- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
The two-gospel advocates argue that we must rightly divide the word of truth by recognizing that only Paul’s epistles are applicable to the Church today. But can they be said to be rightly dividing the word of truth when they relegate all of Scripture as nonapplicable to the Church, with the exception of Paul’s epistles? What does Paul say about this? He says:
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2Tim 3:16-17).
It must be kept in mind that, when Paul wrote this around 66 A.D., the book of Acts and James, as well as the gospel of Luke, and possibly Matthew and Mark, had already been written. Peter referred to Paul’s writings as being part of the Scriptures (2Peter 3:15-16). Doubtlessly, Paul likewise considered these other writings, which today make up part of our New Testament to be God-breathed Scriptures and therefore profitable for doctrine.
If Paul himself considered all of Scripture to be profitable for doctrine and able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus (2Tim 3:15), how can the two-gospel people claim to be Paul’s followers while at the same time denying that the rest of Scripture is applicable to us and profitable for doctrine? How can one claim as Paul that the Holy Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation, while at the same time arguing that they present another gospel, another way of salvation?
The proponents of the two-gospel doctrine point out numerous truths taught by Paul which they perceive to be irreconcilable with the rest of the New Testament. Martin Zender, in his book, “The First Idiot in Heaven,” presents what he considers to be thirty-one key differences between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament. [1] In the previous blogs we considered some of these alleged differences and saw that they were in reality in agreement with, and complementary to, the overall message of the New Testament. The rest of the differences he argues for overlap, and could be reduced to six, which are: 1) Justified by works vs. Justified by grace through faith alone without works. 2) Repentance and baptism required for salvation vs. salvation by faith alone. 3) New birth for Israel vs. a new creation for the Church. 4) Conditional forgiveness vs. Unconditional forgiveness. 5) Earthly inheritance vs. heavenly inheritance, and 6) Appointed to wrath vs. saved from wrath. The following is a brief consideration of each of these supposedly irreconcilable differences.
1. Justified by works vs. Justified by Grace through Faith alone
They argue that only those under Paul’s gospel are justified apart from works, whereas the Jews who believe are saved by a combination of faith and works. However, apart from the fact that God is not a respecter of persons, we have already seen that no one, whether they be Jew or Gentile, of this age or any other age, can ever be justified by works before God. Paul most emphatically says: “Therefore by the deeds of the law NO FLESH will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). This is a universal principle. The Law can only provide the knowledge of our sinful condition and need of justification by grace – it can never justify anyone, nor can anyone be justified by keeping it, since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).
It is supposed that Paul’s statement concerning justification by faith alone is incompatible with James’ insistence upon works for justification. Paul and James each came to the following conclusions concerning justification:
Paul: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:28)
James: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)
These two passages seem to be diametrically opposed to each other when read alone, out of their context. However, a careful consideration of each verse within its context reveals that they were talking about justification from two entirely different perspectives. Paul was speaking of our justification before God, which is by faith alone. James, on the other hand, is speaking of justification in the eyes of man. Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith when he simply believed God’s promise (Gen 15:6). God, who sees the heart, justified Abraham based upon his faith the moment he believed.
However, when James speaks of Abraham being justified, he made reference to an incident many years later when he offered up his own son Isaac, thereby visibly demonstrating to all the faith God always knew Abraham had from the very moment He declared him just (James 2:21).
True faith always results in a corresponding action. Faith that saves is faith alone, but faith that saves is never alone. God, who sees our heart, justifies us the moment we believe. However, that faith which brought justification cannot be confirmed by man apart from observing the corresponding actions. So, both James and Paul are simply looking at justification from two different angles. God knows the heart and justifies according to faith, but man only sees the outward demonstration of one’s faith and determines whether or not one has been justified by seeing faith’s corresponding fruit. That is why James said: “You say you have faith? Show me.”
Paul, just as James, repeatedly warned against being deluded into thinking one has saving faith when their conduct indicates otherwise. Paul said to the carnal believers at Corinth: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified.” (2Cor 13:5 cf.1Cor 15:2; Eph 5:3-6; 1Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19). Paul also speaks of a faith that works:
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6)
Any grace teaching which says that, since you are under grace you can do anything you want, or do nothing if that is what you want, is not presenting the whole council of God and is turning the grace of God into licentiousness.
Jesus likewise taught that it is faith alone which saves, while at the same time warning against empty profession. Jesus, on numerous occasions proclaimed the gospel of justification by faith apart from works. For example:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life… 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned (i.e., ‘is justified’).” (Jn 3:16,18)
“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40)
“Then they said to Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.’” (John 6:28-29)
At the same time, Jesus warned against making an empty profession of faith without corresponding works, or what James refers to as a dead faith. For example, He said:
“by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who SAYS to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matt 7:20-21)
Jesus taught, just as did Paul after Him, that faith without works is dead, and that such empty profession would never save anyone. Paul said:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)
“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:19-21)
“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.” (Eph 5:3-7)
So, we see that the gospel proclaimed by Jesus and the gospel of Paul are the same gospel of justification by grace through faith alone. At the same time, they both warn against an empty profession without repentance from sin and corresponding works which are an outgrowth or fruit of that faith.
The two-gospel advocates erroneously teach that Paul taught justification by faith alone without the need for a corresponding repentance from one’s former life of sin. This unbalanced presentation of Paul’s gospel converts the grace of God into a license to sin (Jude 4). Martin Zender is perhaps the most deliberately scandalous proponent of this misrepresentation of the gospel of grace. He says:
“Are you irreverent under the gospel of the Uncircumcision? Congratulations. You meet all the qualifications for justification.” [2]
Here he is basing this assertion upon Romans 4:5 where Paul says that God justifies the ungodly. However, while He freely justifies sinners, grace doesn’t save them only to leave them in that condition. Although it is true that God freely justifies the ungodly, the unrepentant are not justified simply because they give mental assent to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is what James calls dead faith – something even demons have (James 2:19-20). Jesus emphasized the vanity of empty faith without the “fruits of repentance” (Luke 3:8). Likewise, Paul gives a strong warning against false teachers who present such perversions of the gospel void of godliness when he says:
“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.” (1Tim 6:3-5)
So, we see that justification throughout the New Testament is consistently by grace through faith apart from works, but the faith that accompanies justification ultimately must bear the fruit of godliness – otherwise one has believed in vain. For those interested, I develop this subject further in my book, “The True Grace of God,” and in my article, Saving Faith.
2. Repentance and Baptism vs. Faith Alone.
The two-gospel advocates teach that, under Peter’s gospel of the circumcision, repentance and water baptism are necessary for salvation, whereas under Paul’s gospel of the Gentiles, it is by grace through faith alone that we are saved, and therefore, we should no longer say as Jesus did: “Repent, and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15). Nor should we go into all the world preaching the gospel to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus commissioned His disciples to do (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).
Some of the more hardline two-gospel preachers who believe in the traditional doctrine of an eternal hell, say that if one has been water baptized, they are eternally doomed. For example, Les Feldick says concerning the Great Commission: “That little portion of Scripture in the Great Commission, ‘Go into all the world baptizing them,’ has sent millions of people to their eternal doom.” [3] We already saw in part 2 of this series of blogs that the Great Commission to preach the gospel to all the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was never suspended, as the two-gospel advocates claim, so I won’t give more attention to that error here. [4]
Was water baptism ever a condition of salvation as the two-gospel people claim? While space doesn’t allow me to consider each passage on the subject, it is for good reason that mainstream Evangelicals deny that water baptism is salvific. For those interested in a more exhaustive consideration of this question I recommend my book, “Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” Here I would just like to briefly consider two passages which at first sight may be mistaken as teaching that water baptism is required for salvation.
