But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they (Acts 15.11).
Introduction
The Bible is clear that faith has always been required for salvation. The Bible is equally clear that faith alone has not always been required for salvation. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone began with the glorified Lord’s revelation to the Apostle Paul. The goal of this study is to elucidate this truth.
The Council of Jerusalem
Acts 15 is Luke’s record of the Council of Jerusalem in 51 A.D. This council took place because of the conflict between Paul and the Jews in Jerusalem over Paul’s gospel of grace (Acts 20.24). We discover this fact in the first verse of Acts 15:
Some men came down from Judea and kept teaching the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved (Acts 15.1).
The teaching of these Jews from Judea was contrary to what Paul taught. These Jews from Jerusalem were going to Paul’s converts and telling them they were not saved. They taught that Paul’s gospel was fine so far as it went but that it was not enough. They taught one could not be saved by believing Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4) alone. To be saved, one had to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law. Luke recorded the discord this caused:
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue (Acts 15.2).
The leaders from Jerusalem were creating a tremendous problem for those who were being saved through Paul’s ministry. Imagine the confusion! As a result, Paul, with others (Galatians 2.1), agreed to go to Jerusalem to address this matter. While the church desired Paul to go to Jerusalem, Paul declared the Lord Himself revealed to him that he should go (Galatians 2.2). After Paul and his companions arrived, the Jews put forward their position succinctly:
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15.5).
Verses 1 and 5 of Acts 15 reveal the issue at stake. Those who opposed Paul were believers. They were saved. They were Jews who had believed the gospel of the kingdom that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (Matthew 16.13-16; John 11.25-27; Acts 8.35-38). Their position was that Paul’s Gentile converts were not saved by believing Paul’s gospel. Salvation also required circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law.
Paul’s Gospel
Paul explained (ἀνατίθημι) his gospel to the council (Galatians 2.2).1 The question that naturally arises is why did Paul need to explain his gospel? Did they not know it? The answer is that while they knew what Paul was teaching–hence the conflict–they did not understand his gospel or why Paul taught what he did. Unlike the Twelve who received their gospel from John the Baptist and Jesus in His earthly ministry, Paul received his gospel directly from the risen, glorified Lord. Paul wrote the Galatians:
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1.11-12).
Paul had little contact with the Twelve (Galatians 1.15-23, 2.1). Instead of going back to Jerusalem after his salvation he went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. After three years had passed, most of which Paul probably spent in Arabia, Paul visited Jerusalem. While there, he stayed with Peter for fifteen days. But he saw no one else of the Twelve. The only other person he saw was James, the Lord’s half-brother (Galatians 1.15-19). Paul explicitly declared that those in Judea did not know him (Galatians 1.22). The gospel those in Judea preached was the gospel of the kingdom, not the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24), which Paul preached. The gospel of the kingdom was the gospel they had proclaimed during Jesus’ earthly ministry. It began with John the Baptist (Matthew 3.1-2; Mark 1.4) and Jesus continued it in His earthly ministry (Matthew 4.17; Mark 1.15). The gospel of the kingdom focused upon the identity of Christ, that He was the Messiah, the Son of God. Peter preached it following the Lord’s resurrection (Acts 2.29-39; 3.12-26). The gospel of the kingdom included repentance, believing Jesus was the Messiah, baptism, and keeping the Mosaic Law. Through this gospel Peter (Matthew 16.15-20) and Martha (John 11.23-27) were saved. Paul too was saved under this gospel. This is clear because it is the gospel Paul preached initially in the synagogues (Acts 9.20). Later, most likely when he was in Arabia, the ascended Christ revealed to Paul the glorious gospel of grace and committed it to him (1 Timothy 1.11). This gospel was that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). It was this gospel that Paul defended before the Jews at the Council in Jerusalem.
Paul emphasized his gospel was a gospel to Gentiles (Galatians 2.2) because the risen Christ had appointed him as the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9.15; Romans 11.13; Ephesians 3.1, 4.1) and commissioned him to be the minister of this gospel of grace (Galatians 1.15-17). Paul’s ministry was in stark contrast to the ministry of the Twelve. The Twelve were apostles to Israel, to Jews, not to Gentiles. This explains Peter’s great reluctance to go to the house of Cornelius even under the direct command of the Lord (Acts 10, especially Acts 10.28 and 11.1-17).2 As a result of Paul’s testimony before the Council, the Twelve came to understand Paul’s gospel was different from the gospel they preached and formally agree that he would go to Gentiles and they would go to Jews (Galatians 2.7-9). The Twelve had not gone to Gentiles and this formally recognized that reality for the future.
The doctrine Paul had received from the risen Christ was that believers of his gospel were not under the Mosaic Law (Romans 6.14). This was Paul’s central thesis of his letter to the Galatians. With regard to circumcision, Paul’s test case was Abraham. Abraham was justified by God apart from circumcision (Romans 4.10 cf. Galatians 5.2-3). Paul’s experience with the Jews at the Jerusalem Council provides particular insight into why he wrote what he did in Romans and Galatians.
Peter at the Council
One of the interesting facts to note at the Council of Jerusalem is that Peter was not in charge. Peter had been relegated to the status of a glorified bystander. James, the half-brother of Jesus (not James the brother of John) was running things. James was not one of the Twelve. He had come to believe in Jesus after He rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.7). From this alone we see how God’s kingdom program had fallen away. Paul must have certainly taken note of this fact in addition to understanding that God’s program with Israel had changed due to Jewish unbelief. Because of this, he was not impressed with the reputation of the Jews in Jerusalem which included the Twelve. He noted they could add nothing to what God had given him. Thus, Paul wrote in Galatians 2.5-6, 9:
5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
After having listened to the disputation a good while, Peter finally weighed in. He remembered his visit to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, a Roman centurion, many years before (Acts 10). In his encounter, Cornelius and his house were all saved. Luke recorded,
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Peter knew of Paul’s testimony from his visit to Jerusalem 14 years ago. But clearly, Peter did not understand the implications. Now, 14 years had passed. During that time the Jews had continued to reject the King and the kingdom. But Gentiles had been responding to Paul’s gospel. Paul’s defense and argument that Gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law resonated with Peter’s own Gentile experience. Thus he declared in Acts 15.10,
Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Peter understood Israel had failed to keep the Law. The Law was a heavy yoke. He declared to put Paul’s converts under such a demand was to “put God to the test,” to tempt God. Peter’s statement was forceful. It went against all that had been argued by the Jews in Jerusalem. But Peter did not stop. His most radical statement is in the next verse, Acts 15.11:
But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.
The Great Hinge
Just how revolutionary Peter’s statement was to his audience is difficult to appreciate. God had dealt with Israel for 2,000 years.3 He began the plan to create the nation with his call of Abraham. After 500 years God gave the Law to Moses. The Law governed Jewish life for 1,500 years. Fifteen hundred years is a long time. The Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock 400 years ago. That seems a long time ago. But it is nothing compared to how long the Jews had operated under the Mosaic Law.
Two salient points comprised Peter’s statement at the Council:
1. Paul was right and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were wrong.
Peter recognized God was using Paul in a new and different way. He had his own experience to guide him. Peter had resisted going to see Cornelius but the result of his visit was that Cornelius and his house had been saved. They had received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had at Pentecost. But they were never circumcised or brought under the Mosaic Law. God in his foreknowledge had foreseen Paul’s future difficulty and had provided Peter with an experience that would serve to rally him to Paul’s defense many years later.
2. Jews would now be saved as Gentiles.
For 2,000 years, Gentiles had been saved as Jews. God separated Israel from among the nations and declared they were special (Exodus 19.5-6; Deuteronomy 32.8). If Gentiles wished to be blessed, they had to be blessed through Israel. No other way existed. God had established this arrangement with the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12.1-3). Peter’s declaration formally ended this requirement. From now on, Jews had to be saved as Gentiles. That is to say, Jews from now on would have to be saved through Paul’s gospel, not the gospel of the kingdom. The significance of this was staggering. But it explains Paul’s strong words to the Galatians (Galatians 1.6-9)–which he could not have written prior to the Council of Jerusalem:
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
From this time forward only Paul’s gospel was valid. The gospel of the kingdom, which had begun under John the Baptist, which Jesus preached, which Peter preached at Pentecost, and which the Jews of Jerusalem continued to preach, ceased. Now, only Paul’s gospel, that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4), was valid–for Jews and Gentiles. Any other gospel than the one Paul preached was under God’s curse. Thus, salvation by faith alone, faith + 0, that gospel that Paul had preached throughout his ministry, became formally established for Jew and Gentile at the Council of Jerusalem.
3. It is striking the Twelve, James, and the rest of the believers at Jerusalem, made no mention of repentance and baptism. That was the essence of the gospel of the kingdom that began with John the Baptist. Jews were told to repent, believe the gospel, and be baptized–because the kingdom was near in the person of the King. That was the gospel Peter proclaimed at Pentecost (Acts 2.36-38). At the Council, only circumcision and keeping the Law was mentioned.4
4. The last point with regard to the decision at the Council is that all of Paul’s letters date from after the Council. Paul wrote no letters before that time. Once Paul’s gospel was established as the only way of salvation, Paul could disclose all the other teachings the Lord had revealed to him. In other words, ALL Christian doctrine comes from Paul’s letters and they date from after the decision at the Council of Jerusalem.
Conclusion
Acts is a transitional book and should be viewed more in terms of explanation rather than doctrine. Luke wrote Acts to explain to Jews why the kingdom of God did not come upon earth. What Luke recorded in Acts 15 fits with his primary purpose of the book: to provide a record of the fall of Israel.5 Paul wrote the Romans, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1.16). Luke revealed this truth three times in Acts. Paul went to the Jews who rejected his message. After each rejection, he turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13.46, 18.5-6, 28.28-29).
The gospel is at the heart of our all dealings with God. From the time God saved Paul and revealed to him the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20.24) until the Jerusalem Council men and women could be saved by believing the gospel of the kingdom (for Jews) or the gospel of the grace of God (for Gentiles). In other words, for a period of time there were two valid gospels. One had been revealed and proclaimed by Christ in His earthly ministry and the other had been revealed to Paul through Christ’s heavenly ministry. But after the Council, men and women could be saved only by believing Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Believe it!
1 The NASB translation of ἀνατίθημι in Galatians 2.2 as “submitted” is unfortunate. The KJV translation, “communicated” or NIV’s “set before” is better but the best translation is “explained.” No hint or connotation is conveyed that Paul “submitted” his gospel for approval. The text is explicit about this (Galatians 2.5-6, 9). This word is used one other time by Luke in his record of Festus’ explaining Paul’s case to King Agrippa (Acts 25.14).
2 Jewish outreach to Gentiles had not occurred even as late as Acts 11.19, which was 10-11 years after Pentecost. It is only in Acts 11.20 (except for Peter’s experience with Cornelius), that we get a glimpse of the beginning of any Jewish witness to Gentiles. Notice this occurred outside of Israel, in Antioch. Notice too, when Barnabas came from Jerusalem to investigate this Gentile salvation, he did not return to Jerusalem to the Twelve. Rather, he departed Antioch to find Paul (Acts 11.25-26). This alone should reveal to the diligent student that something different was occurring with regard to Gentile evangelism and that this was occurring outside of ministry of the Twelve. Notice lastly, that it was at Antioch that believers were first called Christians. Thus, Christianity did not begin with the Twelve, in Israel. It began with Paul, outside Israel (Acts 11.26).
3 After God divided the human race into Jew and Gentile with the call of Abraham, He began a new plan in which He dealt with Gentiles through the nation of Israel. Israel became the instrument and mediator of God’s blessings and Israel became God’s favored nation. Apart from Israel, Gentiles had no hope of being blessed by God. Peter and the Twelve understood God’s revelation for Israel and this explains why they preached only to Jews and refused to leave Jerusalem–even under immense pressure (Acts 8.1). God’s blessings to Israel could come only through the Messiah. And God’s blessings to Gentiles had to come through Israel. The Great Commission could not be fulfilled apart from national Israel accepting the Messiah. For this reason, the often recited assertion that the Church’s mission is to fulfill the Great Commission opposed to the Scriptures. One only need read Peter’s sermons in Acts 2 and 3 to understand this. When it became clear Jews would not repent and accept Jesus as their Messiah (Acts 7), God revealed a new plan He had kept hidden whereby He could bless Gentiles apart from Israel’s acceptance of Him as the Messiah. He commissioned Paul (Acts 9) to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11.13) and communicated to Him this plan. It is through Paul that we learn about God’s plan of blessing for Gentiles apart from Israel, of salvation by faith alone, and other secrets. To learn more of the things God had kept secret, see the author’s article, Paul’s “Mystery”.
