of those to whom Christ delivered the messages found in these chapters is not such that it will come to pass irrespective of what they do or don’t do; rather, to be worthy of the salvation that is available to God’s covenant people during the eons of Christ’s reign will require continued obedience, diligence and faithfulness on their part (apart from which they won’t be granted to eat of the tree of life and won’t avoid the second death, etc.).

Given this fact, we can conclude that, even apart from what John wrote in his first letter, his salvation was based on both his faith and his righteous conduct. Consider the following argument:

1. John and the believing Jews he addressed in his first letter had the same calling and expectation as the believing Jews addressed in Revelation 2-3.

2. The salvation of the believing Jews addressed in Rev. 2-3 was based on both faith and righteous conduct.

3. The salvation of John and the believing Jews addressed in his first letter was based on both faith and righteous conduct.

---

[1] Many Christians believe that, when Christ gave his disciples a “new precept” (John 13:34; cf. 15:12-14), he was replacing every other precept given by God to Israel with this precept. According to this interpretation, it’s as if Christ told his disciples, “Don’t worry about keeping the original ten commandments or any of the other precepts that God gave us to keep. All you have to do now is keep this one precept: Love one another as I have loved you.” But this interpretation is absurd. It would be like a student disregarding everything he’d previously learned every time his teacher taught him something new. Jesus’ “new precept” to his disciples was not understood by them as contradicting or replacing the other precepts of God. Moreover, we know that this interpretation cannot be correct, as it contradicts other clear verses (such as 1 John 5:3).