Mark 16:16
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
What this passage tells us is that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, whereas those who do not believe will be condemned. However, what it doesn’t say is just as important as what it does say. What it doesn’t say is what happens to those who believe but for one reason or another do not get baptized. Those who teach that this is another gospel must assume what is not here stated. They must assume that it is not faith alone which saves, but faith plus baptism, and therefore anyone who isn’t baptized before death is condemned, even if he was a believer. What they assume contradicts other declarations of Jesus which present faith alone as necessary for salvation, like what Jesus said earlier in John 3:18:
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18)
If what they claim is true, then Jesus left out a critical ingredient in His presentation of the Gospel in John 3:18, because He here mentions faith as the only human response necessary in order to be justified – not faith plus baptism. They assume that what Jesus meant to say in Mark 16:16 is: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe and get baptized will be condemned.” By doing this they make Jesus’ words here contradict what is clearly stated in John 3:18 and many other passages – that one is saved by faith alone, apart from works (see also John 5:24; 20:31; Eph 2:8-9; 1John 5:11-13).
What they are guilty of is non-sequitur reasoning. If a statement is true, we should not automatically assume that its opposite is also true. For example, if I were to say: “All who believe and come to the altar will be saved, but those who do not believe will be lost,” it would be wrong to assume that those who believed but didn’t come to the altar would be lost, simply because they believed where they were, without coming to the altar. It is believing - not believing plus coming to the altar which saves, even though I called upon them to do both.
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
In the minds of the two-gospel advocates, Peter is here saying that water baptism was what took away their sins. However, in the next sermon when Peter preached the gospel, the number of men who believed alone, without counting women and children, came to be about 5,000. What did Peter tell them to do in order for their sins to be forgiven? He didn’t even mention baptism. He simply said: “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). Repentance and conversion are both elements of saving faith. In order to believe on Jesus, an unconverted Jew would have to repent or “change his mind,” (metanoéo), concerning Jesus, acknowledging one’s need for Him. He would also have to be converted or “turn about” (epistrepho). This implies a turning from sin to Jesus. Both of these are an integral part of what it means to believe on Jesus. They are not separate from faith, or in addition to faith, as is the case with water baptism, since they are simply part of what it means to truly believe in Jesus and receive Him.
Of some 48 times where the gospel is preached and believed upon in the book of Acts, only in 8 instances is there mention of those who believed being baptized afterwards, and in none of these other instances could one draw the conclusion that baptism was necessary in order for them to be saved. Peter, in one instance, speaking to Cornelius and those of his household, states that it is faith which results in remission of sins – not baptism:
“To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)
Our understanding of Acts 2:38 must take into account Peter’s statement here, saying that we are forgiven when we believe – not when we are baptized in water. In this instance, they believed and were baptized in the Holy Spirit and only afterwards were baptized in water (v. 47).
In Acts 2:38, it is imperative that one understands what is meant by the phrase: “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins.” Those who teach Baptismal Regeneration understand the preposition “for” as “in order to receive.” However, this preposition has several other meanings. Obviously, based upon all we have seen so far, the rendering “in order to receive the remission of sins” is not the correct one.
There is a better way of understanding this phrase that is consistent with the overall teaching of the New Testament concerning salvation by grace through faith alone. In the Colombian Amazon jungle where I minister, many suffer from toenail fungus due to the constant humidity. If I were to say to my neighbor: “soak your feet in vinegar-water for your toenail fungus” he would know that I did not mean “in order to receive.” In this case “for” means “in view of or because of.”
Understood in this manner, the verse says: “be baptized in view of the remission of sins (which you already received the moment you believed).” This is consistent with the recognition that the ordinances of the Lord’s Supper and water baptism are a picture of a greater reality, just as the Old Testament sacrifices were. We repent and are baptized in water in view of the remission of sins, which we already received because of our having been baptized into the Body of Christ through the baptism by the Spirit, which took place the moment we believed.
It is noteworthy that the same preposition is used elsewhere in relation to baptism where it is obvious that the preposition does not mean “in order to get.” John uses the same preposition (eis) when he said: “I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance…” (Matt 3:11). Although here it is translated “unto” instead of “for,” it is the same Greek preposition. Obviously, we are baptized in view of or because of our repentance – not in order to receive repentance.
The two-gospel advocates present two arguments as evidence that we are not to practice water baptism today. The first is to quote Ephesians 4:5 which states that there is one baptism. However, that is not inconsistent with the practice of water baptism, since the ceremony of water baptism is merely a picture of the one true baptism in which the Spirit baptized us into the body of Christ (1Cor 12:13; Rom 6:1-5). The ceremony of water baptism is no more another baptism than partaking of the Lord’s Supper is crucifying afresh the Son of God.
The second argument is based upon Paul’s statement: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” I will quote the whole passage in its context since the overall context totally refutes the whole idea of two gospels with two separate groups of believers:
“Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas (Peter),’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” (1 Cor 1:12-17)
Ironically, Paul here counters the very doctrine that the two-gospel advocates teach. Christ is not divided into those of Peter and those of Paul. Also, in asking them, “were you baptized in the name of Paul?” he assumes that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus, rather than in his name. The fact that Paul baptized several of them also indicates that they still practiced baptism. In saying that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but to preach the gospel, it only indicates that he delegated that duty to others. Also, if water baptism were incompatible with his gospel, as the two-gospel people affirm, he would have certainly indicated it here.
John says the same of Jesus. He said: “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples” (John 4:2). Nevertheless, all who believed were being baptized, even though Jesus Himself wasn’t the one doing the baptizing. The same applies to believers in Paul’s day: They were still being baptized in Jesus’ name upon believing even though Paul himself usually wasn’t the one doing the baptizing. It is doubtful that even Peter himself baptized all 3,000 souls who were baptized on the day of Pentecost.
Repentance
As to the subject of repentance, while repentance isn’t always mentioned in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel, it is always implicit in true saving faith. One does not believe on Jesus in order to be saved from sin unless they are repentant and want to be free from sin. Near the end of Paul’s ministry, when he appeared before King Agrippa, in describing his ministry, he made it clear that repentance was an indispensable part of his proclamation of the gospel. He said:
“Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:19-20; cf. Rom 2:4-6; 2Cor 7:9-10; 2Tim 2:25-26; 2Cor 12:21, etc.).
Paul’s gospel was the same gospel of Jesus Christ which Jesus Himself and the other Apostles preached, including Peter. The book of Acts closes with Paul still preaching the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31; see also, Col 4:11; Rom 14:17; 1Cor 4:20). The writings of Paul are in total harmony with the rest of the New Testament on this subject. For a more thorough consideration of the overall teaching of Scripture concerning biblical repentance, I recommend my blog: “True Repentance.”
3. New birth for Israel vs. New Creation for the Church
Those who hold to the two-gospel teaching say that the new birth only applies to the nation of Israel. They claim that we are not born again the moment we believe, but rather we become a new creation, which they consider to be different from being born again. Martin Zender says of the new birth: “Individuals are not born again; a nation is to be born again. (Not one person, as I write, has ever been born again.)” [5] But is it true that no individual has been born again? According to Peter himself, the recipients of his first epistle had all been born again. He said:
“having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)
Not only did Peter say that they had been born again, but he followed up in 1 Peter 2:2
by saying to them: “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,” indicating that, even as we needed to be nourished by milk when we were born into the physical world, so also we need to be nourished in the Word after being born of the Spirit.