4 I have heard or read of no one who has observed or commented on this fact.
5 See the author’s study, The Purpose of the Book of Acts.
©2012 Don Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold.
Updated, September 25, 2019
Hi Don,
Pardon my lack of knowledge but was hoping you could help me understand something. If there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles now, who are the ones that God blinded until the end? How is it possible that some Jews are able to get away from that blindness and see the truth of grace and call themselves Messianic Jews? That is so confusing to me. Also, during the messianic age is everyone(Jews and Gentiles) going to be split into the 12 tribes? do gentiles belong to a tribe now or then? Thanks
Linda,
Israel is nationally blinded, not individually. For Christ to return, the whole nation must repent (Acts 2.36, 38; Matthew 23.37-39). In this age, a Jew who believes Paul’s gospel becomes part of the body of Christ. Only Jews are the 12 tribes. Gentiles will remain who they are in their respective nations in the millennial kingdom.
So would you say that perhaps the 144000 are the ones who are considered the bride? I thought that may be the case since they are all from the 12 tribes, are considered virgins, sing a new song and are the only ones with the father’s name. What do you think? or is it only the city itself the new Jerusalem that is the bride, kind of confusing. Thanks
Linda,
The whole believing nation of Israel is the bride/wife of Christ.
Don,
I just read Linda’s comments, then re-read the Great Hinge. I am familiar with the term “Messianic Jew”, but I am not sure exactly what that means. A Jew who trusted Christ as Savior according to I Cor. 15:1-4 would just be a member of the Body of Christ – where there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Col. 3:11, etc). Right? Or a individual Jew who believes that Christ is the Messiah, but does not understand Paul’s Gospel, yet he ‘believes’ and is zealous for the Law? As I understand Scripture, the former person is a grace believer, is redeemed, and is a Christian. However, the latter person, though he probably considers himself a Christian, yet he is ignorant of Paul’s Gospel – the Gospel of the Grace of God, and has not appropriated the finished work of Christ by faith. He therefore would not be redeemed. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what ‘Messianic Jew’ really means. In Christ,
Rob Klein
Rob,
Each case must be evaluated on its own merit. What I would hope “Messianic Jew” means is a Jew who has believed Paul’s gospel.
Les Feldick says there’s no such thing as a messianic Jew. I tend to agree with him.
Craig,
When a Jew believes Paul’s gospel he becomes “Church” just like a Gentile. 1 Corinthians 10.32.
Don,
As what I have learned, we the Church is the Bride of Christ. If Israel is the Bride, so what will be our position in His Kingdom?
Yohanan,
The Church is the body of Christ. Please see my article, The Bride of Christ. What our position in the Kingdom will be is unknown. The most information we have is we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8.17).
Hi Don, you state, The gospel of the kingdom included repentance, believing Jesus was the Messiah, baptism, and keeping the Mosaic Law.
1) Mosaic law as in the ten commandments or the entire law?
2) did Jesus ultimately desire that the Jews would come to realize that they were unable to keep the Mosaic law?
3) can people today still be saved under both gospels?
Becky,
1. Difficult to know. Read Matthew 19.16-22; Mark 10.17-22; Luke 18.18-23. From these accounts it seems limited to the Decalogue. Salvation in the OT is murky.
2. The Mosaic Law provided an understanding and remedy in Levitical sacrifices. The first step in all salvation is to realize one is a sinner.
3. No. Only Paul’s gospel is valid today–which Peter stated in Acts 15.11 and Paul confirmed in Galatians 1.7-9.
Thanks so much. I can accept your use of the word “murky” as i am just beginning to see how complicated it is trying to combine grace and works, and how much you must “labour” to help people like me to grasp the truth until we are complete in Christ. I’m sure Paul will be very happy to meet you and Les.
Becky,
Thank you. In my view, Paul, outside of the Lord Himself, is THE great man of mankind. It will be an honor and joy beyond description to meet the man who suffered so much, was so faithful, and faced insurmountable odds to spread the wonderful gospel of the grace of God.
We know from scripture that Paul will not be pleased if there are divisions among believers based upon doctrines. The unity that is required is in Jesus Christ. It is clear that Paul also taught from the old testament. I have now come across 2 people who are aware of Pauline doctrine and both these people are unusually enamored with their expertise in the differences of Jesus ministry and Pauls ministry. Would Paul himself over accentuate his special revelation of grace?
I suspect not. By grace I am saved. By The Holy Spirit and the process of sanctification all His Laws and commandments are a delight. I pray no one put a doctrine above matthew 6:33 for if they do, confusion and snares are sure to follow.
Bryan,
Your statement reveals you have not read Paul’s letters. Paul constantly referred to the grace and the revelations the risen Lord had given exclusively to him. He called the gospel he proclaimed “my gospel” and his letters are full of his contests against those who taught doctrines contrary to him. All Church doctrine comes from Paul. One cannot be saved or live the Christian life without Paul’s doctrines. Jesus ministered to Israel and the kingdom He referred to in Matthew 6.33 was the earthly kingdom promised to Israel. The Church has been promised a heavenly destiny, not an earthly one. Big difference.
To clarify my second question above, about being saved under both gospels, i am speaking of people who have not been truly enlightened by Paul’s gospel; who are taught through the gospels and believe that Jesus was God’s son, died for our sins (which obviously many denominations now teach), was buried, and resurrected, yet are taught to keep the Mosaic law (s)
Becky,
Anything added to Paul’s gospel for salvation nullifies it. One who thinks he gains salvation by keeping the Law does not have salvation. There is no “and” in Paul’s gospel. It is believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead for your justification. Period. Full stop. Nothing more.
So basically, there are a lot of people, especially in denominations, that are in grave danger if their walk is not founded on Christ’s death and resurrection for our justification. This passage immediately comes to mind:
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
So many focus their teachings on the works discussed here, yet the first, most important aspect is the foundation, Jesus Christ. This also clears up for me why Jesus warned the church in Revelation that despite all their “good works,” they needed to repent and return to their first love lest He remove their candlestick.
Becky,
Yes. This is the most serious and important business in the world. A correct understanding is literally life and death.
Great articles that have given me lots to think about as I read the Scriptures. A question that keeps coming up for me is that it seems that the world is full of individuals that believe in works but also sincerely believe that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for their salvation. It seems obvious that churches as well are filled with these because a majority of Pastors do not teach right division and dispensationalism. When I read your words “full stop” and “life and death” in the comments just above, I wonder how these (again, seemingly many) individuals and these mixed beliefs will fare at judgement?
Ashley,
Paul made it clear that salvation today is by faith alone in the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Anyone depending on works for salvation does not have it. Such people do not understand what Christ did. He did ALL the work. To think we can add to it is to disrespect and reject His sacrifice (Romans 3.20; Galatians 2.16).
Hi Don,
This is what I was looking for and I found it at the end of this very important article of yours:
“The last point I would make with regard to the decision at the Council is that all of Paul’s letters date from after the Council. Paul wrote no letters before that time.”
This nails it. Paul’s gospel is the only one after 51 AD. Thank you so much for your teaching. If I do not see you in this life, (we live on the US West Coast) I make sure to see you and thank you in the next life for your ministry. I appreciate your articles and have read many of them. God bless.
Kim,
Thank you. Look forward to meeting you too.
Please help me understand: Paul baptized Lydia and some of the Corinthians such as Crispus AFTER the Jerusalem Council. What is going on here? Does not Acts 16 follow 15 chronologically? What baptism is he practicing here since the Gospel of the Kingdom which included water baptism was no longer valid? Todah & good evening, In Christ.
James,
Water baptism continued most likely until Paul wrote Ephesians. It was on its way out when he wrote the Corinthians (~57 A.D.) and ended by Ephesians (~60-61 A.D.). The Jerusalem Council settled the matter of the gospel, not water baptism.
A phase out doesn’t make sense. Paul baptized a lot after the Council. In Ephesus: “certain disciples” according to John’s baptism were baptized by authority of Paul in the name of Jesus. Sound familiar? Peter in acts 2! Even at the end of Acts Paul is teaching on the Kingdom of God: 28:31: preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him.
So its not so cut & dry unless perhaps:
This is the way to solve this:
Judean believers should be:
1. Circumcised according to the eternal Abrahamic Covenant. Genesis 17
2. Baptized in the name of Jesus: evidence: acts 2 and acts 19. They are in the Kingdom and in the Body: example: Paul.
3. Since the New Covenant was made exclusively with Judeans it is they who are obligated to observe it as commanded by Christ: “do this in remembrance of me”. Since not made w Gentiles: no obligation to observe.
All distinctions between believing Judeans & Gentiles are not erased in Christ like many “grace” teachers insist.
To quote Arnold Fruchtenbaum in Israelology: p 758:
“The Messianic Jew is a distinctive element in the Body of Christ, and this distinctiveness is based on four lines of evidence provided in the Scriptures. This distinctive feature involves position(Jewish nationality, membership in Israel the whole, the Israel of God(the remnant), the natural branch in the Olive tree) & function: circumcision, loyalty to Israel, the remnant that is keeping Israel alive, Gentile relationship in blessing & cursing”.
This may be hard for many Gentile Christians to swallow but the scriptures are there to back it up.
We are all learning, and we Gentiles are endeavoring to understand a Judean book the Bible as best we can :)
Grace & Peace to you Brother and thanks for your studies.
James,
Paul ministered for 30 years. That period involved transition. Things took time to change and that is why we must interpret according to time and context. Fructenbaum is wrong. Paul explicitly stated no difference exist in the body of Christ in Jew and Gentile. For Paul, the kingdom of God was not the earthly kingdom proclaimed by Jesus and the Twelve but the whole realm of God’s rule. Again, it is imperative to interpret according to context. Acts is not a doctrinal book. Is is history. If you try and use it for doctrine, confusion will result. The source of all Christian or Church doctrine comes from Paul’s letters. In Ephesians 4.5, Paul explicitly stated water baptism had ended. Keep things separate and confusion and contradictions cease.
I think Paul preached the Kingdom Gospel in addition to the Gospel of Grace: this is why he baptized Judeans. I can’t find in scripture where he clearly baptized a non proselyte Gentile & this could be why he said “Christ sent me not to baptize” possibly referring to Gentiles.
Nevertheless: Who did God give the authority to abrogate the eternal unconditional, unilateral Abrahamic Covenant? Not Paul! If not him then who? Circumcision was a clear provision of it and this is one proof that not all distinctions between Judean and Gentile are erased.
As for Galatians 3: 28: Contextually this is referring to salvation which is the same for all but physical distinctions remain: “no Male & female”??! Face up to this contextually & literally.
who in your opinion is the israel of God in Galatians 6:16? thanks
James,
No Scriptual evidence exists that Paul preached the kingdom gospel except immediately after his salvation (Acts 9.20). Shortly afterwards, he went to Arabia where God began His revelations of salvation by faith alone, the Church, the body of Christ, the significance of His death and resurrection, etc. None of these things were known before Paul. Paul did not abrogate the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, he is the current fulfillment of it. This is what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15.8. I do not understand your circumcision point. Of course functional distinctions remain in male and female and Jew and Gentiles. That was not Paul’s point. Paul’s point was that before Paul, Jews held a place privilege above Gentiles. That is now erased in the Church. Please see my article, “Israel” as a Technical Term regarding Galatians 6.16.
In reference to “no scriptural evidence that Paul preached the kingdom gospel except…” Can you please expound upon Acts 20 where Paul is speaking to the Ephesian elders v21 about “testifying to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” and v24 “the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God,” and v25,27 “now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching ‘the kingdom of God’ will see my face no more…for I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God,” and v28 “to shepherd the ekklesia.” In Acts 26:19 Paul says he first went to the Jews and then to the Gentiles declaring “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.” And Acts ends with Paul “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence…” Also, Paul said in Eph 3:3-6 that Christ “made known to him the mystery…and in other ages it was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of HIS PROMISE IN CHRIST, through the gospel.” The mystery was not just revealed to Paul but to the apostles and prophets. In Acts 2:39 Peter said the promise was to the Jews as well as to “all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call,” the same words Paul used to describe the Ephesian Gentiles in Eph 2:13 “who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Wasn’t Salvation through Christ by grace the plan from the beginning (Galatians & Romans)? Most of the Jews might not have fully understood the spiritual meaning, being blinded by their expectations of a physical kingdom (2 Cor 3:14-15) and after being under the written and Oral Law for so long – hence the 40 years before the destruction of the temple – one generation – just like the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness before the promised land – to remove the unbelieving one generation. Because God is long suffering. The apostles seemed to understand through the Spirit (because they did not bind the Law on Gentiles), yet the Judaizing teachers obviously were blind as they constantly followed Paul and were a thorn in the flesh. In studying Paul’s writings it appears that the kingdom of God, the church (ekklesia), the body are to be found in Christ – the promise of the Spirit through faith that was made 430 years before the law – the covenant that was confirmed before the law by God in Christ (Gal 3:14-18) – the gospel of God which he promised through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2, Heb 4:2), which is why Paul uses all three words (kingdom, ekklesia, body) many times in his letters (i.e. 1 Thess 2:12, Col 1:13, 4:11, Eph 5:5, etc). Grace is applicable for all – Jew and Gentile. Thanks for your time and patience! I’ve never read such a distinction between the “kingdom gospel” and grace. I’m just trying to understand your viewpoint and searching for the truth in God’s word. Thanks!