Paul likewise, speaks to believers as those having been born of the Spirit. He said of the carnal believers in Corinth, “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food” (1 Cor 3:1-2). Then he told the Galatian believers that they had been born according to the Spirit, saying:
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.” (Gal 4:28-29 cf. vv. 21-31)
Additionally, In Ephesians 2 Paul speaks of us as formerly having been dead and then being made alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-6). How could we have been made alive spiritually apart from the rebirth of our spirits by the Holy Spirit? It is true that Paul says that we are a new creation in Christ (2Cor 5:17). But how can we become a part of the new creation if not through being born again with Christ’s resurrection life?
They argue that Jesus, in John 3 was not telling Nicodemus that individuals must be born again, but that the nation of Israel collectively had to be born again. However, it is impossible to conclude that if one considers the whole account. I will quote it in full, noting the singular and plural pronouns:
“Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you (sing.), unless one (individual) is born again, he (sing.) cannot see the kingdom of God.’ 4 Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?’ 5 Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you (sing.), unless one (sing.) is born of water and the Spirit, he (sing.) cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you (sing.), ‘You (pl.) must be born again.’” (John 3:3-7)
Throughout the entire discourse Jesus is emphasizing that it is necessary for individuals to be born again in order to enter, or even see, the kingdom of God. Nicodemus correctly understood it to be an individual rebirth but didn’t understand that it is our spirit which must be born again (cf. Ezek 11:19). When Jesus finally used the plural form in verse 7, saying that they all had to be born again, He was simply saying that each and every one of them had to be born again. Jesus wasn’t referring to the rebirth of the nation, prophesied in Isaiah 66, but rather to the new spirit that each and every individual must receive in order to enter the kingdom of God under the promised New Covenant as prophesied in Ezekiel:
“Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh.” (Ezek 11:19)
Jesus reproached Nicodemus for being a teacher of Israel and yet not knowing about God’s promise to give them a new spirit (Jn 3:10). Because of Israel’s unbelief, they did not enter into the kingdom of God through the new birth even though the kingdom was offered to them. As a consequence, Jesus said to them: “the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Matt 21:43). We, as the Church of Jesus Christ, are now that holy nation – we who once were not a people are now “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that we may proclaim the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1Peter 2:9-10).
This is not Peter speaking exclusively to believing Jews, as the two-gospel people claim, but rather he is speaking especially to the Gentiles within the Church who once were not a people. Israel has been set aside for a time in order to provoke them to jealousy until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and then all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:11-12, 25-26).
There is one final verse in John’s gospel I would like to cite which makes it clear that individuals had experienced their spiritual rebirth from the moment the New Covenant went into effect:
“He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born…of God (past tense).” (John 1:11-13)
Here we see that Jesus first came to the house of Israel. However, when Israel rejected their Messiah, the invitation was extended to all. As many (individuals) as received Him were born of God. It could not be any clearer. Clearly, this, just as nearly all other two-gospel distinctions, are human fabrications, and cannot be substantiated from Scripture.
4. Conditional Forgiveness vs. Unconditional Forgiveness
It is further claimed that God’s forgiveness of Jews who believe under Peter’s gospel is conditional, whereas forgiveness for us under Paul’s gospel is unconditional. This is argued based upon the fact that, for example, in the Lord’s prayer Jesus said that, if we do not forgive, our Father will not forgive us (Matt 6:14-15). He further said that if we do not forgive as we were forgiven that the Father will deliver us to the tormentors until we have paid our debt in full (Matt 18:23-35). John also presents God’s forgiveness as being conditioned upon our confession of sin (1Jn 1:9). In contrast to this, they say that Paul presents forgiveness as being unconditional when he says: “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph 4:32; cf. Col 3:13).
The main problem with this is that unconditional forgiveness is not only found in Paul’s epistles. For example, the author of Hebrews presents forgiveness as once and for all time. He says:
“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified… 17 then He adds, ‘their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’” (Heb 10:12-14,17)
Unconditional forgiveness is likewise implicit in many other passages throughout the New Testament. For example, Jesus said:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me HAS everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24)
What the two-gospel advocates fail to take into consideration is that there are two very distinct types of forgiveness – there is relational forgiveness, and there is a judicial forgiveness or a legal pardon. This is sometimes referred to as remission or as justification. This pardon or remission was only possible because of the blood of the New Covenant shed for the remission of our sins, and was done once and for all (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:22; 9:12). This forensic forgiveness is not unique to Paul’s epistles. Because of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, God can be just while at the same time justifying the ungodly sinner who believes in Jesus (Rom 3:24-26).
Distinct from judicial forgiveness there is a relational forgiveness, such as that which a father extends to his child once the child confesses his wrongdoing. This is what we see emphasized in those instances where forgiveness is conditional. For example, when Jesus said, “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,” it is evident that Jesus is referring to paternal forgiveness and not a judicial pardon. (Matt 6:14-15; cf. Matt 18:23-35).
In 1John we see mention of a judicial once and for all forgiveness in 1John 2:12, where John says: “I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven” (perfect passive “have been forgiven”) you for His name's sake.” Only by knowing to differentiate between judicial forgiveness and relational forgiveness can we understand that John wasn’t contradicting himself when he said in 1John 1:9 that the Father’s forgiveness is conditioned upon the confession of our sins before Him.
Both conditional and unconditional forgiveness are found throughout the entirety of the New Testament since they are both necessary. We need to be forgiven or justified from our sins before God as our Judge, and we also need to confess our sins when we have been disobedient, not in order to be saved, but in order to maintain communion with God who is light (1Jn 1:5-10). Therefore, Paul didn’t teach a different form of forgiveness from the rest of the New Testament.
5. Earthly Inheritance vs. Heavenly Inheritance
The two-gospel advocates say that the Jews who believe in Peter’s gospel are earthbound, whereas those who believe Paul’s gospel are already seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Martin Zender says that Jewish believers, along with the 12 Apostles, had no expectation of going to heaven. In Zender’s book “The First Idiot in Heaven,” he poses the question:
“Were faithful Israelites ever promised heaven? Not once. Jesus Himself said, ‘The meek shall inherit the Earth’ (Matthew 5:5). Wouldn’t Jesus have known what He was talking about? Israelites never dreamed of getting lifted from Terra Firma. Why would they? Jesus never spoke to them of such a thing.” [6]
Is it true that the 12 Apostles and the Jewish believers in Jerusalem knew nothing of a heavenly inheritance? What about Jesus’ promise in John 14? Wasn’t that a promise of heaven? Jesus said:
“In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:2-3)
Did the Apostles understand the Father’s house to be in heaven? Certainly! Jesus repeatedly referred to His Father as “the Father in heaven” and told them to lay up for themselves treasures in heaven (Matt 6:20). It is very obvious that Peter anticipated a heavenly inheritance in 1Peter 1 where he said:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you.” (1 Peter 1:3-4)
So, in this passage we not only see that he and his readers were already born again, but they all anticipated a heavenly inheritance. While it is true that the 12 Apostles will be seated upon 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the Millennial earth (Matt 19:28), all the mature sons of God who overcame while suffering with Him, will also reign with Him over the mortals in the Millennial earth from our habitation in the Heavenly New Jerusalem in the time of the Manifestation of the mature sons of God (huios), when all of creation will be finally restored (2Tim 2:12; Rom 8:17-23).
Jesus said to the predominately Gentile believers in the Church of Thyatira: “he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations — He shall rule them with a rod of iron” (Rev 2:26-27). Even father Abraham, although he never saw the promise fulfilled of inheriting the land of Canaan, wasn’t discouraged since he waited in expectation of the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb 11:10; cf. Jn 14:2-3).
There is so much more that could be said, demonstrating that both Jew and Gentile believers share the same heavenly inheritance, and that the entire Jew/Gentile body of Christ will be co-reigning with Christ over the earth during the Millennium and beyond, not just the 12 Apostles, who will be reigning over the mortal Jews in the land of Israel only. This supposed distinction between two destinies for two groups of believers simply cannot withstand scrutiny.
6. Appointed to Wrath vs. Saved from wrath.
Finally, I would like to briefly consider the claim that Jews who believe Peter’s gospel will experience the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation, whereas those who believe Paul’s gospel are exempt from wrath. In the first place, this assumes that the Church will be raptured before the final tribulation period. I argue for a Postribulational rapture of the Church at the Second Coming of Christ in my book “Focusing in on End-Time Events.”
Here I would just like to point out that no believer for whom Christ died will ever be subjected to the wrath of God, whether they undergo the Tribulation or not. To inflict wrath on any blood-bought saint of God would be double jeopardy. The wrath we are saved from in 1Thessalonians 1:10 and 1Thessalonians 5:9 is the same wrath as that mentioned in Romans 5:9 where Paul says: “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” This is not referring to God’s wrath in the Tribulation, but to His postmortem judgment of the unrepentant (Rom 2:5).
A careful examination of the book of Revelation reveals that the only wrath the saints of God will undergo during the Great Tribulation is the wrath of the Dragon and his Beast (Rev 12:12; 13:7,15).
This blog has already become a small book, so I won’t go into further detail, except to say that the wrath of God is only poured out upon the worshippers of the Beast who do not have the seal of God in their foreheads. God’s people are specifically said to be exempted from His bowls of wrath when they are poured out. In my book “Focusing in on End-Time Events,” I demonstrate this with more detail.
I hope that this series of four blogs will be helpful to those who have become entangled in this complex hyper-dispensational labyrinth, first contrived by E.W. Bullinger in the 19th century and further developed by A.E. Knoch, who was excommunicated from the Plymouth Brethren Movement for his aberrant divisive doctrines which also included the denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
I realize that some are so committed to this two-gospel doctrine that they have reached the point of cognitive dissonance and no amount of reasoning with them from the Scriptures will persuade them otherwise. This series of blogs is primarily directed towards those who are not yet fully cemented in this doctrine, and therefore are still open to consider scriptural arguments opposing it.
[1] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 2813, Kindle Edition.
[2] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 3231, Kindle Edition.
[3] Les Feldick – Galatian’s teaching on the two gospels. 12:42 min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AxAou-Pn6g&t=2305s
[4] https://www.triumphofmercy.com/blog/are-there-two-groups-of-believers-or-are-we-one-body-2-of-2
[5] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 3156, Kindle Edition.
[6] Zender, Martin. The First Idiot in Heaven: Secrets of the Apostle Paul (And why the meek merely inherit the Earth), Loc. 127. Kindle Edition.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
Are there two sets of Scriptures in the New Testament, intended for two separate groups of believers, as the two-gospel advocates affirm? Most Christians recognize that the Old Testament was for the Jews under the Old Covenant and that, although it was written for us, it isn’t all directly applicable to us under the New Covenant. Additionally, in reading the four Gospels, it must be kept in mind that Jesus’ ministry was carried out while yet under the Old Mosaic Covenant.
Therefore, much of Christ's teachings were intended to be transitional, on the one hand presenting the old, while at the same time introducing the new. Christ often elevated the demands of the Law so that His hearers would despair of self-salvation by law observance and afterwards gladly receive His redemption from the curse of the Law through His death on the cross, becoming a new creation in union with Him in His resurrection life after He rose from the dead.
In the Gospels, Jesus combined the old with the new and advised His hearers concerning the need to discern between the two. He said that the old was incompatible with the new (Matt 9:17) and alerted His hearers of their need for understanding concerning the kingdom of heaven in order to be able to discern between the two. He said:
“Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matt 13:52)
Therefore, in reading the Gospels, we need to discern when Jesus is applying the old, as opposed to when He is introducing the new. For example, to the rich ruler who was still under the delusion that he could be saved by law observance Jesus raised the bar even higher, saying that he also would have to sell all that he had and give to the poor (Matt 19:16-22). In contrast, when the corrupt tax collector simply cried out to God for mercy, he was justified by pure grace apart from works (Luke 18:9-14).
On one occasion, we see Jesus raising the bar even higher on adultery, saying that just a lustful look puts one in danger of Gehenna fire (Matt 5:27-29). In bold contrast to this, we see Jesus offering the water of life freely to the Samaritan woman while knowing that she was not only living in adultery, but also she had had five previously failed marriages (Jn 4:7-18). On another occasion, we see Him saying to a woman caught in the very act of adultery: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
In the Gospels we often see Jesus using the two-edged sword – at one moment killing with the Law, which was the ministration of condemnation and death (2Cor 3:7-9), and the next moment making alive and extending grace to those who already knew that they were condemned and in need of mercy (cf. 1Sam 2:6).
This two-phased working of God in the heart of man is seen throughout all of Scripture, including Paul’s epistles. Paul said: “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all” (Rom 11:32), and “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24). James likewise said: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” – only to follow up by saying that in the end “mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:10-13). Rather than discarding the Gospels as non-applicable, we need to pray for discernment in order to rightly distinguish the old from the new.
However, the two-gospel advocates not only consider the Gospels to be non-applicable to the Church; they also discard the entirety of the New Testament as non-applicable to us, with the exception of Paul’s epistles. This is an outgrowth of their erroneous interpretation of Galatians 2:7, in which they conclude that there are two separate gospels and subsequently two separate groups of believers: 1) believing Jews or the bride, who are still under the Old Covenant Law, and 2) the believers among the Gentiles who comprise the Church, the body of Christ, and are under grace rather than the Law. This, they argue in spite of Paul’s emphatic statements to the contrary, as we saw in the previous blog (Gal 3:27-29; Eph 3:3-6; 1Cor 12:13).
They say that believing Jews are still under the Old Covenant and therefore obligated to keep the Law of Moses in addition to believing in Jesus, whereas the Church is said to be under grace with no moral obligations whatsoever. But is it true that the Old Covenant is still in effect for some believers? (cf. Rom 10:4). Is the Jew/Gentile Church not presently living under the New Covenant? Paul makes it very clear that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, but rather we are now ministers of the New Covenant. He said:
“But our sufficiency is from God 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (2Cor 3:5-11)
Here Paul, speaking to the Jew/Gentile body of Christ, says that God has made us all ministers of the New Covenant which is not of the letter, as the Old Covenant was, being the ministry of death, written and engraved in tablets of stone. In the place of the tablets of stone of the former Old Covenant, Paul says that we are now an epistle “written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (2 Cor 3:3). This is a partial fulfillment of that which was promised to Israel under the New Covenant when the Lord said, “I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26).
As we see from Ezekiel 31:31 onward, the New Covenant would have been initiated for the nation of Israel and they would have been fully restored to their land under the New Covenant at the time that Christ, their Messiah and King, came proclaiming that His kingdom was at hand. However, Israel’s representative leadership formally rejected Christ’s offer of the Kingdom when He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem presenting Himself as their King (Matt 21:6-17).
Consequently, He declared to them that, because they did not recognize the hour of their visitation, they would be left desolate until such a time as the nation of Israel should welcome Him (Matt 23:38-39). National Israel was then set aside for judgment. Since Pentecost, the promise of Abraham, as well as that of the New Covenant, have been fulfilled in the Church, which is made up primarily of Gentiles, with only a small remnant of Israel believing and coming under the New Covenant during this age (Rom 11:5-7, 25-27).