Monica,
The thing you have to understand about Acts is that it was written to Jews, from a Jewish perspective, to explain why the kingdom of God did not come upon the earth. It is transitional book and is not for doctrine but for history. Paul spoke to the Jews as a Jew and used language they knew. His main message to Jews was that they should accept Jesus as the Christ. In Ephesians 3.3-6 Paul has in mind the apostles and prophets associated with him, not the Twelve. The Twelve had no idea of the Church, the body of Christ. In Acts 2.39, Peter’s “all who are afar off” were not Gentiles but Jews scattered throughout the nations (cf. 1 Peter 1.1). The Jews were not “blinded by expectations of a physical kingdom.” A physical kingdom was all the prophets taught and all that Jesus taught (Matthew 6.10). When Paul wrote the Church, his gospel, the Rapture, etc. were secret, he meant it. The Twelve had no understanding of Paul’s gospel of grace which is why he wrote that he explained it to them (Galatians 2.2). No one had any idea of the Church, the body of Christ, in which Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ before Paul. It was a secret. Even at the end of his life, Peter wrote that understanding the truths of Paul were difficult (2 Peter 3.15-16). And lastly, we have no record of the Twelve ever having a ministry to Gentiles. That was Paul’s domain. The Twelve ministered only to Jews. So what we have with Paul is a whole new program, as new a program as that which God had begun with Abraham.
Thanks so much for your quick response! I agree that Acts is history – just as the four gospel accounts are – and my belief in Christ’s life, death and resurrection rest on this history. Acts also gives the early history of the Gentile assemblies and that helps me better understand the culture and issues Paul was addressing in his letters. I think the Jews knew about grace/favor since the same Greek word is found many times in the Greek translation of the OT, as well as in the Hebrew (i.e. Noah Gen 6:8). But the idea that God now gave that same grace to “the heathen” through the gospel? I can see how that would be a mystery. Perhaps I should have better phrased it, “the Jews were blinded by expectations of only a physical kingdom?” Paul said in Rom 11:7 that “Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it; and the rest were blinded.” Because of unbelief in Jesus as their Messiah – spiritual unbelief. Just as Christ said they were “blind leaders of the blind” … their heart was far from God (Matt 15). They could not see Him because they were spiritually blind to what He truly wanted to give them. He wasn’t what they wanted; and He poured out his grace on the Gentiles. Thank you for helping to send me deeper into His word and the mystery. I will continue to study this!
Doctrine, Kim N,
Doctrine,
If the Jerusalem Council settled the matter of the gospel, why then did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John yet write about the Gospel of the Kingdom in each of their respective gospels; which were all written “after” the Jerusalem council. Wouldn’t it seem to reason that since the matter of the gospel was settled, they would have included this in their gospels? Please help me understand as I am stuck on this point?
Tony,
The gospels are historical records of God’s program with Israel. They record the coming of the King, the proclamation of the kingdom of God, and explain why the kingdom did not come. The book of Acts continues this explanation. During Jesus’ earthly ministry a person was saved through the gospel of the kingdom, not Paul’s gospel of grace. The gospels are about Israel, not the Church. They tell us what was, not what is.
Do you have Churches here in Manila, Philippines? what church do you recommend? Thanks brother.
Noel,
Contact the Berean Bible Society. They should be able to help.
Salamat kapatid (Thank you brother)…..
Noel,
Tuloy po kayo.
Don,
God Bless you brother. May the Lord over-fill your cup so that you have to drink from your saucer.
Now, as elated as I am to have found your site, I’m disheartened knowing so many people do Not know or understand the “True Gospel of Jesus Christ” as Paul preached it. Sadly, the vast majority of so-called Christiandom is essentially lost.
I have a ministry on Twitter and it still amazes me that the most grief I get is Not from the depraved lost but from so-called Christians who follow the Kingdom message.
I can’t seem to find an accurate chronological list of NT books. Could you please direct me to such a list? I want to understand more clearly by seeing the dating.
And please answer these for me because it’s nagging at me and my wife’s spirits. Since Paul’s Gospel is the only legitimate one that saves, is the rest of the Bible just historical and object lessons? What does it offer to true believers?
Bruce,
Thank you for your gracious words. Chronology is difficult and what one will find is no chronologers agree. One day I’ll do my own study. For Paul’s letters and chronology, Matthew McGee has done a great job: http://matthewmcgee.org/paultime.html. All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. God gave us all the Scriptures for our spiritual growth (Romans 15.4; 1 Corinthians 10.11). From the time of John the Baptist until the Council of Jerusalem, the kingdom gospel was legitimate. So from the time God revealed the gospel of faith + 0 in the finished work of Christ (He died for us and arose from the dead) to Paul, both the kingdom gospel and Paul’s gospel were legitimate. Acts is a transitional book and there was some overlap. The great lesson here is that faith is obedience. When and whatever God reveals we are to believe it. If God said do 5 jumping jacks for salvation, faith would do 5 jumping jacks. Remember, Naaman the Syrian was healed by washing 7 times in the Jordan–waters he considered inferior. You may also enjoy The Great Gap since you have enjoyed The Great Hinge. Grace and peace.
I agree that faith is obedience. Recently I heard B.D.Hyman say that Jesus gave us 10 NT commandments that we need to obey. Is this true?
Craig,
I do not know B.D.Hyman but when he says this he means Jesus in His earthly ministry in which He had no ministry to Gentiles. We are to obey what Paul revealed in His letters. These are the things Jesus commanded to the Church, the body of Christ, in His heavenly ministry.
Hi Don
I just found your articles and enjoy reading them. I too am trying to learn and be able to answer questions for the “church goers” who mis-understand the dispensation we are living in. Wow is it a chore. Most are so tied up in mixing grace with law and are totally confused. The only way to understand the Bible is by noticing the difference in what Paul taught from the risen Lord and what Peter and the twelve taught from the Lord when He walked on earth. It seems so easy once you see that difference. There is a strong delusion in the organized church today. Anyway my question is if a person believes that one is saved by faith alone in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus and then preachers and others say if that faith does not produce works then it was not “real faith” to begin with. I read all throughout Paul’s letters where the people were not perfect nor even close to being perfect. Paul rebuked the Corinthians but in the end he let them know that the old corruptible bodies would be changed in the twinkling of an eye. He never once told any od the churches that their short comings meant they would lose their salvation. My question is regarding the passage Becky quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. I would think this is not about our sin going through the fire but about our teachings. We build on the foundation Jesus. If someone is teaching that you are saved by faith alone and that your faith must produce good works then that teaching will be burned up yet he will still be saved. It seems some of the Galatians were being swayed that way but yet they were still believers sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Mike,
Thank you. True faith should produce good works. It is evidence of faith. But we also have many examples of believers sinning. 1 Corinthians is a record of the problems confronting Paul with these believers. Paul wrote that because of their abuse of the Lord’s table, many had become sick and many had died (1 Corinthians 11.27-30). God will discipline and even remove true believers because of sin. Works will be judged primarily on the basis of one’s attitude in doing them as well as following the truth (1 Corinthians 3.10-15). Tragically, we know that the Asian believers of Paul’s gospel abandoned that truth for legalism (2 Timothy 1.15). Many believers fail to be faithful but do not lose their salvation based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15.1-4).
Yes I see they abandoned the truth for legalism. The same can be said of the organized church today. But since they were believers they will not now be unsealed from the Holy Spirit. Would they not still be saved but as their works will be burned?
Another question would be if Jesus already paid for my sin why would God discipline someone for their sin? That would mean I would also be paying for my sin. That would be confusing. According to 2 Corinthians God in no longer counting our sin against us.16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
According to the verse you quoting about the Lord’s Table it seems to me that we are no longer under that ordinance. Paul also talked about speaking in tongues and knowledge in the Corinthians but those have also ceased. Does he ever mention the Lord’s table in the prison epistles or anywhere else?
Mike,
They were saved, despite the fact they abandoned grace for Law. The second question deals with the difference in justification vs. sanctification. God has forgiven the believer’s sin but his sin nature remains which leads to sin. God will not tolerate sin (Galatians 6.6-9). He is committed to conforming us to the image of Christ (Romans 8.29). So discipline is one means to achieve this transformation. One way to think about it might be to say forgiveness is based upon love, sanctification upon hope. Lastly, tongues and the Lord’s table are not equivalent. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 13 that tongues, prophecy, etc. would cease. He did not state this for the Lord’s table. The fact he did not mention it in the prison epistles is moot. Paul stated that water baptism was over (Ephesians 4.5). The significance of the Lord’s table is it proclaims His death (work on the cross) until He returns, i.e., the Rapture.
Hi, Doctrine….
Did you mean Corinthians 13?
“Paul stated in Romans 13 that tongues, prophecy, etc. would cease.”
Thank you.
Ronnie,
Yes. Thanks!
Don, thank you for writing this. It’s the succinct lynchpin explanation that I’ve been looking for concerning the true faith produces good works dynamic. I’ve been trying to reconcile all of this with God punishing immoral believers as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 5:5; and with the Bema Seat Judgment loss of rewards as stated in 3:15. And also with Paul admonishing the Corinthians to examine themselves if they’re really saved. It seemed like a conundrum to me, but you’ve expertly explained it. Thank you! My thirst for scriptural truth is insatiable, and I apologize for coming across as too obnoxious sometimes. But I’m also learning how to learn. I look forward to meeting you in Heaven someday as we rejoice together.
Don, I’m not disputing what you wrote. Because it’s scripturally sound. But I recently heard this explanation regarding 2 Corinthians 13:5: “The context of 2 Corinthians 13:5 is that Paul was defending his ministry to the Corinthian believers. The whole point of Paul’s question was that the Corinthian believers sought proof of Christ speaking through Paul. (2 Corinthians 13:3) And not because Paul wondered if they were saved. 1 Cor. 1:2; 8; 3:1; 6:11; 6:19-20; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 6:14; etc., support this fact. But as proof that Christ was speaking through him, Paul admonished the Corinthian believers to examine themselves. Their verdict concerning themselves would likewise be their verdict about Paul. Because they owed their salvation to Paul preaching the Gospel. And despite their many faults, the Corinthian believers knew that Christ was in them. Therefore, this proved to them that Christ was speaking through Paul… 2 Corinthians 13:6.”
Brian,
I do not understand the connection between 2 Corinthians 13.5-6 and the article.
I apologize Don. I was trying to directly follow what you wrote to Mike on November 3, 2015 at 7:49 a.m. My IPDAD has been acting up lately. I’ve also been trying to find in your other articles where you mentioned 2 Corinthians 13:5. I’ll be more careful next time and stay directly on topic.
Hi
I am just trying to get it clear in my own mind. Colossians 2 says the following.