In 2Corinthians 3, after declaring that we, as the Church of Christ, are now under the New Covenant, Paul goes on to explain that national Israel fails to see that the Old Mosaic Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant because they have been blinded to what Christ accomplished upon the Cross:
“But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” (2Cor 3:14-16)
It is not that the New Covenant has not yet been effectuated. Jesus said of His blood that it was the blood of the New Covenant, shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). Through His death He redeemed us from our sins and became the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 9:15). Paul instructed the Church concerning the Lord’s Supper celebrated in remembrance of His blood shed for us, reminding them of Jesus’ words: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1Cor 11:25).
So, we see that the only people-group that are still blinded and therefore continue living under the Old Covenant are the unsaved Jews, and not the believers among the circumcision. In the very moment a Jew believes in Christ, the veil is removed, and they see that we are now already living under the New Covenant. Those who persecuted the Church and sought to impose the Old Covenant Law were the unregenerate Jews who did not acknowledge that Christ had initiated the New Covenant in His own blood, as well as some false brethren whom we commonly refer to as Judaizers (Gal 2:4; Acts 15:5). But Paul insisted that all believers in this age are to live under the New Covenant, free from the Law. He said:
“For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children — 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of US ALL.” (Gal 4:24-26)
It must be kept in mind that Paul was speaking both to Jew and Gentile believers when he says that we are all free from the Law under the New Covenant (Gal 3:26-29). In this present age salvation has come to the Gentiles to provoke Israel to Jealousy (Rom 11:11-15). However, national Israel will finally be saved and will welcome their Messiah and King at His Second Coming. At that time, they will come under the New Covenant and will see the full restoration of their land as promised in Ezekiel and elsewhere. However, that future restoration has to do with God’s program for national Israel and does not apply to believing Jews in this age who all became part of the Church upon believing (1Cor 12:13).
So, understanding that there are not two separate saved people-groups, but that both Jew and Gentile believers make up the one and only body of Christ, the Church, the argument that today there are two sets of Scriptures in the New Testament for two separate groups of believers, falls to the ground. There are several perceived contrasts and apparent discrepancies presented by the two-gospel advocates to substantiate their claim that the epistles of Paul are different from, and incompatible with, the rest of the New Testament. These supposed discrepancies will be considered in the next blog.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
In the previous blog I demonstrated both contextually and grammatically that Galatians 2:7 is referring to only one gospel – the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which was first announced to the shepherds on the night Christ was born in Bethlehem, and later blossomed into the full-orbed gospel as it was finally revealed to Paul by the glorified Christ Himself. At the council at Jerusalem, it was determined that Paul’s gospel wasn’t different from the gospel they themselves had been proclaiming. In the council, Peter, who had previously spent fifteen days with Paul (Gal 1:18), explained to the rest of the council that the gospel Paul preached was not different from the gospel they preached. He said:
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.) and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved IN THE SAME MANNER as they.” (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul said of this singular one-and-only gospel that it was the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom 1:16). In chapter one of Galatians, Paul most emphatically insisted that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Therefore, it is unreasonable to think he would turn around only a few verses later and say in 2:7 that there are two distinct gospels. This error is primarily due to the fact that the KJV rendered it “the gospel of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision.”
Those who would insist that it must read “of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision,” simply because the noun, uncircumcision, is in the genitive case, only show their lack of understanding of the many nuances of the genitive case in Greek. When teaching first year Greek, we always warned the students that they needed to continue on to at least complete the second year, due to the complexities of the Greek language. Many consider themselves to be authorities on Greek after only having received the basics of the language.
I don’t claim to be an expert myself, but it troubles me to see some who obviously lack any real knowledge of the original languages, showing contempt for the translators as if those scholars didn’t know what they were doing. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson lists ten distinct uses of the genitive. [i] As we saw in the previous blog, a common use of the genitive case is the objective genitive, which would read “to” or “towards.” The reason many of the more recent translations render it as “to the uncircumcision” rather than “of the uncircumcision” is because the structure allows it, and the context requires it.
Upon this demonstrably erroneous rendering of the genitive an entire doctrinal system has been built which also argues for two separate groups of believers among the people of God, each with their own private set of Scriptures and disparate doctrines. They dogmatically affirm that they are the only ones in our day who rightly divide the Word of God (2Tim 2:15).
However, I must ask the question: are they rightly dividing the Word of God when they divide believers into two groups? I hope to demonstrate in this blog that in reality they are dividing that which God has joined together. They are drawing lines of division where Paul himself most emphatically states that they are not to be drawn.
In his book “The Two Gospels,” Dawson Barlow argues that Galatians is key to understanding God’s present program since it contains a major “road sign” or transition that most of the Church has failed to recognize. [ii] Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, related in Galatians 2, corresponds to his appearance before the Jerusalem council as recorded in Acts 15. There, as we have already seen, they determined that the gospel Paul preached was not another gospel and gave him the right hand of fellowship, saying that he should go to the Gentiles and Peter would go to the circumcised (Gal 2:9).
However, two-gospel advocates like Dawson and Martin Zender, insisting upon the Authorized Version’s rendering of Galatians 2:7, argue that the Jerusalem council actually concluded the very opposite – that Peter and Paul were to proclaim two different gospels for two separate people groups: Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. They not only argue that from the Jerusalem council onwards there were two distinct gospels, but they also insist that God had two separate people groups contemporaneous with each other: 1) The Messianic Jews or the circumcision, and 2) the Gentile believers or the uncircumcision. They also claim that only the Jewish believers make up the bride of Christ, while the Gentiles are the Church or the body of Christ and separate from the bride.
But is Christ divided? If such a distinction had been made at the Jerusalem council, we would certainly expect to see it mentioned by Paul in Galatians, but what does he say in this regard? In the very next chapter, Paul makes it abundantly clear that no such division existed between Jew and Gentile believers at that time. He said:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for YOU ARE ALL ONE in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:27-29)
Here we see that, not only do Jews and Gentiles make up the one and only body of Christ, but the Gentiles have also become Abraham’s seed by virtue of their union with Christ, who is Abraham’s Seed (cf. Gal 3:16). To Paul, as to no other Apostle, was entrusted the mysteries of the gospel. However, the mystery revealed to him was not that the Gentile believers were separate from the Jewish believers, but quite to the contrary, the mystery was that they both make up the same body. He said:
“by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of THE SAME BODY, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.).” (Eph 3:3-6).
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into ONE BODY — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)
So, we see that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, teaches the exact opposite of that which the two-gospel people affirm. He clearly states that Jew and Gentile believers form one body in Christ. Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that the mysteries of the gospel were not exclusive to Paul, as they claim. Here Paul says that this mystery was also revealed to Christ’s “holy apostles and prophets” by the Spirit. The mysteries revealed to Paul were not revealed to him to the exclusion of the other Apostles, they were revealed to the whole body.
The argument that the Gentiles make up the Church, the body of Christ, while the Jews who believe only become the bride of Christ, is based upon the fact that Paul’s epistles do not use the word “bride” when referring to believers. Since they believe that no part of the New Testament, apart from Paul’s epistles, is applicable to the Gentile Church, they argue that the lack of mention of the word “bride” is conclusive evidence that the Church will not be the bride of Christ.
I will consider the fallacy of the two Scripture doctrine in another blog. However, while the actual word “bride” is not directly applied to the Church in Paul’s epistles since the wedding feast is yet future, he nevertheless does refer to the church as having been betrothed to become the bride. Paul said to the Corinthians:
“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor 11:2)
Here Paul presents himself as one who made himself a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake, preparing the betrothed bride of the King for the wedding day. Likewise, in Ephesians, Paul compares the one flesh husband/wife relationship in marriage to that of the relationship of Christ to His Church:
“So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Eph 5:28-32)
Paul here says that the one-flesh union with a man and his wife is a representation of a great mystery – the mystery of the union of Christ with His Church. Clearly, the Church is presented as the bride of Christ, not only in the book of Revelation, but also in Paul’s epistles.