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not[d] seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
20 Therefore,[e] if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
We are FREE in Christ and adding to it the Lord’s Table or what most churches call it the Lord’s Supper seems to me we are adding a “Jewish” thing to Paul’s message. When Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11 “32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” This does not add up to the idea that God is not counting our sins against us and in Romans where Paul says in Romans 8 “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” So no matter what would happen at the “Lord’s Table” there is no condemnation to us who are in Christ Jesus. Those of us who believe that Jesus paid for our entire sin debt and that God is not counting anything else against us, then there is no condemnation or punishment. Our sins have been nailed to the cross. It looks to me like in Corinthians they were getting together and some were sharing their meals and some were not. As far as the Lord telling Paul about the Lord’s Supper which Paul quotes from Jesus earthly ministry then it is probably not for the Body of Christ today. Since Paul’s message was hid from the other apostles. Paul was given a progressive revelation and maybe perhaps the Lord’s Supper was never mentioned once Paul received his entire revelation then it is nothing to do with us. It would seem to me that to try to make your flesh “better” would be a thing that we cannot do. The flesh has been “circumcised” or cut away from our being and we must reckon it dead. So when we do sin and I would say we do everyday then our mind set should be that what I did is not the real me anymore and as we grow and allow the Spirit to lead us by studying His Word we grow in the knowledge that was given Paul. 99% of the church today has no understanding of our commission today which is as ambassadors for Christ we are to let the people know that God is no longer counting our sins against us and then tell them the clear and easy Gospel of Grace. The truth is when we examine ourselves if we are honest then we know that as far as our flesh goes we are filthy rags. God sees us as righteous because of our faith and God has imputed Christ righteousness to us. We cannot improve on that. Thanks
Mike,
God sees us as righteous due to His imputed righteousness. However, we still sin and there are consequences of that sin. God spanks his children for disobedience just as a good father or mother spanks their children. This is for our good–sanctification. What Paul wrote from Romans-Philemon is for us, not just the prison epistles. The body of Christ is revealed not in the prison epistles but before them.
I’m not sure this directly applies but since I Corinthians chapter 3 was mentioned above I’d like to provide a verse that a bible teacher pointed out to me a long ago…. Chapter 3 vs 1a begins with the words…”But I, brethren, could not speak unto you as spiritual, but as unto carnal”. I have to imagine the saved individuals addressed here had few good works to show for themselves but they were, never the less, Paul’s brothers in Christ despite their carnality.
Hi Joe
I agree the Corinthians had very few good works if any. They were carnal and I believe most of the organized church are carnal or unsaved. Very few people even know that Paul is our Apostle even though it is so clear in his epistles. This is why there is so much confusion(in my opinion), preachers are mixing law and grace and mixing together God’s plan for Israel and God’s plan for the Body of Christ.
I understand that but there were some things Paul talked about in those epistles that were not for us. Paul said he was not sent to baptize but he did water baptize some. He never came out and said that you are no longer to water baptize. Paul mention tongues but that is not for us today. They still were doing it at the churches Paul started. Paul talked about the gift healing but it was not listed in Paul’s gifts that would cease. I fully understand that the supernatural gifts are no longer for today. But to say everything in Romans – Philemon is for us cannot be correct. They did some things in those churches that we do not do today. They did water baptize until Paul told them he was not sent to baptize. That was obvious communicated to Paul by Jesus after he already water baptized as part of progressive revelation. Peter and the others never stopped preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews. God put a hold on that plan and it will start back after the rapture. Paul and James along with the other apostles agreed that they would continue there ministry of the Gospel of the circumcision to the Jews and that Paul would go to the Gentiles preaching his Gospel of the uncircumcision. They never combined the two together but that is what has happened today as our churches have combined the law and grace message together. So to say that we are spanked for our sins would mean that we are still having to pay for our sins. It is not measured out equally as we can see that two people can commit the same sin and one may suffer consequences and the other not. I am not saying we should go out and sin because I do not believe we should. I am saying we all do sin and our mindset should be that in thanking God that he has already forgiven us for that sin.
Mike,
I agree Christ has forgiven us all sin and we should thank Him. Some, I understand, teach only Paul’s prison epistles apply to the Church, the body of Christ. I disagree with this. Everything applies unless it is specifically excluded. Those things include sign gifts, gifts of healing, and water baptism since we have explicit Scriptural statements that these things ceased. After the Council of Jerusalem, the gospel of the kingdom ceased. Peter stated this in Acts 15.11. Paul pronounced a curse upon anyone proclaiming it after the Council (Galatians 1.6-9). For the Twelve to have continued to preach the gospel of the kingdom, after the Jerusalem council and after Paul’s declaration, would have meant they were accursed. Had that been the case, Paul would have certainly written something about it. He was not shy.
Oh no. I do agree that Romans through Philemon is for us today. I think where we disagree is that I do not think Lord’s Table is any longer for us today and probably never was. Just as the people in Corinthian were still water baptizing they were also having meals and calling it the Lord’s Supper. Just as Paul corrected them about water baptism I believe he corrected them on the Lord’s Supper. We can look at ourselves and try to make a judgment but if we are honest we know that no good dwells in our flesh and would not be worthy anyway. As far as Acts 15:11 Peter agrees that they are also saved by grace. Even Noah was saved by grace. But it takes faith in God’s plan for the dispensation that you live in. Noah had faith and he was told to build an arc. Peter preached that you must have faith and this required you repenting and being water baptized . It was still the same grace and no one is or will ever be saved apart from God’s Grace. But in our dispensation it is faith plus nothing. We just have to believe in the gospel of grace. To try and change the word of faith as a lot of people do, (not you) and say that your faith must produce works or you do not have faith is outrageous and is a perverted gospel because Paul tells us that the person who does not work his faith is counted as righteousness. So Peter’s ministry was fading and Paul’s was magnifying but Peter and the other eleven continued to preach to the Jews and follow the laws. They are going to be priest in the Kingdom on earth and that requires water baptism. We are going to be in the “heavenlies” and that requires faith without works. The churches would be so much more fruitful if the Gospel of Grace would be clearly taught and people would let the Holy Spirit guide believers instead of threatening hell on every unsaved person telling them certain sins would send them to hell. What a difference if people would teach the mystery given to Paul letting people know that God is reconciling the world to himself and at this time not pouring out his judgment on them. In Galatians 2 Paul expounds on his meeting in Acts 15 and tells the Galatians that Peter and the others would continue what they were doing and they gave him the hand of fellowship to go to the Gentiles. There were still two different Gospels preached.
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.
Mike,
Paul stated explicitly that any who proclaimed another gospel but his was accursed. The gospel of the kingdom officially ended at the Council.
Ok I can see that. What would you think accursed means? Since a lot of the churches turned back to legalism that heard and accepted Paul’s message were saved what does accursed mean? I can see that Satan is hard at work twisting the message and people are so easily persuaded towards a work base salvation.
thanks
Mike,
I do not know. Paul was writing about believers, even including himself or an angel. Paul was willing to deliver a sinning believer in 1 Corinthians 5 to Satan. Because the Corinthians were abusing the Lord’s table he wrote that some were sick and many had died (1 Corinthians 11.29-34). So, I think something of this nature was in mind.
ok thanks a lot. That makes sense.
Wow! I just read your conversation with Paul. That is fantastic. Do you mind if I copy it and use it to give to people?
Mike,
Sure. Glad to share. Thanks.
Hello Don. Thank you for your work. I’m not sure if this is the right thread to ask this question but what’s your stance on Lord’s supper. Is this for church today or is it only pertaining to the original 12 disciples?
Sang,
Paul wrote about its administration to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11.23-26). It’s valid for us.
I’m a long time Christian (long time believer in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone) but only recently come around to the so called “mid acts dispensationalist” view, as the only way to resolve apparent contradictions between Paul’s salvation by grace only message and James.
The “mid acts dispensationalist” view or whatever you want to call it really is the only way to explain the apparent (and as it turns out real) different gospels proclaimed by Jesus while on earth and the 12 disciples and Paul.
There would appear to be a time when both dispensations were active at the same time after Jesus rising from the dead. This raises the question of exactly when did the Kingdom gospel get completely replaced by the grace gospel as the only valid (current active) gospel.
After reading this I’m inclined to agree with the author and pin point the time that the gospel of the kingdom ceased (for the time being i.e. until the rapture) to be with Peter’s pronouncement that:
“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
At first I thought how can one man’s pronouncement switch off (for the time being) an entire dispensation? I mean not just change a church preaching practice but change an actual mechanism of salvation that applies in the heavenlies so to speak.
But then I remembered what Jesus said to Peter in Mat 16:19: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I’m wondering if this turning of the hinge (or lock) so to speak is what Jesus was referring to.
Excellent article by the way.
Rodney,
thank you. The Lord in His earthly ministry made no reference to the Church, the body of Christ. The “kingdom of heaven” always referred to Israel’s anticipated earthly kingdom (Matthew 6.10). This pronouncement had nothing to do with the Church. It remained a secret until the heavenly Lord revealed it to Paul.
That’s a really good thought, Rodney! Thanks for that!
Hi Dr. Don, May the Lord enlightens the minds of all reading this article.
Greetings Don,
The KJB reading of Acts 15:11 nails the Gk: sozo (aorist tense) to a future time whereas the NASB seemingly to the then present time. What is your understanding on why the difference which would seem very material if this is the time the Jews from now own would be saved (exclusively) by Paul’s gospel. Why would James have been in a position to boast (and challenge?) Paul of the numbers growing under the Kingdom gospel as late as Acts 21:18-21?
Second, would you understand Paul’s instruction in 2Tim. 2:10-14 (especially v.10, “…that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ…”) to be reflective of Acts 15:11? Otherwise, how do you understand these verses; Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the Messianic body, or the body of Christ? To where is Paul pointing in 2Tim. 2:11, “It is a faithful saying…”; where? Matt. 10:33? For me it is very problematic to understand 2Tim. 2:10-14 as Paul speaking of the body of Christ.
I find your studies always interesting, insightful and helpful.
Van,
The word σωθῆναι is an aorist, passive, infinitive. Normal translation would translate it as “to be saved.” No time element is present in an infinitive, only aspect. An aorist infinitive suggests a simple view to the whole of the action, as an event. The KJV translators translated the passage “we shall be saved.” The NASB translators chose “we are saved.” Given the context, I think the KJV translators were more accurate. The question before the council was how one was saved and the Jerusalem believers were brought around to Paul’s view. While there was agreement at the council, I don’t think James ever understood Paul. Even Peter had difficulty (2 Peter 3.16). I think in 2 Timothy 2.10, etc., Paul was writing about all who would be saved, Jew or Gentile, with no particular reference to Acts 15.11–that issue had been settled. 2 Timothy 2.11, etc. seems to be a creedal statement that had been developed by the early Church based on Paul’s teachings.
This is helpful, Don; thank you.
Hi, Ron
Are the 12 apostles members of the Body of Christ since they believed Paul’s gospel?
Angel,
The Twelve were saved believing the gospel of the kingdom, not Paul’s gospel. Their destiny is with the kingdom program, not the Church. The Lord promised they would reign over the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19.28). Members of the body of Christ have a heavenly destiny as joint-heirs of Christ (Romans 8.17) and will rule angels (1 Corinthians 6.3)
Hi Don, Great article. I had never been able to sort out the two gospels until now. In Matthew 24:14 when the disciples (12?) asked Jesus what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the world (aion, age) He said the gospel of the Kingdom would be preached as a witness to all the nations and then the end would come. It makes perfect sense, to me, that the Jews, who did recognize Jesus as their Messiah, would still be under the old law plus baptism, etc. While the gentiles, who had been grafted in, would be under grace. Unfortunately, it is at the point of the Council of Jerusalem that it gets murky again for me. What gave Peter the right to change the gospel they had been preaching to the Jews? Does this have anything to do with Jesus giving Peter the keys to heaven and hell? If so, why did Peter wait so long after Jesus was crucified? Not to go off on a tangent, I feel the two witnesses in Revelation may be Elijah, who was taken away in a flaming chariot pulled by flaming horses in a whirlwind. And Moses who was not allowed into the promised land because he struck the rock twice with his rod instead of talking to it to get water. Scripture says God buried him and no man knows where. But wait you say, he’s dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke all give an account of Jesus talking to Moses before Jesus was crucified. Also the Archangel Michael disputed satan over Moses body. What would satan want with Moses body unless he knew that God would use Moses later. God’s two witnesses will prophecy, could this mean they bring back the gospel of the Kingdom for the Jews? Sorry Don, it looks like all I have is questions, maybe you can shed some light on them.
0
Daniel,
Thank you. What God did with Peter in Acts 10 was to prepare him for the moment at the Council. More than a decade had passed and Peter had no doubt forgotten about Cornelius. He had had no further evangelism to Gentiles. God the Holy Spirit caused him to remember Cornelius and his family had been saved apart from circumcision and keeping the Law. Because of this he could agree with Paul and now proclaim that Paul had the way of salvation. God knew Paul would need this help years later and prepared Peter for the moment. You might enjoy my article, The Two Witnesses.
James “quotes” Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:15. Looking at the actual scripture in Amos, there seems to be a difference. Not quite sure if this is significant and would appreciate your take. Am currently at odds with my pastor on the Book of James and his opinion on Faith and Works. Have read your blog on that and I hope it will be convincing. James 2:23 Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
James seems to be confusing the story of Isaac with Abraham @16 years previous.
Sooo, Did James not understand either scripture? or is his understanding somewhat acceptable for the time? And/or am I searching for the poo in the pepper???
Jerry,
James’ quotation is probably accurate. Stam put in a footnote, “In A.V. Amos 9:11,12 reads “remnant of Edom,” instead of “residue of men,” and “possess,” instead of “seek,” but doubtless the latter in each case is correct, as quoted by James in Acts for while Edom is adum in the Hebrew, man is adam and while possess is irsh, seek is drash. The difference in each case is so slight that the words may very well have been miscopied. Also, James’ quotation of the passage is more in line with the rest of prophecy than the text from which it was translated in the A.V.” James quoted Amos to show Peter’s experience at Cornelius’ house agreed with prophecy. He did not have anything to say about Paul and Baranabas’ ministry. James believed faith and works were necessary for salvation. This is proof that until Paul (Abraham being the exception–which James did not understand) salvation by faith alone was unknown. If asked, James would have said Abraham was not saved until the sacrifice of Isaac experience. This is precisely the kind of thinking present at the Council. Paul’s converts were not truly saved unless they were circumcised and kept the Law (Acts 15.1, 5).
Hi Don,
Another beautifully organized article! I thoroughly enjoyed reading and learning from it. I just have one point I need clarification on:
Regarding point 3. “I have heard or read of no one who has observed or commented on this fact.” Is this your observation based on the bible or the world around us right now?: “Repentance and baptism is not mentioned from Israel’s saved leadership.”
What does it mean; that the original gospel to Israel/Jews was changed from, ‘repent, believe the gospel, and be baptized . . . ‘; to: ‘be circumcised and keep the Law’ ever since the Council of Jerusalem? Is this what saved leadership (Jews) currently teaches/believes?
Blessings
Becky,
Water baptism was required for salvation under the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 1.4, 16.16; Acts 2.36, 22.16). Repentance was also required. Why did those at the Council not make a point of this in their assertion that Paul’s converts were not saved? Paul only mentioned repentance in terms of unbelievers once in his letters (Romans 2.4). For Paul, the emphasis was “believe.” They only contended that to be saved Paul’s converts needed to be circumcised and keep the Law. Perhaps Paul had baptized them (for this did not officially end until Ephesians 4.5 written about 61 A.D.). I just find it interesting that repentance and water baptism which characterized the gospel of the kingdom were not mentioned.
Humbly I would like to suggest that regarding this point (a point you also make in footnote #4) we are missing the forest for the trees. No where in Acts 15 is there any implication that “the leadership” contended for circumcision and the law, only “certain men” who were a “sect of the Pharisees.” One can assume the leadership did this based on their present understanding, but that leads to the practice of eisegesis.
Chris,
These “certain men” went with the authority of the 12. They were representatives. They believed salvation required cirumcision and Law-keeping which was part of the gospel of the kingdom. James was zealous for the Law as is evident in Acts 21. This was not a rogue, unauthorized view but what they all believed.
What about Acts 15:24-29? That seems to be saying that James and the 12 sent a letter saying that the men who had “unsettled” their souls did not go with authority from them.
Wesley,
James wrote they had not commanded a group to go to Paul’s converts. It is not possible to know the details of all this. The Pharisees, who were believers, said circumcision and keeping the Mosaic Law was required for salvation. We have no record this was contradicted by the Twelve. What is clear is that Paul’s gospel was unknown to them and that their gospel (of the kingdom) was entirely different from Paul’s.
Am I missing something? The Jerusalem council did not rule that it was faith + 0. The church remained divided after the council on the rest of Paul’s teaching as well with some of them reminding Paul when he returned to Jerusalem what the council had decided upon. Apparently Paul was not following the Jerusalem decision closely and they wanted to bring him in line. When was Christiandom informed that Paul was the only doctrine? For example wasn’t water baptism continually practiced amongst the gentile and Jewish believers in the first and second century?
Tom,
The primary issue of the Jerusalem council was Paul’s gospel of faith + 0. The believing Jews in Jerusalem said Paul’s converts were not saved. They had to be circumcised and keep the Law to be saved. Paul argued they were saved and Peter declared Paul was right and they were wrong (Acts 15.11). From that point on, only one gospel existed: Paul’s gospel.
Peter seemed to agree with Paul but the ruling of the Council was faith + sexual purity + non idol meat. Maybe God and Paul had a new dispensation. Maybe Peter was sympathetic to it. But it seems like the rest of Christiandom was not on the plan. Were the council results valid doctrine? Or does Peter actually overrule them since he was given the keys to the kingdom?
Tom,
No, they affirmed Paul’s converts were saved by faith alone. What James said afterward was about conduct of life, not salvation. Paul made this clear in Galatians 1.6-9. Read Acts 15.11 carefully. Peter declared from then on, Jews would have to be saved according to Paul’s gospel, by faith alone.
I would like to know more about the author of these articles. I really see the Lord and I’m opened by these lessons. I believe that these are revelations from God to this author. …
May God fulfil His purpose through this man of God.
God bless.
Bahati,
Thank you. See https://doctrine.org/contact/.
Hello bro Don, can u please tell me in what way was Paul’s gospel manifest in the prophets of old?
Romans 16:26 KJV
[26] But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
My understanding is Paul’s gospel was made known by the scriptures of the prophets? For all men to follow ?
George,
What Paul was saying in Romans 16.25-25 was that what was hidden was now revealed. It was latent in the OT but in language so veiled no one understood it. Isaiah 53 is the only passage that gave any clue about the work of Christ on the cross but no one had any idea what this passage meant. See the account in Acts 8 with Philip and the Jewish eunuch.
Good evening Don
When Christ explained that He was to suffer and die the Bible states the 12 understood not, this was “hid” from them. Scripture also states the 12 asked Christ “what would be the sign of your coming?” Question, if they didn’t understand He was going to die, how did they know or what did they understand about His leaving and “coming”?
Thank you for your ministry.
Mark,
See John 16. Jesus told them He was going away.
Comment: Hello brother Don, how do you interpret John 3:36? First of all, it is John the Baptist making the statement, in what way can he say that those who believe on the Son “hath”-present tense, everlasting life. I thought the kingdom Jews get everlasting life in the future kingdom by abiding or enduring to the end or if they die believing in Jesus’s name AND following the law. NOT by just believing, James say devils also believe but obviously they don’t do the commandments, please help me understand how would John the Baptist be qualified to say such a thing that makes it seem all one has to do in the kingdom program is to just believe on the son and have present tense eternal life, which we dispensationalist know that would not be possible in John the baptists time frame? Eternal life, sealed by the Holy Spirit, in the present tense is only given to body of Christ members who believe in Paul’s gospel, and not John the Baptist , or even John’s 3:16 gospel, would you consider the 2 Johns’ gospels the same? Thanks!
George,
Saving faith in the kingdom gospel was to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 16.16; John 11.27; 1 John 5.1, 10, 13). To believe in Christ was to believe in His identity. This gospel will revive in the Tribulation (Matthew 24.14) for then the issue will be who is God, Jesus the Christ, or the Beast, the Antichrist. Those who take the mark of the Beast and worship him reject Jesus as the Christ. They believe the Antichrist is God. Paul’s gospel focuses upon the work of Christ–that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead.
How do we determine 7 years between the Crucifixion and the death of Stephen? My HCSB study bible has a footnote that says Jesus’ Crucifixion was in April 33 and Paul’s conversion was October 34. thank you
Joe,
I have not found any chronologists who agree. We have a few firm dates but the rest is speculation. Much disagreement exists on the date as well as well as the day Jesus was crucified. The problem with a Friday crucifixion is Jesus’ statement that He would be 3 days and nights in the heart of the earth. You can’t get 3 days and nights from Friday if He rose Sunday morning since in Jewish reckoning, Sunday begins at sunset on Saturday. One of the best chronologies is Matthew McGee’s (http://www.matthewmcgee.org/paultime.html). See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus.
Hi Don,
In Acts chapter 9, Our precious Lord Jesus himself is talking to Ananias regarding Saul. Jesus tells him that Saul has been chosen to be a resource to bear HIS NAME (identity). Wasn’t Paul focusing on Jesus work on the cross, or does preaching of His name also include His works under the Grace Plan?
Isaac,
For Paul, the “name” of Christ focused upon His work. This was not revealed at the time God gave the prophecy to Ananias but would be revealed later. See Romans 1.5; 1 Corinthians 1.2, 6.11). Check out the references to “name” in Paul’s letters.
Don, would it be a stretch to say Paul wrote Galatians prior to the Jerusalem council? I feel it would lineup better with Acts 13-14 if it was written prior to 49ad maybe late 48. Thanks Your articles have been a blessing.
Danny,
I do not see how Galatians 2.1-10 can refer to any other occasion other than Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem Council.
I,m sorry I typed acts 13-14 I meant acts 11:30 the relief visit to Jeruselem.
Danny,
1. The timeline really doesn’t work. 2. It does not accord with what Paul wrote in Galatians 1.18-2.5 about seeing the apostles. 3. No mention is made of communicating the gospel which is the subject of Acts 15 which agrees with Galatians 2. It also appears the apostles are present (Acts 15.1).
F.F. Bruce leans toward the visit for famine relief (Acts 11) refers to the Galatians mention. “Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free”, pages 150-160. Bruce is not 100% certain but that’s his position. Lots of argument in 10 pages.
Joe,
The Acts 11.30 position is a great stretch and misunderstands Paul’s use of “revelation” and his statement about meeting with the apostles. Here’s a summary of the issues: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/jerusalem-council-gal-21-10-acts-15.html. Stam also comments on this in his commentary on Acts.
Also after looking at it again, the acts 11:30 dating would be prior to 44ad much to early wouldn,t you say.
Danny,
Yes. Chronology is difficult. You might enjoy Matthew McGee’s timeline: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/paultime.html.
I just started reading ur work… Makes alout of sense… Ur truly a saint and helping fellow saints ,god bless… U have alout of writing, noticing here at the bottom of the page… Im hungry for knowledge. Ty again bro.. I must add that peoples confusion is quite understandable. That kind of research hasnt always been around. Such as archeology dating what not. Maybe im wrong but. Ty for all ur knowlege and time bud
Don, do you think since the kingdom gospel ended in Acts 15, Peter and the rest of the apostles preached Paul’s gospel to the circumcision. And if they believed they were placed in the body of Christ?
Danny,
Yes, any who have believed Paul’s gospel are in the body of Christ.
Since Paul is in the BOC, am I correct that his Acts 9 Jewish converts in Damascus, who were saved by believing his message that “He is the Son of God”, are also in the Body of Christ?
Thank you kindly.
Ezra,
No. Paul was not yet proclaiming the gospel of grace he received later. All who believe Paul’s gospel are in the BOC. Those who believe the gospel of the kingdom are Israel.
Thank you. What about (1) the Acts 11 Gentile believers in Antioch who “turned to the Lord” after hearing the “preaching the Lord Jesus” by the dispersed persecuted from Cyprus, and (2) the “considerable numbers brought to the Lord” after Barnabas “witnessed the grace of God”? These two groups in Antioch are those for whom Barnabas called for Paul to come and teach, who were later called “Christians”. Were either of those two groups of saints in the BOC?
Thank you kindly.
Ezra,
They were saved by believing the gospel of the kingdom.
It seems that Peter may have inadvertently preached the gospel of grace to Cornelius and friends as per the overall wording in Acts 10.39-40
Tim,
No, for Acts 10.43 reads “through His name whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” “His name” meant “His identity.” That was what “believing in Him” meant. This was the language of the gospel of the kingdom. That was the only gospel they understood for salvation.
Don,
Please direct me to understanding the difference between ‘remission’ and ‘forgiveness’. In the OT was the Day of Atonement remission, covering, forgiveness or something else?
thank you
Joe,
They mean the same. The Day of Atonement was a temporary fix. Paul explained this in Hebrews 10.
Don,
Are people saved today if they believe what Peter taught in chapter 10 of Acts?….if not what’s the difference between what Peter taught (remission) and Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4.
Is the difference the reward? Kingdom believers entering into the Kingdom v. Grace believers entering into Heaven?
Joe,
Peter said Jesus died and rose but said nothing about believing this for salvation. He said everyone who believe in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
Don
Your answer above suggests to me that there will be people in Hell who have had their sins forgiven. Am I wrong thinking this?
Joe,
No. Peter proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom was to believe who Jesus was, not that He died for ours sins and rose from the dead. That was what believing in Him, in His name meant. Peter was not saved by believing Christ died for his sins and rose from the dead. John 3.16 says nothing about Christ’s death and resurrection, just “believing in Him.”