They argue that the book of Revelation is not applicable to the Church but only to the Jews or the bride of Christ. However, in the very introduction, John specifically says: “John, to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). Jesus then says: “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia…” (Rev 1:11). How can it reasonably be argued that the book of Revelation was not addressed to the Gentiles in the churches, when it was Paul himself who first took the gospel to most of the cities mentioned in Revelation?
Also, it should be noted that, while Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, he did not preach the gospel exclusively to them. In fact, just as he said in Romans 1:16, it was his custom to preach the gospel first to the Jews. In Acts 17, after the Jerusalem council in chapter 15, it was still his custom to preach first to the Jews. It says:
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:1-2).
How can the two-gospel people explain the fact that Paul customarily went and preached the gospel first to the Jews if indeed his gospel was different from that of the circumcision? Paul said that, to the Jews he became as a Jew in order to win the Jews, but he preached the same gospel to them and not another (1Cor 9:19-23).
They also argue that the Great Commission, which Jesus commanded the 12 Apostles to preach to the ends of the earth was suspended at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. If that is true, then what was the gospel that the other 12 Apostles took to the nations during their lifetime? Did they only evangelize the Jews?
The two-gospel advocates imply that the 12 remained in Jerusalem preaching the gospel to the Jews only. However, that is not the case. In Acts 1 Jesus said that they would be His witnesses beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and finally unto the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Following through Acts, we can see that the Great Commission was carried out in that order, just as Jesus said – first in Jerusalem (1:1 – 7:60), then Judea and Samaria (8:1 – 9:43), and finally to the ends of the earth (10:1 – 28:31). In the final verse of Acts we see that Paul is still preaching the same gospel of the kingdom of God and not another, as the two-gospel people claim (Acts 28:31). Jesus said that the end would come as soon as the gospel of the kingdom had been preached to all the world as a witness to all the nations (Matt 24:14).
The other 12 Apostles began in Jerusalem, but they didn’t remain there. Even Peter spent his final days in Rome. Most of them died as martyrs at the hands of the Gentiles because of their testimony, with the exception of John, who died of old age in Ephesus. In the following map one can see that they didn’t consider the Great Commission Jesus commended to them as having been suspended in Acts 15, as claimed by the two-gospel people.
--
In the previous blog I demonstrated both contextually and grammatically that Galatians 2:7 is referring to only one gospel – the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which was first announced to the shepherds on the night Christ was born in Bethlehem, and later blossomed into the full-orbed gospel as it was finally revealed to Paul by the glorified Christ Himself. At the council at Jerusalem, it was determined that Paul’s gospel wasn’t different from the gospel they themselves had been proclaiming. In the council, Peter, who had previously spent fifteen days with Paul (Gal 1:18), explained to the rest of the council that the gospel Paul preached was not different from the gospel they preached. He said:
“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.) and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved IN THE SAME MANNER as they.” (Acts 15:7-11)
Paul said of this singular one-and-only gospel that it was the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom 1:16). In chapter one of Galatians, Paul most emphatically insisted that there is only one gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Therefore, it is unreasonable to think he would turn around only a few verses later and say in 2:7 that there are two distinct gospels. This error is primarily due to the fact that the KJV rendered it “the gospel of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision.”
Those who would insist that it must read “of the uncircumcision” rather than “to the uncircumcision,” simply because the noun, uncircumcision, is in the genitive case, only show their lack of understanding of the many nuances of the genitive case in Greek. When teaching first year Greek, we always warned the students that they needed to continue on to at least complete the second year, due to the complexities of the Greek language. Many consider themselves to be authorities on Greek after only having received the basics of the language.
I don’t claim to be an expert myself, but it troubles me to see some who obviously lack any real knowledge of the original languages, showing contempt for the translators as if those scholars didn’t know what they were doing. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson lists ten distinct uses of the genitive. [i] As we saw in the previous blog, a common use of the genitive case is the objective genitive, which would read “to” or “towards.” The reason many of the more recent translations render it as “to the uncircumcision” rather than “of the uncircumcision” is because the structure allows it, and the context requires it.
Upon this demonstrably erroneous rendering of the genitive an entire doctrinal system has been built which also argues for two separate groups of believers among the people of God, each with their own private set of Scriptures and disparate doctrines. They dogmatically affirm that they are the only ones in our day who rightly divide the Word of God (2Tim 2:15).
However, I must ask the question: are they rightly dividing the Word of God when they divide believers into two groups? I hope to demonstrate in this blog that in reality they are dividing that which God has joined together. They are drawing lines of division where Paul himself most emphatically states that they are not to be drawn.
In his book “The Two Gospels,” Dawson Barlow argues that Galatians is key to understanding God’s present program since it contains a major “road sign” or transition that most of the Church has failed to recognize. [ii] Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, related in Galatians 2, corresponds to his appearance before the Jerusalem council as recorded in Acts 15. There, as we have already seen, they determined that the gospel Paul preached was not another gospel and gave him the right hand of fellowship, saying that he should go to the Gentiles and Peter would go to the circumcised (Gal 2:9).
However, two-gospel advocates like Dawson and Martin Zender, insisting upon the Authorized Version’s rendering of Galatians 2:7, argue that the Jerusalem council actually concluded the very opposite – that Peter and Paul were to proclaim two different gospels for two separate people groups: Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. They not only argue that from the Jerusalem council onwards there were two distinct gospels, but they also insist that God had two separate people groups contemporaneous with each other: 1) The Messianic Jews or the circumcision, and 2) the Gentile believers or the uncircumcision. They also claim that only the Jewish believers make up the bride of Christ, while the Gentiles are the Church or the body of Christ and separate from the bride.
But is Christ divided? If such a distinction had been made at the Jerusalem council, we would certainly expect to see it mentioned by Paul in Galatians, but what does he say in this regard? In the very next chapter, Paul makes it abundantly clear that no such division existed between Jew and Gentile believers at that time. He said:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for YOU ARE ALL ONE in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:27-29)
Here we see that, not only do Jews and Gentiles make up the one and only body of Christ, but the Gentiles have also become Abraham’s seed by virtue of their union with Christ, who is Abraham’s Seed (cf. Gal 3:16). To Paul, as to no other Apostle, was entrusted the mysteries of the gospel. However, the mystery revealed to him was not that the Gentile believers were separate from the Jewish believers, but quite to the contrary, the mystery was that they both make up the same body. He said:
“by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of THE SAME BODY, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.).” (Eph 3:3-6).
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into ONE BODY — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)
So, we see that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, teaches the exact opposite of that which the two-gospel people affirm. He clearly states that Jew and Gentile believers form one body in Christ. Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that the mysteries of the gospel were not exclusive to Paul, as they claim. Here Paul says that this mystery was also revealed to Christ’s “holy apostles and prophets” by the Spirit. The mysteries revealed to Paul were not revealed to him to the exclusion of the other Apostles, they were revealed to the whole body.
The argument that the Gentiles make up the Church, the body of Christ, while the Jews who believe only become the bride of Christ, is based upon the fact that Paul’s epistles do not use the word “bride” when referring to believers. Since they believe that no part of the New Testament, apart from Paul’s epistles, is applicable to the Gentile Church, they argue that the lack of mention of the word “bride” is conclusive evidence that the Church will not be the bride of Christ.