Romans 5
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
So,… everyone’s (EVERYONE’S) sins were forgiven (reconciled) by/at Christ’s death (sacrifice) on the cross and only those who accept this fact and believe in the resurrection are saved (‘saved by his life’). Fine tuning–does it even matter if we believe Christ died for our sins? The verse says we were reconciled by Christ’s death ‘when we were enemies’. –So therefore, we are simply saved by believing in ‘his life’…the resurrection?
This suggests sin is not the issue. Faith in the resurrection is the issue?
It appears Peter believed in the resurrection but are you saying this formula wasn’t the gospel at that time. Thoughts Don ?
Joe,
Christ died for all, forgave all. But faith is the means of appropriation. Faith is doing what God has revealed at the time. Read the testimony of Peter, Nathaniel, Martha for what they believed—Matthew 16, John 1, John 11. Abraham believed God’s pronouncement he would be a father of many nations for salvation (Genesis 15).
Great point. It appears that at least two salient ( and sufficient for salvation ?) points from the grace gospel are found in Peters message:
1. Jesus died on the cross
2. Jesus rose from the dead
I Thessalonians 4.14 perhaps cements that thought.
Peter certainly preached the Kingdom Gospel in this chapter in the verse you posted.
Did Peter thus preach both gospels ?
I am absolutely enjoying studying your webpages. Thanks
Tim
Tim,
No, Peter just proclaimed one gospel. Before the Jerusalem Council he proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom. After it, Paul’s gospel.
Thank you. There’s an apparent difference between Peter’s message to the Jews and proselytes at Pentecost and Paul’s message to Gentiles in his epistles. That seems to be the main premise by which you teach that the church couldn’t have started at Pentecost.
So, I’ve gone though Acts to compare Peter’s message to Jews with Paul’s message to Jews, focusing on the period where you teach that Paul’s message to the Gentiles was the only legitimate gospel, regardless of audience. However, when it comes to preaching to Jews, Peter and Paul’s messages seem to be identical, all the way through each of Paul’s three missionary journeys.
I won’t ask you to go through all of them, but do I correctly understand your teaching to be that all of Paul’s Jewish converts after Acts 15 are in the BOC? If so, please comment on these two examples, which seem to clearly show that kingdom concepts are not inconsistent with the message Paul preached to the Gentiles;
1. Athens. Paul’s message by which they were saved was (1) repentance, and (2) the coming judgement at the tribulation. Not a word about faith or forgiveness of sin. Isn’t that the “kingdom” message, such that those believers (whether Jew or Gentile) are not in the BOC? If so, what was Paul’s purpose in preaching it?
2. Corinth. Paul’s message was “Jesus is the Messiah”, the same as Peter’s concluding point in Acts 2:36 that led to spirit-imparted regeneration in 2:37 (Peter later told them to repent and be baptized, as Paul frequently taught; Acts 14:15; 16:15, 33; 20:21; 26:20). Again, no faith and no forgiveness of sin.
Paul said he was done with the Jews, even after Crispus was saved by his Messiah message. But Christ told him to hang in there and “go on speaking” because He had many elect like Crispus in Corinth. Observe that He didn’t say, “Paul, quit teaching the Jews that I’m the Messiah. Preach only the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith in Me.” Paul then continued his “Messiah” message for 18 months “among them”, which the following verses instruct were the Jews.
After Apollos was teaching by being acquainted only with the baptism of John, A & P explained “the way of God more accurately”. Barnes and Cambridge both teach that Apollos didn’t know that Jesus was the Messiah, which A & P taught to him, probably along with salvation by faith. That seems to be accurate because we see that when Apollos corrected his teaching, he “demonstrated in the scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.”
Am I correct that Paul’s message to the Jews in both Athens and Corinth was the “kingdom” message? If so, are all those dudes Israel and not the church?
It just seems to me that Christ used Paul to save men by all kinds of messages and that the notion of only one valid message excludes thousands of Paul’s post-Acts 15 saints from the Body he was called to evangelize and for which he suffered. In other words, if we hyper-focus on the words of the message instead of the divine power of the message, should we characterize Peter’s Pentecost message and Paul’s Corinth message as “Messiah + 0”, Paul’s Athens message as “repentance + judgment”, and Paul’s message to Rome as “believe + confess”? Aren’t all 4 messages perfectly consistent with what the risen Christ instructed the 12 to proclaim to all the nations? Luke 24.
If we can only be saved by a particular presentation of Christ, I’m still dead in my sin (Christ saved me despite the heretical sermon that I had the ability and responsibility to “break the tie vote” between Jesus and Satan). Thankfully, Paul taught many times that the power of the gospel doesn’t depend upon the particular words spoken. Many people were saved by merely believing that Christ would heel them. Other times, He uses good (and bad) teaching of the Word to reveal Himself to His elect. It’s all God.
Thank you kindly for your patience. I’m working against 50 years of teaching the other way and trying to understand. I appreciate you and all of your excellent work that has blessed me so.
Ezra,
The main reason I state that the Church did not begin at Pentecost is that Paul explicitly stated the Church began with him. See my article, Paul: Chief of sinners. Those who believe Paul’s gospel–that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.1-4) are members of the Church, the body of Christ. You might want to get my book. I explain all this and much more. End of shameless promotion.
I didn’t know you had published a book, but I will definitely get it. Perhaps you should consider more shameless promoting.
I totally understand (and agree with) your teaching that all who believed Paul’s gospel are in the church. I believed that before I stumbled onto your great site.
My questions above are directed at two other points that you frequently teach, neither of which I have ever heard: (1) that there was only one valid message for church believers after Acts 15, and (2) people who believed the kingdom message weren’t in the BOC. Paul clearly taught what you describe as the “kingdom” message, and thousands came to Christ as a result.
Do the believing saints in Athens and Corinth disprove the notion that there was only one valid message for church saints after Acts 15, or do they prove that thousands of Paul’s saints aren’t in the church and won’t meet us in the air with glorified bodies? To me, it must be one or the other.
If they don’t prove either, I would appreciate your teaching as to why not and what instruction we are to glean from these accounts.
Thank you for your help. I will read the article for the point that Paul said the church began with him and try to find your book.
Ezra,
Acts is not particularly helpful in determining when Paul began proclaiming his gospel. This is because Acts was written primarily for Jews to explain to them why the kingdom of God did not come. One cannot be dogmatic on this matter because the Scriptures simply do not tell us. We read in Acts 13 about Paul turning to the Gentiles and he and Barnabas report after the first missionary journey that God opened a door of faith to Gentiles (Acts 14.27). God has not revealed the timing of these things. What we see is a progressive revelation and a transition. Paul received several revelations but he did not disclose what he received when. What we can say is that until Acts 15 two valid gospels existed but after that only one. Paul did not write any letters until after the matter of the gospel was settled. It was in these letters that Paul revealed the Church, the body of Christ. The book is listed on the home page.
I’m sure your answer may be acceptable to one who asks, “Can you demonstrate through only the book of Acts when Paul began preaching his doctrine of ‘faith + 0’ to the Gentiles?” However, with respect, it is wholly unresponsive to my questions. I’m not interested in Paul’s message to the Gentiles; I’m interested in the “kingdom” message Paul preached throughout his whole ministry.
My question remains, “Given that Paul preached ‘kingdom’ messages to Jews and fearful synagogue Gentiles who received Christ all throughout his three missionary journeys (which scholars are in virtual unanimity can be tracked to his epistles), can you defend your teaching that there was only one valid message after Acts 15?”
To me, it’s black print on white paper: either (1) there’s no such thing as only one saving message for all church saints after Acts 15, or (2) Paul’s ministry won thousands to Christ under a message that you teach: (a) he wasn’t called to preach, and (b) excludes from the church all those who are in Christ, which means they won’t be resurrected at the rapture.
There’s either a scholarly defense of your teaching, given the converts in Athens and Corinth to Paul’s “kingdom” message, or there isn’t. I won’t occupy the thread by asking a fourth time. I will receive whatever answer you may proffer and switch to what you say is the main premise of your teaching.
That premise is that Paul claimed to be the “first” member of the church. While the term translated “foremost” is an ordinal number, I don’t believe the text instructs in any way whatsoever that Paul claimed to be the first member of the church. I’ll try to reduce my view to a short post on the other thread and look forward to kicking it with you.
Thank you kindly for this site.
Ezra,
The article answers the question you raise. Peter declared in Acts 15.11 that Jews now had to be saved as Paul’s Gentiles—through Paul’s gospel. In Galatians 1.6-9, written a few years after the Council, Paul stated that anyone who preached a different gospel than his was cursed. We don’t know Paul preached a “kingdom” message earlier. I am not sure why you have stated Paul preached “kingdom” messages. The text does not state this. Paul used the term “kingdom” throughout his letters but did not mean by it what the Twelve meant. The kingdom for Paul was the realm of God’s rule, not the earthly kingdom to which the gospel of the kingdom looked. Paul stated he laid the foundation. The foundation is the first operation in a building. Paul stated he was the πρῶτος. He always used this word in its ordinal sense, first in a line of succession. This is as clear as language can be that Paul began the Church.
“The gospel of the kingdom included repentance, believing Jesus was the Messiah, baptism, and keeping the Mosaic Law”
But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. James 2.10
I understand the requirement of faith and circumcision and baptism AND work that believes God and acts on it (ie. bringing animal sacrifices, etc.)
However, Don, Gods people would NEVER be able to keep the entire Law.
We read so much in Paul’s letters that the Law forced us to realize we needed forgiveness.
Is the way to understand this > that God knew their heart and didn’t expect perfect obedience and that when they failed the law, their ‘on going’ repentance and annual sacrifices ‘brought them back’ and cleansed them.?
John,
I have answered this question before. Jesus told the man to keep the Law; He did not tell him to keep it perfectly. God knew no one could keep the entire Law. The point is that salvation in the OT and the Gospels required faith and works, not faith alone which Paul taught. If you think you can understand the details of salvation of believers before Paul’s gospel you are never going to be satisfied. The Bible does not provide this information. What is critical to understand is that Paul and the Twelve proclaimed different gospels, that salvation by faith alone in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ began with Paul, that Paul began the Church, the body of Christ, that Paul revealed secrets that were completely unknown to the Twelve, that Paul’s ministry was not an extension of the Twelve, that all Church doctrine comes from Paul’s letters, etc. Almost no one in Christendom understands this. The Bible is extremely clear about these things. But God has not provided exhaustive information. We have to accept what He has revealed and not demand an answer for everything.
Perfect. Thanks do much.
Imagine. just thanks – not another question!
Don, when I tried to explain to someone about how we are not under the law but grace, I received this response: “I hope you aren’t trying to separate Grace and Law, because law is grace. That is, without a law covenant, grace is unknowable. What Jesus preached as a Hebrew way of life is, at its core, the way of life for all humanity. The specific applications of law must of necessity change with the context, but Jesus remains the Living Law of God and we must embrace His approach to life or miss out on God’s favor.”
What do think this guy is actually saying?
Craig,
Sounds like he been under the influence of Reformed Theology. If you don’t understand the distinction between Law and Grace you can’t advance one step in living the Christian life. I wonder what such a fellow does with Romans 6.14? Law is not grace. Peter declared Law was a “yoke” (Acts 15.10). Paul stated it was bondage (Galatians 4.3, 31) and commanded believers to “cast out the bondwoman,” i.e., the Law (Galatians 4.30). Such people do not understand the Law. When they speak of the Law, they think it is only the 10 Commandments. Such an idea was unthinkable to a Jew. The Law was a package, a system—613 commandments. Paul said if you accept one part of it you are obligated to keep it all (Galatians 5.3). So, such people have no understanding what they are saying. They are the blind leading the blind.
One thing to consider in this is, God has always taught the people to have “faith” in him. This appears to be the same in all dispensations.
Habakkuk 2:4 KJV — Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Hebrews 10:38 KJV — Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Romans 1:17 KJV — For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:11 KJV — But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Paul says of Israel in Rom.10:
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
And again to Israel….
Hebrews.4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, NOT BEING MIXED WITH FAITH in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 ¶Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached ENTERED NOT IN BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF:
Hebrews 11:6 KJV — But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Their works and doctrine in OT times also required “FAITH”.
And now in the Grace age faith is ALL that is accepted, in Christ and God in his work in the death burial and resurrection for our salvation. The righteousness of God is not our righteousness, but it is his:)
Beautiful isn’t it!!