I will consider the fallacy of the two Scripture doctrine in another blog. However, while the actual word “bride” is not directly applied to the Church in Paul’s epistles since the wedding feast is yet future, he nevertheless does refer to the church as having been betrothed to become the bride. Paul said to the Corinthians:
“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor 11:2)
Here Paul presents himself as one who made himself a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake, preparing the betrothed bride of the King for the wedding day. Likewise, in Ephesians, Paul compares the one flesh husband/wife relationship in marriage to that of the relationship of Christ to His Church:
“So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Eph 5:28-32)
Paul here says that the one-flesh union with a man and his wife is a representation of a great mystery – the mystery of the union of Christ with His Church. Clearly, the Church is presented as the bride of Christ, not only in the book of Revelation, but also in Paul’s epistles.
They argue that the book of Revelation is not applicable to the Church but only to the Jews or the bride of Christ. However, in the very introduction, John specifically says: “John, to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). Jesus then says: “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia…” (Rev 1:11). How can it reasonably be argued that the book of Revelation was not addressed to the Gentiles in the churches, when it was Paul himself who first took the gospel to most of the cities mentioned in Revelation?
Also, it should be noted that, while Paul was commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, he did not preach the gospel exclusively to them. In fact, just as he said in Romans 1:16, it was his custom to preach the gospel first to the Jews. In Acts 17, after the Jerusalem council in chapter 15, it was still his custom to preach first to the Jews. It says:
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:1-2).
How can the two-gospel people explain the fact that Paul customarily went and preached the gospel first to the Jews if indeed his gospel was different from that of the circumcision? Paul said that, to the Jews he became as a Jew in order to win the Jews, but he preached the same gospel to them and not another (1Cor 9:19-23).
They also argue that the Great Commission, which Jesus commanded the 12 Apostles to preach to the ends of the earth was suspended at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. If that is true, then what was the gospel that the other 12 Apostles took to the nations during their lifetime? Did they only evangelize the Jews?
The two-gospel advocates imply that the 12 remained in Jerusalem preaching the gospel to the Jews only. However, that is not the case. In Acts 1 Jesus said that they would be His witnesses beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and finally unto the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Following through Acts, we can see that the Great Commission was carried out in that order, just as Jesus said – first in Jerusalem (1:1 – 7:60), then Judea and Samaria (8:1 – 9:43), and finally to the ends of the earth (10:1 – 28:31). In the final verse of Acts we see that Paul is still preaching the same gospel of the kingdom of God and not another, as the two-gospel people claim (Acts 28:31). Jesus said that the end would come as soon as the gospel of the kingdom had been preached to all the world as a witness to all the nations (Matt 24:14).
The other 12 Apostles began in Jerusalem, but they didn’t remain there. Even Peter spent his final days in Rome. Most of them died as martyrs at the hands of the Gentiles because of their testimony, with the exception of John, who died of old age in Ephesus. In the following map one can see that they didn’t consider the Great Commission Jesus commended to them as having been suspended in Acts 15, as claimed by the two-gospel people.
There is much more that could be said, but from these first two blogs it should be evident to any unbiased student of the Word that believers in the first century knew nothing of two gospels with two separate people-groups among believers. In the next blog we will be considering their arguments for two separate sets of Scriptures – Paul’s epistles which they say are for the Gentiles only, and the rest of the New Testament which, according to them, is for the Jews only.
[1] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Objective Genitive.
[2] R. Dawson Barlow, The Two Gospels – A big difference.
[1] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Objective Genitive.
[2] R. Dawson Barlow, The Two Gospels – A big difference.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
I have recently had discussions with individuals who defend the belief that there are two distinct gospels found in the New Testament – one gospel for the Jews which required circumcision as well as other law observances, and the other gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles which was salvation by grace through faith alone.
It is commonly held by them that, by the end of Paul’s own lifetime, the gospel which he had preached to the Gentiles had been rejected by all those whom he had evangelized in Asia Minor, being displaced by the gospel of the circumcision. This is based upon their interpretation of Paul’s statement that all those in Asia had turned away from him (2Tim 1:15). From this they deduce that the true gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone preached by Paul was lost to the Church in the first century, being replaced with Peter’s works-salvation gospel. This is how they explain the fact that such a doctrine is not found anywhere in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Most who hold to this two-gospel message argue that very few have been saved from Paul’s day to the present since the majority have only heard and received the gospel of the circumcision which requires works for salvation.
Being a Dispensationalist myself, I was always somewhat familiar with the two-gospel teaching. However, those brethren who held to this teaching were generally regarded by most as being a sectarian fringe group of Hyper Dispensationalists and I didn’t give much thought to the subject: That is, until I encountered some among us Universalists who also hold to a variation of this same teaching. From what I have been able to gather, its main proponent among Universalists today is Martin Zender. [1]
I am in agreement with them in that the gospel of grace through faith alone which Paul preached is the only way that we as Gentiles may be saved. However, the main point of contention is their claim that there was a different gospel for the Jews which required that they perform works of the Law in addition to faith in order to be saved.
Additionally, according to them, only Paul’s epistles are applicable to the Church today. They claim that the Church did not begin on the day of Pentecost when the gift of the Holy Spirit was first given to believers, but midway through Acts with the stoning of Stephen and the commissioning of Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, the other twelve Apostles are not even part of the Church of Jesus Christ, according to them.
Upon what foundation is this doctrine based? Amazingly, as we shall see, the entire doctrinal scheme was derived from only one verse as it was translated in the King James Version, taken out of context. Their key passage is Galatians 2:7-9 which reads:
“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Gal 2:7-9)
From verse 7 they argue that there were two distinct gospels – one under Peter’s apostleship, pertaining to the Jews, and the other under Paul’s apostleship, pertaining to the Gentiles. They argue that the Jewish gospel preached by Peter required circumcision and law observance in addition to faith in order to be saved, whereas the gospel proclaimed by Paul was salvation by grace through faith alone.
However, even a casual consideration of the context in which this verse appears makes it abundantly clear that Paul here is not speaking of two distinct gospels, but rather the only true gospel, the gospel of grace, which was presented to all people-groups, including the Jews. After Paul’s brief introductory statements in chapter one, he goes directly to the motive of his epistle, which is to expose the Judaizers who had crept in among the Galatians and were subverting the faith of some, presenting another false gospel. Beginning in verse 6 he says:
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6-9).
Paul here most emphatically says that there is only one gospel and that any gospel other than that which he preached was in fact not a gospel at all. Those who argue for two gospels say that the gospel Peter preached to the circumcision required circumcision and law observance. However, that is the very false gospel that Paul opposes here in Galatians. Paul said concerning circumcision:
“Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal 5:2-4).
The two gospel advocates say that the gospel of the circumcision required that they be circumcised and keep the Law. But Paul says that if one seeks to be justified by any ritual or by the works of the Law, then Christ would profit them nothing. Seeking to be justified by works constitutes a falling from grace. It cannot be argued that Paul only means to say that the Gentile believers cannot be justified by works, whereas the Jews must, since he makes it abundantly clear that absolutely no one can be justified by the works of the Law. He said:
“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that A MAN is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law NO FLESH shall be justified.” (Gal 2:15-16).
Paul here includes himself and Peter, both being Jews, when he says that NO MAN – NO FLESH, can be justified by the works of the Law. Likewise, in Romans 1 thru 3, Paul establishes that both Jew and Gentile alike stand guilty before God without any possibility of being justified by the works of the Law. In 3:20 he sums up the matter saying:
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20)
Paul emphatically states that NO FLESH can be justified by the Law. It only served to give us the knowledge of our own sinful condition – nothing more. The Law was the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones (2Cor 3:7). It was not given to live by but to die by. After having done its work, destroying all hopes of self-salvation, Paul in the next verse introduces the one and only true gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of grace:
“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, TO ALL and ON ALL who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all (both Jew and Gentile) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 3:21-24).