Don, I wrote to this guy again and mentioned the verses you gave above such as Rom. 6:14 and in Gal. 4. He wrote back:
“The actual Covenant wasn’t “law” as we think of it, but an indicator, a path to grace. When you read that New Testament passage where Paul says “not under law but under grace” he is distinguishing between the Jewish false traditions and the original revelation of God. Nothing God says is something to bind you in any kind of slavery, but is designed to set you free, to restore us to His design for us, to the design of Creation and to reality itself.See through the Covenant provisions to the heart of God — that’s what ancient Hebrew language itself assumes you’ll do. If you keep approaching it from Western intellectual traditions (Greek/Roman/Germanic traditions) you’ll always get it wrong. The Covenant was God’s initial effort to restore us from the Curse of the Fall. The Hebrew people lost their way from that path back to Eden, so God sent His Son, the Law personified. In Psalms “Law” is revelation, not words that bind us under legalistic particulars. Law is a gift from God; it is an expression of Grace. The New Testament used the word “law” quite differently in many cases, so you have to read the context to get it, because it’s cast against the background of false Jewish belief.”
This is just so confusing. What is he saying?
Craig,
Your friend disagrees with the conception of the Law by the OT prophets and priests, Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. Paul wrote that the Law’s purpose was to reveal and convict one of sin. The only gracious provisions in the Law were the Levitical sacrifices, the way God set forth propitiation of sin. Again, Peter called the Law a “yoke.” Paul called it “bondage.” Paul told the Galatians to “cast out” Law. It had no place in living the Christian life. How does your friend interpret these statements? And again, the Law was not the Decalogue alone but 613 commandments. Paul stated the Law was “holy, righteous, and good” but that does not mean it was gracious. How is being stoned for picking up a stick on the Sabbath grace? Your friend has pretty much everything exactly wrong. It is he who is interpreting through “Western intellectual tradition.” Jews never conceived the Law as he. Notice also that he provided no Scriptures to support his view.
So to summarize:
Mosaic Law is not a factor in Justification.
Mosaic Law is instructive for Sanctification.
Phil,
The Mosaic Law is instructive in the sense that all Scripture is instructive (Romans 15.4; 1 Corinthians 10.11). But Paul made it clear that members of the Church, the body of Christ, are sanctified by faith through the Holy Spirit, not by the Mosaic Law. The Decalogue provides the moral law, which has always existed, but believers keep the moral law through the control of the Holy Spirit. So in this sense, the Mosaic Law has no place whatever in the Christian life. One does not need training wheels on a bike once one learns to ride.
Awesome. Thank you.
I see you insight here in Galatians 3:24-25 (NIV) “24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”
I read in Romans 4 this morning that Abraham was justified by faith alone but I thought Old Testament people were justified by faith and works as James talks about to the Jews in Jesus day. How were Old Testament people right with God?
Linda,
God saved Abraham by faith alone. He was an exception. This was so Abraham could become the father of all those of faith, believing Israel, God’s earthly people, and believing Gentiles, the Church, God’s heavenly people. Abraham was a special example of God’s grace and a picture to us who are saved by faith alone. The question about how OT people became right with God is difficult because we have no clear statement, unlike what we have with Paul. We do know they had to offer animal sacrifices. This practice began with Adam and Eve. We know from the gospels that to be saved according to the gospel required keeping the Law, water baptism, forgiving others, and believing Jesus was the Christ. God saves on the basis of what He has revealed at the time. Faith is obedience, which is what Paul stated in Romans 1.5, 16.26.
James uses Abraham as an example of OT people who were NOT saved by faith alone which I understand is the case with people other than Abraham as the ‘exception’, so you may see where I am confused.
Linda,
We have to understand James’ mindset. For Jews under the Law, works revealed faith. To say one had faith without corresponding works was unthinkable. Genesis 15 states clearly that God declared Abraham righteous at that point, many years before he went to offer Isaac. So, James wrote, “And the scripture was fulfilled which says Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” James viewed Abraham’s work as authenticating his justification many years before. For Jews, works and faith were inseparable. For James, Abraham was not saved until he demonstrated his faith through a work.
“For James, Abraham was not saved until he demonstrated his faith through a work”. But he WAS saved much earlier and that ‘by faith alone’ so he could be the father of all (Jews and Gentiles) – even for those in the Body of Christ. I understand now. Thank you
Linda,
You’re welcome. Glad the answer was helpful.
Don
afternoon Sir, no i want to ask that they is a need to teach 7 word(that jesus spoke when he is on Cross) in the Body of Christ in this age
Percy,
We should teach the whole counsel of God.
Don,
In this article you referred to the book of Galatians.
In chapters 3 & 4 of Galatians, Paul seems to be focusing on the Law.
In Galatians chapter 4, verses 3 and 9, is Paul referring to the Law when he calls it “basic principles” and “weak and miserable principles”? This seems like rather harsh language to refer to the Law. Or is Paul referring to something other than the Law?
Your insight is appreciated, as always.
John D.
John D.,
The Mosaic Law was “weak and beggarly” compared to the Holy Spirit. While the Law was holy, righteous, and good, it was weak due to our fallen natures. Paul wished the Galatians to live through the power of the Holy Spirit. He concluded this thought in Galatians 4.28-31.
I know that maybe this is a matter of semantics, but Peter says “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are”. This seems to be present tense and to indicate that they already believed this because he did not say from this point forward we have to start believing it (future tense). The scripture also seems to indicate that the whole problem was initiated by a Pharisee sect who were pushing circumcision and the Mosaic Law. I am not totally convinced that the original 12 were pushing this plan. If this were true, how could Paul’s gospel be different? Also, I know that you teach that Paul’s gospel came not from man, but from the risen Christ. This is absolutely true as this is what the scripture says. However, did Peter and the other Apostles not receive the gospel from the same Christ when he walked on the earth? It would only seem normal that Christ would have wanted to teach Paul directly just as he had taught the others in order to keep man’s opinions out of it.
Don,
The NASB or NIV read this way. But the translators did a poor job for they let their theology override the text. The grammar for “saved” is not present tense but an aorist passive infinitive. It has a proleptic sense which is why the KJV translators rendered it “will be saved.” This translation makes sense from the context. If the leaders in Jerusalem thought Jews were saved the same way as Gentiles there would have been no controversy and no need for a council. If, as you say, the problem was with the Pharisees, the Twelve would have dealt with it before they ever got involved with Paul’s believers. The Twelve agreed with the Pharisees for the gospel of the kingdom required keeping the Mosaic Law for salvation. Peter was silent until far into the argument. Finally, he recalled God had saved Gentiles by faith alone through him many years before. He then made the statement in verse 11. Peter and the Twelve received the gospel of the kingdom, which required faith—believing Jesus was the Messiah—not that He died for our sins and rose for our justification (Paul’s gospel), water baptism, forgiveness of others, and keeping the Law. This was a completely different gospel from the gospel Paul received from the risen Lord. Same God, different gospel. God does not change but He does change the way He deals with mankind over time. Faith responds to what God has revealed at a particular time.
What then is meant by verse 24? “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”. This came from James and seemed to indicate that he did not agree with those who had been attacking the Gentiles with the requirement for circumcision and the Mosaic Law……I find this a bit confusing.
Don,
In verse 24, James is stating that those who went to Paul’s Gentiles did not go under official orders. He is basically apologizing for what had happened in light Paul’s arguments and Peter’s declaration. In any case, Paul explicitly stated he went to Jerusalem under direct orders from the risen Lord to explain the gospel he preached to the leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2.2). If they understood Paul’s gospel and were preaching it, the account makes no sense: there would have been no controversy or need for a council.
Don
How would you answer a question about why John Baptist himself wasn’t water baptized?
Thanks
Donc,
The only answer is that God did not require it. God gave John the ministry of water baptism and as its initiators he was for whatever not required to be baptized. John baptized Jesus and John protested that he should be baptized by Jesus but Jesus rejected this response.
Hello Don,
I feel like I’m a little late to the game here with my questions but I’m thankful that you are answering in such a timely manner.
Since we now believe a gospel that is by faith alone how could the “kingdom gospel” be preached again in the tribulation since it contains works? Wouldn’t this be blasphemy given the efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross and Paul’s strong word against a works gospel?
Thank you
Dave,
The essence of the gospel of the kingdom was to believe Jesus was the Christ. The chief issue in the Tribulation will be the identity of the Messiah. The Beast will claim he is God and will be worshipped as God. Jesus warned that the one who endured to the end would be saved. That means refusing to accept the mark of the Beast and worship him, which was what Jesus called the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This is what Jesus meant when He talked about saving one’s life and losing it and losing one’s life for His sake and gaining it. These warnings of enduring are in His counsel to the 7 Jewish congregations in Revelation 2-3. So, in the Tribulation, how one is saved is to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and not take the mark of the Beast. One must endure to the end to be saved. The “end” is either losing one’s life for Christ’s sake or surviving until He return. After God completes the Church, a new age will begin. Faith always is responding to what God has revealed for that age. In the age after the Church, it will be believing Jesus is the Christ.
I appreciate the answer but it doesn’t address my question about “works” (baptism & repentance) being at odds with the pure gospel of faith alone
Dave,
That’s why I answered the way I did. There does not appear to be “works” only the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.
Sorry Don ,but you are now changing your definition of the “kingdom gospel” your answer just does not make sense.
It is a small unit pick. I’ll just let it go.I don’t understand why you aren’t giving me a direct answer to a simple question. Forgive me but you are losing credibility with me now.
Dave,
I’m not changing the definition. I am telling you what the Scriptures say. In His earthly ministry, it is clear from the Scriptures that the gospel of the kingdom required faith and works. Jesus said the gospel of the kingdom would be proclaimed and then the end would come (Matthew 24.14). Therefore, the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed in the Tribulation. But Jesus did not mention works in His counsel to the 7 Jewish congregations—only enduring. And there is no mention of works in Revelation like in the Gospels. The only thing revealed is a statement such as Revelation 12.17. It is all about enduring and not taking the mark of the Beast. I am just giving you what the Scriptures state. That’s a direct answer and you are free to accept or reject it.
Why does this article keep on separating the Gospel of Kingdom and of Resurrection. This is falsehood. “The gospel of the kingdom included repentance, believing Jesus was the Messiah, baptism, and keeping the Mosaic Law”-is false, the Gospel of the kingdom does not include keeping the exact mosaic , but the intent of the mosaic law which is Jesus’s 2 laws.
Only Jesus can fulfill the mosaic law and it was finished through him. He commanded all people, jews, Peter, Paul and gentiles to follow only 2 laws, thats it. All of this comes from the grace of God which gave his Son, it is our works which will bear witness to our faith, if it were true that we have it, (it is a continuing qualification, so beware). There is no gospel by Paul nor of 12 Apostles.
There is only one, which is the Gospel of Jesus. To say that Paul has a different gospel is nonsense and antichrist, a steward cannot be greater than the master, what Paul & Peter is preaching is only one the Gospel of Jesus, nobody else.
May all true Christians and Jews and Believers keep the heart of Jesus’s teachings in mind and unite once and for all.
Peace be with you all, may the God, the father of Lord Jesus Christ bless and enlighten you all.
David,
The article separates the gospel of the kingdom from the gospel of the grace of God because that is what the Scriptures do. If you will read the gospels you will find Jesus taught keeping the Law, water baptism, forgiving others, and faith as the gospel of the kingdom. After His resurrection, the Jews continued to keep the Law, animals sacrifices, Temple worship, etc. Read what James said to Paul in Acts 21.20. The whole Law was still in effect. The gospel of the kingdom required faith and works for salvation. Paul’s gospel required faith alone. Everything Paul taught was new. That is why he stated his doctrines were secrets, new revelations he received from the ascended Lord.
We love your work.
Special thx for so patiently answering all the queries – the Q & A is as helpful as the articles themselves.
blessings to you and yours
Man o man, you are mixing things up Don!
1. Already in the first lines you presume that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone began wilt Paul. Not so. That began with Martin Luther. Paul taught salvation by faith, by the kind of faith that produces good works (through the Spirit).
It is evident that you cannot work yourself into heaven, you can only come to the Father through Christ. But on the other hand, Paul warned that you may be broken off, as Christ said the Father would do with those who didn’t produce fruit. Paul continues his warning: “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” There is no fooling around that!
2. Then you say that the Council of Acts 15 was about a conflict between Paul and the Jews in Jerusalem over Paul’s gospel of grace (Acts 20.24). Not true. He had a conflict with the Judaizers (unbelievers) who tried to rob the believers in Christ from their salvation, by telling them they had to circumcise themselves and follow the Law of Moses. Some of the sect of Pharisees (believers) teamed up with them. But the council of apostles and elders (who all were saved by one gospel), dismissed unanimously what the Judaizers had been trying to do with their false gospel.
3. You correctly state that Peter said on that Council: “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”-Acts 15.11 But then you conclude from there:
a). Paul was right and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were wrong. How so? They were in agreement with each other. The unbelieving Judaizers and a few Pharisees were wrong. That’s what really happened.
b). Jews would now be saved as Gentiles. No, no, no, Don, this is getting more and more absurd. It’s the other way around. The gentiles were saved as the Jews. The council did not change that at all. Peter only confirmed that the Jews and gentiles are saved by the same gospel.
3. So your statement that ALL Christian doctrine comes from Paul’s is dead wrong. We owe him a lot, but we cannot put aside what Jesus and the other apostles and elders wrote the believers. It applies to us Gentiles (as wild branches grafted in the same olive tree) as well. So watch out, and don’t be fooled: “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” -Matthew 7:13-14
Ton,
Your last comment reveals you do not understand the gospel or how one is saved. Paul taught one is saved by faith alone. To add anything to it means you are depending on your own merits for salvation, not the work of Christ. I encourage you to believe the gospel. If you will, the Scriptures will become clear to you. Paul discussed being “broken off” with regard to programs, not individuals. I wrote on this The Olive Tree. You have also misread Acts 15. The text says Paul’s conflict was with the Pharisees who believed, not with unbelievers. They said one could not be saved apart from circumcision and keeping the Law. Paul taught one was saved solely by believing his gospel. You do not understand these things because you have not trusted in the work of Christ alone for salvation. As long as you think you can contribute to your salvation, you will be deceived.
Doctrine,
I struggle with understanding just when the Kingdom gospel ended for a few reasons. Scripture says that the agreement was that the Apostles would go to the circumcised and Paul would go to the gentiles. So the 12 were taking a gospel to Jews even after 51AD, but it would only make sense that they took Paul’s gospel after 51 AD. If they knew and came to understand Paul’s gospel, they wouldn’t take an “accursed” gospel to people, unless God simply wanted that of them, to further grow the believing remnant of Israel. At first glance it doesn’t seem likely that the 12 who were devoted to the Kingdom gospel and had been promised to rule in it, would go back to Jerusalem and teach a new gospel to Jews. On the other hand, it seems logical that if these 12 are to rule on earth, which they will, perhaps God wanted them to have an understanding of the heavenly program as well. I don’t think we know from Scripture exactly the nature of interaction between the BOC in heaven and those on earth. It may be zero or it could be substantial. Thoughts?
Keith,
Peter declared in Acts 15.11 that from then on, Jews had to be saved like Paul’s Gentiles (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). Jews saved under the gospel of the kingdom continued to live under the Law until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. They expected to go through the Tribulation and see the Lord return to establish His kingdom. This is clear from the writings of James, Peter, John, and Jude. So the gospel of the kingdom ended in 51 AD, replaced by Paul’s gospel. All saved after this through Paul’s gospel became members of the Church, the body of Christ, free from the Law.
Hi Don,
Please point me in the right direction if I have overlooked any address you’ve already made on this topic!
Regarding Acts 19: 1-7—-I understand the unfortunate mistakes in the KJV and other translations regarding this passage. I know Paul actually asked them in vs 2, “believing have you received the Holy Spirit?.” And I know vs 5 is a continuation of Paul’s words in vs 4, such that (paraphrasing) it should read: Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people they should believe . . . on Christ Jesus. And when those people heard John they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” So I understand Paul did not re-baptize these Jewish men.
I also understand Paul (at least to a point in his ministry) was given miraculous powers in order to validate his apostleship—primarily to the twelve and other Jewish leaders.
But why, eight or so years after the Jerusalem Council, after questioning these Jewish men, would he then lay hand’s on these disciples of John to complete their Gospel of the Kingdom experience? Was it because even this long after the Jerusalem Council he felt led to respect the gospel they had heard and not “cross lines?” Would he have been outside God’s will at that point to show them the Gospel of the Grace of God at which point they would have, absent any laying on of hands, been sealed with the Holy Spirit and would not have received the kingdom gifts of prophecy and tongues.
Truly, the book of Acts is a book of transition, with certain passages difficult to grasp. Still, I think it’s important to try and have a ready answer on this one, as many churches use it to either a) support “Christian Baptism,” and/or b) use it as proof Paul taught and behaved the same as the twelve.
Thanks for your time!
Alicia,
Those saved under the gospel of the kingdom stayed in that program. The goal of that program was the indwelling Spirit (the New Covenant). Paul understood this and under his commission had them receive the Spirit. Paul wrote he was a minister of the New Covenant.
Thanks, Don! I am beginning to understand the depth of Paul’s love and concern for his kinsman in the flesh. Was it you (I can’t recall) or another “rightly dividing” teacher who believed, regarding Ephesians 3:1 “I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles . . ., “ that God, after Paul ignored the Holy Spirit’s warning in Acts 21:11 regarding his return to Jerusalem, actually placed Paul in prison to keep him away from his beloved Jewish brethren, whose unbelief kept him weepy and with a broken heart (Acts 21:13) perhaps (?) to the point of being sidetracked a bit too much from his ministry to the Gentiles?
From prison God had a captive apostle, who could now focus on the great doctrinal prison epistles to the Gentile churches. Not only did prison protect Paul from potential bodily harm at the hands of the unbelieving Jews, God knew it was the only way to prevent Paul from going back again and again to plead with the Jews——A prisoner . . . for us Gentiles, indeed!
Alicia,
Thank you. Yes, I have noted that God had to make Paul his prisoner to focus him on his primary ministry as the apostle of the Gentiles. Paul was stubborn and loved his people. He thought if he could be saved, they surely could. See Acts 20.22-24, 21.11-14. Jews were part of Paul’s commission, Acts 9.15, but his main focus was Gentiles. After Paul was imprisoned in Rome he did not again seek out to minister to Jews.
I just came across your website and have not read all your articles. I do understand your position. With the Radical New Perspective on Paul came Israel Restoration Theology based on Isaiah. What are your thoughts on this (you would be considered supersessionist)? I note: James Forestall (4-17-16).
John,
People such as Sanders, Wright, etc. do not understand Paul. The same is true for Restoration Theology. Paul was not a 13th apostle, an appendage to the Twelve. He was God’s handpicked apostle to begin a whole new program, the Church, the body of Christ, and reveal all Church doctrine. No Church doctrine is found in the Old Testament, Gospels, or letters of James, Peter, John or Jude. Unless one understands this, the New Testament is hopelessly confused. I am not a supersessionist and do not agree with it. As for the issue of faith and works, see my article, Faith vs. Works in James.
Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace 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. This is the final decree of the council, Paul will go to the Heathen, but the Twelve unto the Jews. This is the opposite of giving up their gospel. Peter himself did not embrace Christianity, and was one of the accursed, because just two verses later, Peter is being chastised by Paul for his hypocrisy. This meeting was in the other Antioch, the one in Turkey, it was also well after 51 A.D., Peter received an ear full, because he was perverting the gospel Paul revealed. I would be careful about canceling a gospel on such flimsy evidence.
Daniel,
Apparently you did not read The Great Hinge. Had you, it is clear the gospel of the kingdom ended at the Council. Before this, Paul could not have written Galatians 1.6-9. No one who did not wish to be cursed proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom after the Council.
What was the reason for Paul to later blame Peter, years after they shook hands.
Daniel,
The great issue of Galatians is how to live the Christian life. The question of the gospel was settled at the Council. What was not addressed was the role of the Law. Paul condemned Peter because he had been associating with Gentile believers but was intimidated by the Jews from Jerusalem to disassociate from them according to Judaism. Those saved under the gospel of the kingdom continued to live under the Mosaic Law. But Paul taught that one saved by believing his gospel was not under the Law but under grace. You have to understand that salvation by faith alone was new. For Jews, and even before that, salvation was by faith and works. The offering of a blood sacrifice was a work. It was a work of faith. Faith and works were enmeshed before the risen Lord revealed the gospel of grace to Paul. If you read the letters of James, John, Jude, and Peter, they are completely different in terms of living the Christian life under grace. Their letters are confined to God’s prophetic program, outside of Church doctrine. This is why Peter wrote what he did in 2 Peter 3.15-16.
The question of the gospel was settled at the council, the gospel of the circumcision (kingdom) was committed to Peter, while the gospel of the uncircumcison was committed to Paul. How does this nullify the gospel of the kingdom? Peter never became a Christian and we know he is saved, Why is this not possible today for a Jew?
Daniel,
The question is answered in the article. Peter declared that Jews had to be saved like Paul’s Gentiles, by Paul’s gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-4). What Paul wrote in Galatians was that Peter had been given the gospel to the Jews. That gospel ended at the Council. Peter continued his apostleship to Jews (we never read of him or any of the 12 going to Gentiles) but he proclaimed Paul’s gospel.
Don,
Your platform is awesome, you allow a nut like me to openly express my own opinion. I thank God you allowed, and are allowing God to lead you, I will be one added to the list of folks that pray for you. I recently retired and moved to a different state, I have attended dozens of churches, not one understands Paul was the first Christian, this is very discouraging. I can literally name hundreds of television preachers that do not recognize Paul as the apostle sent to Gentiles. I can name only three that do know Paul alone revealed Christian doctrines to humanity. I was a construction worker with no understanding of computers, or the internet. Last week my wife purchased a computer for me to learn what I can, and I found your website, I will try not to become a nuisance. Again, thank you for your commitment, God bless you and yours.
Daniel,
Thank you for your kind words. You are not a nut; rather, a person who wants answers and asks good questions. Thank you for your prayers. I greatly appreciate them. You are correct. The vast majority of pastors have no understanding of Paul’s unique apostleship and this is the main reason so much confusion and division exists in Christendom. You wife did a good thing! Glad you found my site. May God continue to open the eyes of your understanding to better love and serve the Lord.
Daniel,
In my opinion Don is the best at what he does. If you are a visual learner, you might try Les Feldick at Les Feldick Ministeries. You can find his broadcast in many different places on different platforms. His, “Through the Bible w/ Les Feldick”, program is a daily 30 min broadcast and I think Don would approve. I’ve been through his complete series of broadcast almost 3 complete times. I’ve actually visited with him at his home in Oklahoma. He is in his 90’s now and experiencing health problems. I believe Les was in his late 60’s (???) when he began his daily journey through the bible. Similar in many ways to Don’s teachings.
Joe,
Thank you for your kind words and for mentioning Les. He went to be with the Lord, April 5, Passover.
Les Feldick is one of the three I mentioned, Richard Jordan of Forgotten Truths, and Kevin Sadler of Transformed by Grace are the others.
Don, you wrote: “Members of the body of Christ have a heavenly destiny as joint-heirs of Christ (Romans 8.17) and will rule angels (1 Corinthians 6.3)”
What happens to good believers of Paul’s gospel, who love(d) God Jesus Christ? Aren’t they in Heaven already?
Thanks.
DJ,
To be absent from the body is to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5.8).
Could you please do an article on how the Orthodox Church deviated from Paul tracing his comments about all of Asia abandoning him, to the didache from Syria as the basis of Church practice, into the early church fathers.
This would help clear up how Christendom got confused.
Cigmd,
Someone else should do this. All one needs to do is read the church fathers to see that they did not understand Paul’s unique apostleship, they knew nothing about his secrets and revelations, how his doctrines concerned the Church, the body of Christ, not God’s prophetic program for Jews and Gentiles. Their error passed to Augustine, to Anselm, Aquinas, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, then to the reformers into Protestantism. The vast majority of theologians and pastors in Christendom today have no understanding of Paul’s theology, Church theology. They think Paul was an appendage to the Twelve, that Peter and the Twelve, James, John, Jude all proclaimed the same theology.
Why did the Apsotles write Epistles after the Jersualem Council after agreeing that Paul’s gospel of grace was the only way to be saved.
On top of that their Epistles teach gospel of kingdom which conflicts with Paul’s letters.
Cigmd,
They wrote to Jews who had believed the gospel of the kingdom. The primary purpose of the letters of James, Peter, John, and Jude was to ensure that they remained faithful to Christ during the Tribulation, which they thought would occur in their generation. The same can be said for Hebrews, which Paul wrote. Paul did not interfere with Jews who had been saved under the gospel of the kingdom. He only taught that those who had believed his gospel, Jew or Gentile, were members of the Church, a new creation, and not under the Mosaic Law.
Don,
Is the “Israel of God” the ‘New Creation” both spoken of by Paul?
Joe,
The Israel of God is believing Jews, in Paul’s day Jews who believed the gospel of the kingdom. See my article, “Israel” as a Technical Term.