So, the good news for all, including both Jew and Gentile, is the gospel of free justification by grace apart from the works of the Law. If a supposed gospel includes works, then it is not a gospel at all, because it cannot save anyone – not even a Jew. There can be no two gospels.
One of the main reasons why there are so few Jews being saved in this present time is because they still seek to establish their own righteousness by the Law and reject the only true gospel of justification by grace through faith alone. Paul said concerning the Jews of this time:
“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE who believes.” (Rom 10:2-4)
“Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant (of Jews) according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” (Rom 11:5-6)
So, it is abundantly clear that the Jews must be saved by the same gospel of grace apart from works, rather than by a different gospel. It becomes even more evident that Paul did not see Peter’s gospel as being different from his as we continue reading in Galatians chapter two. Right after saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter, Paul relates an incident in which he confronted Peter and others of the circumcision because they were not living “according to the truth of the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.)” (Gal 2:14-16). Included in his reproach he reminded them that “according to the gospel” they as Jews knew that “a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
If indeed there were two distinct gospels, Paul would not have reproached Peter for not living according to “the gospel” (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). If Peter’s gospel were different from Paul’s gospel, he wouldn’t have said “the gospel” with the definite article. He would have said that Peter wasn’t living according to his own gospel. However, if indeed Peter’s gospel required that the Jews live as a Jew, as the two-gospel advocates claim, then Peter would have actually been living according to his circumcision gospel by separating from the Gentile believers.
Two Gospels, or the Progressive Unveiling of the One and Only True Gospel?
The two-gospel advocates note differences between the Gospel of the kingdom of God presented by Jesus and the twelve Apostles in the Synoptic Gospels and conclude from that that there must be two different gospels. Prior to the cross, the Jews were called upon to repent and believe the gospel, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Mark 1:15; Matt 10:5-7). However, after the resurrection the gospel also included the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1Cor 15:3; Acts 2:23-24; 10:39-40).
Rather than two gospels, what is progressively presented to us in the New Testament is the unveiling of the one and only true gospel; from its seed form during the life and ministry of Christ; to His burial as a seed falls into the ground, and then to its full bloom through Christ’s resurrection from the dead victorious over sin and death as our Last Adam.
The two-gospel advocates argue that there was the gospel of the kingdom, which was for the Jews only, and then there was the gospel of Christ’s death burial and resurrection, which Paul preached to the Gentiles. It is true that the gospel was first preached to the Jew, but it is the same gospel that saves both the Jew and the Gentile. As Paul said:
“For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the JEW FIRST and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” (Rom 1:16-17)
So, while it is true that the gospel of Christ was first preached to the Jew, and only afterwards to the non-Jews, it was the same gospel of grace and not another. The gospel of Christ is the same gospel which was first proclaimed to the shepherds the night Jesus was born in a manger. We can see the universal reach of this one and only true gospel from its very beginnings in the Angel’s proclamation:
“Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to ALL PEOPLE… And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!’” (Luke 2:10, 13-14)
The gospel of Jesus Christ never changed into another gospel – it simply blossomed into the full-blown gospel, expanding to include all people, both Jews and non-Jews, just as it was finally revealed to the Apostle Paul.
The Correct Rendering of Galatians 2:7
With this understanding concerning the one and only true gospel of Christ, we can now turn our attention to the one verse from which the two-gospel doctrine found its origin, Galatians 2:7. The word “gospel” only appears once in the phrase, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” It literally reads “I was entrusted with the gospel of/to the uncircumcision just as Peter of/to the circumcision (πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς)” Some translations favor the Authorized Version’s rendering “gospel of the circumcision,” but the majority of recent translations, taking into account the context, render it as “the gospel to the circumcision.”
The two-gospel advocates insist that the only correct rendering is “of the circumcision,” saying that it must mean “of” and not “to” because it is in the genitive case in Greek, rather than the dative (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας...τῆς περιτομῆς). However, insisting that the genitive must always be rendered “of” shows a lack of understanding concerning the diverse uses of the genitive case. [2]
One of the uses of the genitive case is referred to by the Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson as the objective genitive. This usage would read as “to” or “towards” in English. [3] For example, in 1 Peter 2:19, it speaks of a good conscience “toward” God (διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ), while Luke 6:12 also is an objective genitive, and is properly rendered prayer “to” God (ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ). It is too simplistic to force the meaning “of” upon every genitive without due regard for its actual use in the context. Considering the context of Galatians 2:7, it becomes very clear that the correct rendering is “I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcision just as Peter to the circumcision.”
It is the same gospel message, but Paul presented it in such a way as to be understood and received by a Gentile, whereas Peter presented it in a manner that would be more readily received by a Jew. As Paul said:
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, sing.), that I may be partaker of it with you.” (1 Cor 9:19-23)
Paul only saw one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. But in order that he might win and save all, he became all to all people in his presentation of it. Here in 1Corinthians 8 thru 9, as well as in Romans 14 thru 15, Paul instructs Gentile believers who know the truth concerning our liberty under the New Covenant as to how we are to relate to those who have a legalistic background. He says that we are not to flaunt our liberty in Christ before those who feel that they must live under the dietary restrictions and ceremonial observances such as the Sabbath. However, while his presentation of the gospel differed depending upon his audience, the gospel remained the same and not another.
The two-gospel advocates rightly point out that Paul received greater revelation as to the mystery of the gospel. In fact, to him mysteries were revealed as to no other Apostle. However, the mystery of the gospel was not that there were two gospels. To him was revealed the mystery that God had always planned to unite Jews and Gentiles, forming one body. He said:
“if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, sing.).” (Eph 3:2-6)
Here we see that the mystery revealed to Paul was not that of two people groups with two gospels, but one gospel and only one people – His body, the Jew/Gentile Church. The revelation given to Paul did not produce division but oneness. Two gospel advocates cite Paul’s reference to the gospel which he preached, referring to it as “my gospel” as evidence that it was exclusive to him. Paul said:
“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.” (Rom 16:25-26)
In the first place, it only needs to be pointed out that, for him to say that the gospel is “his gospel” in no way makes it exclusive to him. For example, when I say, “my faith,” “my God,” or “according to my Bible,” etc., it is obvious that I don’t mean to say that they are exclusive to me or that they originated with me. Also, Paul always sought to preach the gospel where it was as yet unknown (Rom 15:20). Therefore, it is to be anticipated that he would have become accustomed to referring to the gospel as his good news since no one in the region would have previously heard of it. While Paul as no other received revelation of all aspects included in the gospel of Jesus Christ, he clearly did not present another gospel.
Paul did not exclusively refer to the gospel as “his gospel”. On three occasions he referred to it as "our gospel" (2Cor 4:3; 1Thess 1:5; 2Thess 2:14). Even more significantly, he referred to it as the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as we see in the Gospels (2Thess 1:8; cf. Mark 1:1).
If the two-gospel advocates simply emphasized the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone as Paul proclaimed it, it would be an error of little consequence, since that is the true gospel of Jesus Christ which we must believe in order to be saved. However, along with the two-gospel doctrine they further claim that only Paul’s epistles are applicable to us today. The rest of the New Testament, according to them, only had application to the Jewish believers. This has given place to a denial of many fundamental truths of Scripture, such as the reality of sin and the need for repentance and the new birth, saying that they are not applicable to the Church, since, according to them, these truths were not taught in Paul’s epistles. In the next blog I will be considering some of the more damaging doctrinal errors which have resulted from the two-gospel doctrine that began with the misinterpretation of just one solitary verse in Galatians.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1YG4YrpzBI
[2] For a chart demonstrating the many uses of the genitive case see:
https://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf
[3] Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Objective Genitive.